Report of the third Regional Coordination Meeting for the Mediterranean area
Data Collection Commission Regulation (DCR)
N°1543/2000, N°1639/2001 and N°1581/2004
Malta, 26th -28th April 2006
Table of contents
1.INTRODUCTION
2.REVIEW OF THE 2006’s LIAISON MEETING REPORT
2.1 Role and tasks of the Liaison Meeting (LM)
2.2 Strengthening the link with PGCCDBS
2.3 Spatial delimitation of areas of competence of the RCMs
2.4 Metier-based approach for the DCR
2.5 Vessels less than 12 m
2.6 Surveys
2.7 Discard sampling
2.8 Regional databases and data confidentiality
2.9 Workshops
4.REVIEW OF THE CURRENT DCR: CONSEQUENCES FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION
4.1 Fishing Capacities
4.2 Fishing Effort
4.3 Catches and Landings
4.4 CPUE
4.5 PGCCDBS-like group for the Mediterranean
4.6 Scientific Surveys
4.7 Aladym model
4.8 Mediterranean Maturity Photo Database
4.9 Second Medits survey
4.10 Data Exchange formats
4.11 Acoustic survey
4.12 Fleet-based Approach
4.13 Database and data access
4.14 Ecosystem approach
4.15 Biological sampling and Other Biological parameters
4.16 Any other matters
5.DATE AND VENUE OF NEXT MEETING
6.LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I: 3rd RCM ToRs and References
Appendix II: List of participants
Appendix III: Agenda
Appendix IV: Age workshop
Appendix V: Presentations by country.
Appendix VI: MEPMED ToRs
Appendix VII: Results of the last Medits planning group
Appendix VIII: Aladym model
Appendix IX: ALADYM Age-Length Based Dynamic Model Workshop
Appendix X: Mediterranean Maturity Photo Database
Appendix XI: Fish Maturity workshop
Appendix XII: Proposal for a second Medits survey
Appendix XIII: List of current Mediterranean acoustic surveys (included or not in the DCR), countries involved, areas and periods.
1. INTRODUCTION
The third Regional Co-ordination meeting for the Mediterranean was opened by the Hon. George Pullicino, Minister for Rural Affairs and the Environment of Malta. He stressed the important role of the data collected through the Data Collection Programme for providing sound scientific advice for fisheries management.
Dr. Juan Pablo Pertierra, representative of EC DG Fisheries, thanked the Minister and the hosting country for organizing the meeting. He reminded the group that scientific advice will be included in the next Regulation and of the importance of the RCM as a forum for addressing issues of concern for the new DCR (Data Collection Regulation). In this regard, the main points to address during the 3rd RCM were: the ecosystem approach, data access, simplification of data collection (triannual submissions of the programme but annual financial statements), Medits survey, the possibility of having a pan-Mediterranean acoustic survey targeting small pelagics.
The Chairman, Dr. Matthew Camilleri, was pleased to welcome representatives from all Mediterranean member states (appendix II) and presented the agenda (appendix III) of the meeting which was adopted by the group. Ms. Alicia Mosteiro and Ms. Charis Charilaou were appointed rapporteurs.
The EC representative pointed out that it is the responsibility of the MS to comply with the Regulation and encouraged Slovenia, implementing its national programme in 2006 for the first time, to seek advice from other MS, especially from Cyprus and Malta, for overcoming difficulties in implementing the Regulation.
2. REVIEW OF THE 2006’s LIAISON MEETING REPORT
2.1 Role and tasks of the Liaison Meeting (LM)
The Liaison Meeting had accepted all recommendations made by the 2005 Mediterranean RCM but the EC did not accept the suggestion for a co-ordination meeting on small pelagic surveys in 2006. The group commented on the inappropriate timing of the LM since it discussed the situation of 2004.
2.2 Strengthening the link with PGCCDBS
This issue was addressed in agenda item 4.5.
2.3 Spatial delimitation of areas of competence of the RCMs
It was pointed out that the Black Sea area is covered by the Mediterranean RCM and therefore, the soon new MS will be part of it.
2.4 Metier-based approach for the DCR
In the Nantes meeting (fleet-based approach) a proposal for fleet segmentation was agreed based on the level 5 metier (RCM level). However in Kavala (Small Scale Fisheries meeting), it was agreed that this matrix was too much detailed for the vessels less 12 metres. The training workshop held in Nantes on March 2006 addressed the feasibility and problems of this approach and provided guidelines for filling up the matrix (wiki: http://
The group recalled the approach to collect data: economic data has to be collected by fleet segment, while biological information has to be collected by fishing activity and none of them by cell of the matrix. In many cases, merging of cells will be common practice, and the MS will have to provide an explanation for it. Furthermore, the matrix has to be filled up with effort data on a census basis, for vessels over 12m and on a sampling basis for vessels less than 12 m. However, this issue will be further clarified in the next workshop on fleet-based approach to be held in Nantes in June 2006.
The group stressed that the logbook information is useful for control and enforcement but the quality of this data is not enough for scientific purposes.
2.5 Vessels less than 12 m
The sampling approach is used for the fleet under 12 metres. The activity of this group of vessels seems very relevant from the economic point of view. Nevertheless, it was remarked that it is very difficult to standardise the sampling procedure across all countries and therefore, the group suggests standardising the level of detail of the data to be provided and leave up to each MS the way to collect the data.
2.6 Surveys
This issue was addressed in agenda item 4.6.
2.7 Discard sampling
MS will have to provide tri-annual estimates which, within the framework of the new Regulation, will have to be used at the assessment groups.
The MS are free to sample every year one segment of the fleet but a better co-ordination among MS is strongly suggested by the RCM group with the purpose of providing better results specially for trawling fleets and purse seiners.
The EC representative recalled the Discards Atlas initiative discussed at Ispra and that the PGCCDBS[a] has addressed raising procedures.
2.8 Regional databases and data confidentiality
The Chairman proposed a Liaison meeting with JRC in order to discuss the formats. It was stated that JRC will start attending GFCM and RCM meetings. JRC is helping out in how the data is transmitted but it doesn’t hold any database. The MS are responsible for keeping a database (national or regional) and making the data available to the EC. In the current regulation, the data is used by the EC when needed and destroyed within 20 days. The EC representative informed the RCM group that, as an exception, JRC will host data for discards (discard Atlas project).
2.9 Workshops
Age workshop: in the PGCCDBS the workflow for exchange of otoliths was specified: first year exchange of otoliths and second year organization of a workshop. It was stressed the need to organise the workshops by species and not by region, and in this respect, it is necessary to include more species which are relevant for the Mediterranean region. It was recalled that exchanges of otoliths take place in the Mediterranean since the 80s and that an exchange and a workshop on red mullets were endorsed by PGCCDBS at its 2005 annual meeting on the proposal of Greece and France. It will be organised by Greece in 2007.
The ToRs of the Workshop on Pagellus erythrinus (approved in the RCM Athens, for 2007), were presented and endorsed at the present RCM (see appendix V).
The EC representative reminded the group that the RCM is the forum to formulate proposals or suggestions that will then go to the Liaison meeting.
PRESENTATIONS BY COUNTRY
See appendix IV for 2005 National Fisheries Data Collection Programme by country: Cyprus (by C.Charilaou and M. Ioannou), France (C.Dintheer), Greece (C.Papaconstantinou), Italy (P. Carpentieri and E. Sabatella) , Malta (M. Camilleri) , Slovenia (I. Rus) and Spain (M. Fernandez and J. Baro).
4. REVIEW OF THE CURRENT DCR: CONSEQUENCES FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION
Following the chairman’s suggestion, the discussion was addressed by module of the data collection programme.
4.1 Fishing Capacities
It was stated that no particular problems were found under the current regulation, in complying with this module since the data mainly derives from the Fleet Vessel Register. Under the new framework, no changes are expected.
4.2 Fishing Effort
The group endorsed the decisions taken at the small scale fisheries meeting in Kavala (ToR3, SSF report (Ref. 7)) regarding the definition of fishing effort for passive gears. Nevertheless, Mediterranean MS highlighted the difficulties in complying collecting effort in the agreed units (soaking time by gear).
MS are encouraged to provide comments at the next GFCM meeting in Malaga (end of May).
4.3 Catches and Landings
It was agreed that in the majority of cases logbooks are not suitable for scientific purposes (for example, the reporting of catches only for species with catches above 50kg). Therefore, it should be left to the MS to decide on the method for collecting the data (logbook, sale notes, sampling approach) as stated in the current regulation. Nevertheless, there is concern for the comparability of the data.
4.4 CPUE
The RCM highlights that currently there is no request by any working group on CPUE series.
4.5 PGCCDBS-like group for the Mediterranean
The EC representative clarified to the group that the PGCCDBS was created by ICES in response of certain needs of the DCR, as a forum to discuss particularly, the biological data collection. Within the framework of the regional dimension of the new regulation, the RCM discussed several options and agreed to recommend the creation of a Planning Group (PG) for the Mediterranean (MEPMED) where methodological matters will be discussed (except for economics). Regarding scientific surveys, this Planning group will co-ordinate with other groups about the improvement of the quality of the data. The ToRs have been proposed during the RCM-Malta (see appendix VI).
This PG will be under the umbrella of the RCM. It was suggested to nominate a chair/co-ordinator for a period of 3 years and Matthew Camilleri (Malta) was proposed by a member state to act as the first chair/coordinator of this PG should it be created. The need to strengthen the links with the GFCM and to maintain those with the northern PGCCDBS was strongly supported.
4.6 Scientific Surveys
See appendix VII for presentation on results of the Medits planning group (by J. Bertrand)
The group pointed out the exponential evolution of the Medits group and underlined the capability of surveys as a priority tool for the assessment of demersal resources.
The importance of an inter-calibration exercise was acknowledged, nevertheless the RCM group endorses the views of the Medits Co-ordination committee on its decision to give priority to other issues for the time being. The RCM invites Medits group to include the inter-calibration issue in the agenda of the next Medits co-ordination meeting. Any initiatives for data check up are of high importance and it was suggested to get in touch with the JRC to develop a procedure to validate the quality of the data. Regarding the next coming MS, Bulgaria and Rumania, it was recommended that they follow the current Medits methodology.
4.7 Aladym model
Following the presentation of Giuseppe Lembo (appendix VIII) it was commented that Aladym would be an useful tool for the assessment of demersal stocks. The group endorsed the ToRs (Appendix IX) of a workshop on Aladym model within the framework of the new PG for the Mediterranean. Italy offered to host and coordinate this workshop
4.8 Mediterranean Maturity Photo Database
Following the presentation of Paolo Carpentieri on the Mediterranean Maturity Database (appendix X), the RCM proposed a workshop on fish maturity for the purpose of DCR (see ToRs in appendix XI). It was also underlined the importance of the participation of researchers from all the MS involved in the DCR. Italy offered to host and coordinate this workshop.
4.9 Second Medits survey
All RCM participants agreed in recognising the usefulness of a second survey from a scientific point of view and endorsed the paragraph of the Medits WG (Appendix VII). Giuseppe Lembo made a presentation on the usefulness of a second survey (Appendix XII)
In this respect the RCM group identified three options regarding the realization of the second survey:
-Perform two surveys, one in spring and in autumn, within the framework of the Regulation. The autumn survey will be conducted only in selected areas depending on the possibilities of the countries involved.
-Perform two surveys, one in spring and one in autumn, within the framework of the Regulation. The spring survey will continue to take place in an annual basis, while the autumn survey will be conducted every three years.
-Perform as in the second option two surveys. The second survey will be undertaken through Call for tenders.
Nevertheless, Cyprus explained that is not in a position to implement a second survey, regardless of its frequency, i.e. annual or tri-annual.
In addition, Greece believed that the second MEDITS proposal is not feasible for its own part due to the lack of staff and financial resources.
In summary, most of the present countries underlined their already predictable difficulties to take in charge a second survey during a year (no guarantees on vessel time, available manpower and/or budget). As they are concerned, Greece, Cyprus, Spain and France voiced a preference to maintain a status quo on the present protocol (spring survey) within the DCR framework.
4.10 Data Exchange formats
It was reminded that the MS are responsible for maintaining their own data and it’s up to them how to keep their data (national or regional database).
4.11 Acoustic survey
Considering the importance of assessing the stocks of small pelagics and considering that there are already several initiatives in the Mediterranean (within the framework of the DCR or not; see appendix XIII), the RCM group recommends that efforts are made to establish a pan-Mediterranean acoustic survey to assess small pelagics.
The group has identified two options for the Mediterranean MS regarding the realization of the acoustic survey:
-Perform the survey within the framework of the Regulation on an annual basis only in selected areas depending on the possibilities of the countries involved.
-Perform the survey through Call for tenders.
Nevertheless, Greece supports only the first option.
In summary, the RCM group underlined the importance for member states to perform acoustic surveys within the framework of the DCR. This would need the approval of the EC and thus be included as an eligible survey in the revised DCR.
4.12 Fleet-based Approach
The EC representative recalled the recommendations of the Nantes Meeting on fleet-based approach in March 2006 (Ref. 10). Especially it was noted that necessary action and cost should be taken by MS in their National Programme 2007 to sample the fishing activities (as recommended by the Nantes Meeting). Regarding the definition of the most appropriate length classes at Mediterranean RCM level, it was agreed that the segmentation on length classes has to be consistent as much as possible with the SAC segmentation.
4.13 Database and data access
In the new regulation MS will be responsible for storage and maintenance of data in their own databases. It is therefore up to the MS whether to create an open platform at national level or a regional database. The JRC is developing the data transfer formats (XML) in which MS have to make data available to the Commission. The Commission will have unlimited access to this data, which will be uploaded and used from time to time. Currently the EC requests data from MS which is destroyed after 20 days.
Confidentiality of data was discussed in the frame of VMS and radar data. JRC conducted an experiment to obtain effort from VMS data and this seemed to be the way forward, although nowadays there is a lot of confidentiality regarding VMS data.
Any end-users (scientific community, fishermen, stakeholders) interested on other MS’s data will have to launch a request to the National Correspondent of the country of interest, in order to have its data.
The group felt that there should be a guarantee of access to VMS data for the scientific community (especially for the purpose of the ecosystem approach). The level of aggregation and deadlines for data availability will be decided at a later stage (at the implementation regulation).
4.14 Ecosystem approach
A review was made on the SGRN June 2005 report.
Environmental parameters are currently collected during scientific surveys in some areas and could be useful to study habitats and the environment. Oceanographic data and currents should also be integrated. VMS data, stomach content analysis, social parameters and economics are among the components to be included in the DCR to address the Ecosystem Approach.
In addition the DCR will include activities related to mapping of biodiversity (Natura 2000), deep sea fisheries as well as incidental catches of seabirds, cetaceans and turtles.