Search

fishPi was a research project with the aim of “Strengthening regional cooperation in the area of fisheries data collection”. The project brought together over 40 experts from 13 scientific institutes in 12 countries (10 member states (MS)) and two internationally recognised survey design experts. It was funded by EU MARE grant MARE/2014/19, with a 14 month timeline commencing in April 2015. This project has trialled the way sampling designs would be developed in a regional setting and showed that collaboration and consultation is required at face to face meetings through regional groups that focus on a particular group of fisheries. The project was the first step in this process and one of the main outcomes is the framework to take the process forward; developing data formats, data sharing agreements and easily accessible software for data sharing, checking and analysis, and for the simulation testing of sampling designs., European Union

The 11th RCM North Atlantic was held in Horta (Portugal) 22-26 September 2014. Due to the delayed introduction of the revised DCF the European Commission decided a roll-over in 2013 meaning Member States National Programmes 2011-2013 remains unchanged for the period 2014-2017. The limitations this decision brings for coordination of current MS national programmes have allowed RCM NA to focus in three major different aspects of the data collection where a better integration –as stated by article 4 Commission Decision 665/2008— is currently needed. 1. Concurrent sampling One of the major changes in the DCF that came into force in 2009 was a shift towards concurrent sampling: a sampling strategy covering the sampling of all species during sampling operations. Via this strategy the DCF is able to facilitate the data demands of the existing stock-based assessments as well as serving the revised needs for the ecosystem approach to fishery management. The requirements for concurrent length sampling were developed in PGCCDBS07. Implementation studies were done through the following years at national level and an ICES Workshop (2008) discussed about the common problems and the way for best implementation. However it seems concurrent sampling has been under discussion in some countries since then. STECF report (STECF, 12-07) noted “that concurrent sampling of different fish stocks in the same catch is carried out differently in different Member States leading to inconsistent estimates of catch compositions from sampling schemes. There is a need to explain and define concurrent sampling in order to ensure consistent sampling by MS.” RCM NA analysed the current situation. Data collected is increasingly being used by groups to provide additional information, not available in the past under historic data collection methods. RCM NA detailed the ICES Working Groups that have benefited from the introduction of concurrent sampling allowing them to provide more robust advice. Moreover, there are a large number of stocks lacking quantitative assessments and reliable estimates of stock status. RCM NA specified recent studies indicating that simple harvest control rules using information on the catch length composition and length reference points can be used to deliver catch-based advice that is risk adverse (e.g. Geromont and Butterworth 2014, Jardim et al., 2014, ICES WKLIFE). Concurrent sampling may constitute an important source of biological data for many of the data-limited stocks and the application of these simple HCRs. And historical series are in fact very recent so more results from on-going work is expected. The benefits of concurrent sampling were also highlighted regarding species specific data in species that are often grouped together, with quality that can be verified given the experience and expertise of the data collectors. In the RCM NA it was evident that not all MS were carrying out sampling in this manner. The question as to whether this variability in sampling affects the quality and utility of the data collected needs to be investigated. 2. Regional coordination Optimizing and harmonizing fisheries management across MS is dependent on improving regional coordination. This coordination is expected to improve through the use of tools as the regional data bases where on-going work is being developed. RCM NA analysed that there is a need for harmonization of métiers at level 6. This work was being accomplished since the 2008 RCM NA and was somehow abandoned last years so the problem persists. Reviewing and collating fleet descriptions, metier definitions, standardising metier coding and merging national métiers into regional metiers are fundamental steps that has to be taken by MS. RDB is currently containing big amounts of data not useful for regional coordination. The 2014 RCM NA decided to produce a reference list containing all the possible combinations for métier naming. The reference list was compared with both, data uploaded into the RDB and list of métiers as provided in the MS National Programme (NP 2011-2013). The results of this comparison show the need to restrict the RDB uploads and métier lists provided in the NP accordingly to the reference list and following the métier naming standards. The current list of métiers uploaded to the RDB is incomplete and definitely contains incorrect métier codes. 3. Quality checks There has been considerable discussion, guidance and recommendations about improving and reporting quality in relation to the DCF at STECF, RCMs and at ICES expert groups. This is an ongoing and collective task where specific inputs are needed. The report of RCM NA provides extensive guidelines to the MS how to implement quality assurance procedures. RCM NA focused on the quality issues and recommended QC and QA procedures at the National data capture and data processing level - those stages where the responsibility for checking the data remains firmly in the hands of the MS.This formsa simple standard QA document which can also inform data users and evaluators of the minimum checks carried out by each MS prior to any data upload to the RDB. There was not sufficient time to review the results and these will need to be done at the next RCM. The document itself will need to be reviewed as to its efficacy, whether it may form part of a Regional QA document and how it may be kept up to date if it does. Between the other issues addressed by the RCM NA it is necessary to stress the landing obligation. This represents a fundamental shift in the management approach to EU fisheries. The RCM NA considered different topics related to this new situation and discussed how it might have an impact on data. The direction of some of these implications is also unclear until the implementation of the obligation has been defined and the practical implications on the ground can be addressed. First issue considered was the access to vessels for biological sampling and potential changes in behaviour of fishing vessels. Opinion of the RCM is that scientific observers should have no mandate for the control of fishing regulations. Previous observer programmes have indicated that changes in operational behaviour already occur when an observer is on board. It is suspected that this will increase with the introduction of the landing obligation. Secondly, changes in IT systems and protocols were addressed. The landing obligation will generate changes for the collection of sampling data. One of the major changes is that the catch will be split into three catch components. As already stated in the other RCMs on-board sampling protocols will have to be adjusted to account for the new defined components of the catch. National fisheries institutes must update and adapt their existing IT systems in order to include the new catch components. Furthermore, the regional data bases and consecutively FishFrame and InterCatch need to be prepared and the uploading processes and raising and estimation procedures adapted. The third issue was the quality of data compliance of the logbooks. The quality of the data depends both on the quality of the catch information and the quality of the biological sampling. Both elements will be affected by the landing obligation. Concern is expressed by the RCM on the future quality of the catch statistics. The RCM is of the opinion that the discard plans, to be implemented in the different regions, should contain clear proposals on how different components of the catch should be monitored and that logbooks and IT systems should be adapted in a timely manner to record the different catch components. Analysis of the data call for submission data to the RDB revealed huge work must be done in order to ensure correct data are available for regional coordination and/or expert groups. Most part of countries uploaded data (only Spain –not uploaded but available to the meeting- and France –similar situation- didn’t do it) but superficial analysis showed the data uploaded was inconsistent: large differences between MS, low number of species uploaded indicating that uploads from several countries are still incomplete, incorrect name of the fishing activities making impossible check again the metier descriptions compiled in the past, etc. It is not the task of the RCM NA to check every data upload, so it was clear a new data call should be established to ensure MS upload correct data. Nevertheless RCM NA see big improvements in the work MS are doing regarding these data calls coming from a situation where some countries didn’t provide the data to a new scenario where everyone is providing data and worries concern the quality, which is a large step forward. Other items on the agenda were the consideration of the follow up of relevant recommendations made last year by Liaison Meeting; consideration of the cost sharing proposal received from RCM NS&EA; evaluation of the ICES data quality transmission sheets and presentations on relevant developments from ICES, EC and SC-RDB

Spanish Oceanogrnphic Institute (IEO) and Portuguese Research Inistitute (IPIMAR, ex-INIP) using their research vessels "Comide de Saavedra" and "Noruega" have conducted groundfish surveys in Spanish and Portuguese waters. The results of these surveys have been reported to the relevant ICES Working Groups, communicated to ICES Annual Conferences and/or published in journals of bioiogy and flsheries. Data collected from groundfish surveys were also the basis to carry out assemblage studies and to several advices to the Spanish, Porttuguese and European fishery administrations concerning the implementation of technical measures for fish stock management. This communication intends to give information about the past, the present and the future of these surveys, concerning objectives, methodology and publications. Critical aspects and solutions to improve some aspects are presented.