Report of the 9th Regional Coordination Meeting...RCM Med&BS Report 2012 3 1. Introduction The 9th...

EU DATA COLLECTION FRAMEWORK (DCF), REGULATIONS (EC)

199/2008, 665/2008 AND DECISION 2010/93/EU

Report of the

9th Regional Coordination Meeting

for the Mediterranean and Black Sea

(RCM Med&BS)

2012

Final Report

Madrid, Spain

23 – 27 July 2012

RCM Med&BS Report 2012

i

Table of Contents

Executive summary …………………………………………………………………………1

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………..….3

1.1 Background and legal requirements ………………………………………..…….3

2. Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2011 RCM and follow

up of recommendations............................................................................................4

2.1 Review and follow-up of RCM Med&BS Recommendations – Outputs of Liaison Meeting ……………………………………………………………...………5

2.2 Review of outputs of PGMed 2012 ………………………………………..……..10

2.3 Review of relevant outputs of RCM LDF 2012 …………………………………14

3. Review feedback and recommendations from STECF EWGs and relevant

RFMOs........................................................................................................................14

3.1 Review feedback and recommendations from STECF EWGs (on MED and BS assessments)...............................................................................................................14

3.2 Review feedback and recommendations from GFCM........................................17

3.3 Review feedback and recommendations from ICCAT........................................19

4. Cooperation with third countries in the region.................................................20

5. Coordination on economic variables....................................................................20

6. Harmonise and coordinate the regional aspects in the NP proposals 2013

following the DCF framework & propose actions and where possible

conclude regional agreements on the collection of data...................................23

6.1 Transversal variables - Common understanding of effort definitions in relation to data collection methodologies…………………………………..……23

6.2 Metier-related variables….………………………………………………………..23

6.2.1 Ranking system following regional harmonisation of the metiers at level 6 – Review of

work achieved during PGMed 2012…………………………………………………23

6.2.2 Overview of agreements for landings abroad, concurrent sampling, merging of metiers

for sampling, sampling intensities and data quality....................................................26

6.2.3 Discards: review and finalise work achieved during RCM Med&BS 2010 on regional

view of discard sampling programmes.........................................................................29

6.2.4 Recreational fisheries –review of actions proposed in NP proposals, identify possible

regional coordination...................................................................................................30


ii

6.2.5 Vessels without logbooks – allocation of data to metiers..............................................31

6.3 Biological stock-related variables...........................................................................31

6.3.1 Review of Work achieved in PGMed 2012...................................................................31

6.3.2 Task sharing for ageing................................................................................................32

7. Black Sea sub-group: Preparation of data on sprat, whiting and dogfish for

the STECF EWG 12-16 BS meeting.......................................................................35

8. Surveys coordination...............................................................................................36

8.1 Review of outcomes of MEDITS Working Group................................................36 8.2 Review of outcomes of MEDIAS Working Group...............................................40 8.3 Black Sea Bottom Trawl Survey and Pelagic Trawl Survey................................43 8.4 Review of RCM Med&BS 2010 proposed list of surveys for the new DC-

MAP.............................................................................................................................44

9. EU Multiannual programme (MAP) for data collection for 2014-2020……...45

10. Data Quality issues..................................................................................................46

11. Regional databases..................................................................................................46

12. Studies, workshops and pilot projects.................................................................49

12.1 Studies........................................................................................................................49

12.2 Workshops.................................................................................................................51

13. AOB............................................................................................................................53

13.1 Chairmanship............................................................................................................53

13.2 Venue & dates of next RCM Med&BS...................................................................53

14. Summary of recommendations.............................................................................54

15. References..................................................................................................................59

Annexes...................................................................................................................................61

Annex I –List of participants………………………………………………………………62

Annex II – Terms of Reference for the 2012 RCM Med&BS............................................63

Annex III – Terms of Reference for PGMed 2013………………………………………..65

Annex IV – Surveys proposed by RCM Med&BS 2010 for new DCMAP and their

evaluation by STECF-SGRN 10-03......................................................................................66

Annex V – Proposal for a Regional Database for Large Pelagics (RDB LP)……….… 67


1

Executive summary

The 9th Regional Coordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea [RCM

Med&BS] (Chairs: Myrto Ioannou -Cyprus and Charis Charilaou – Cyprus) was held

in Madrid, Spain from 23-27 July 2012.

The meeting was attended by scientists from all Mediterranean MS, including the

Chair of the Mediterranean Planning Group for Methodological Development

[PGMed] and the Chair of the Mediterranean Acoustic Surveys Working Group

[MEDIAS WG], as well as 2 representatives of the General Fisheries Commission for

the Mediterranean [GFCM] and a representative of the European Commission. 2

scientists involved in tropical large pelagic fisheries from Portugal and France

attended the meeting as well, in order to have the opportunity to propose relevant

recommendations; due to misunderstanding between RCM Med&BS and the RCM

Long Distance Fisheries [RCM LDF], the coordination of large pelagic outside the

Mediterranean Sea was not included in the 2012 ToRs of none of the two RCMs.

The terms of reference [ToRs] of the meeting were based on the generic ToRs of all

RCMs, agreed between the Chairs of the RCMs and the Commission, with some

adaptations to suit the needs of the RCM Med&BS (basically inclusion of

coordination on economic variables and a practical session by the Black Sea sub-

group for preparation of data for stock assessment).

The Group addressed all ToRs and made 10 recommendations (plus one deriving

from scientists involved in large pelagic fisheries outside the Mediterranean); the key

recommendations were selected to be addressed by the 2012 Liaison Meeting. The

contribution of the GFCM representatives at the meeting was greatly appreciated.

The work of the RCM Med&BS included the review of the work achieved by the

groups under its umbrella and the definition of their next ToRs (PGMed, MEDIAS

WG, International Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean [MEDITS] WG.

The Group took some decisions concerning the RCM Med&BS Regional Database

(RDB), on the type of data to be included and the expansion of the Steering

Committee following the limited progress achieved so far. It was agreed that the best

option for the region would be that the RDB is hosted by GFCM.

The Group proposed for 2013 two studies deriving from MEDIAS, and supported the

proposal of two studies agreed by the Planning Group on Commercial Catch,

Discards and Biological Sampling [PGCCDBS] that are of potential interest of the

region.


2

Concerning workshops, the RCM Med&BS:

- reiterated its 2011 recommendation on a workshop on large pelagic

(considered as key recommendation);

- proposed 2 workshops deriving from MEDIAS;

- supported the proposals of workshops agreed by the PGCCDBS that are of

interest for the region.

The Group selected Constantin Stroie (Romania) as the new chair for the period 2013-

2014. Next meeting will take place early May in Constanta (Romania).


3

1. Introduction

The 9th Regional Coordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCM

Med&BS) (Chairs: Myrto Ioannou -Cyprus and Charis Charilaou – Cyprus) was held

in Madrid, Spain from 23 to 27 July 2012. The meeting was attended by scientists

from all Mediterranean MS (Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Romania

and Spain), including the Chair of PGMed and the Chair of MEDIAS, as well as 2

representatives of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)

and a representative of the European Commission (Annex I).

Before the meeting, the Chairs of the RCM Med&BS were informed by the

Commission that the coordination of large pelagic outside the Mediterranean Sea,

which is in the merit of the RCM Long Distance Fisheries, was not included in the

ToRs of the 2012 RCM Long Distance Fisheries that took place beginning of July, due

to misunderstanding on which RCM is responsible for the coordination of large

pelagic outside the Mediterranean. It was therefore agreed that scientists involved in

tropical large pelagic fisheries could join the 2012 RCM Med&BS, in order to have the

opportunity to propose relevant recommendations; indeed, 2 scientists involved in

tropical large pelagic fisheries from Portugal and France attended the meeting.

Representatives from third countries (Croatia, Montenegro, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine

and Georgia) and from the International Commission for the Conservation of

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) were also invited but unfortunately no one attended the

meeting.

The ToRs (Annex II) of the meeting were based on the generic ToRs of all RCMs,

agreed between the Chairs of the RCMs and the Commission, with some adaptations

to suit the needs of the RCM Med&BS.

1.1 Background and legal requirements

The EU Data Collection Framework (DCF, EC 2008a, EC 2008b, EC 2008c, EU 2010)

establishes a framework for the collection of economic, biological and transversal

data by Member States (MS). It was intended that this framework would provide the

basic data needed to evaluate the state of fishery resources and the fisheries sector.

To coordinate the work carried out under Member States’ National Programme, 5

Regional Coordination Meetings (RCMs) are established covering the following

areas:

1) the Baltic Sea (ICES areas III b-d),

2) the North Sea (ICES areas IIIa, IV and VIId), the Eastern Arctic (ICES areas I and

II), the ICES divisions Va, XII & XIV and the NAFO areas.


4

3) the North Atlantic (ICES areas V-X, excluding Va and VIId),

4) the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea,

5) Long Distance fisheries: 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.

The regional split over 5 regions allows for coordination while taking into account

regional aspects and specific problems. Regional Coordinating Meetings (RCMs) are

held annually and involve National Correspondents and both biologists and

economists from each MS involved in the DCF programme. The key objectives of the

RCMs are to identify areas for standardisation, collaboration and co-operation

between MS.

The formerly named RCM Med, following the accession of Bulgaria and Rumania in

EU, is named since 2008 as RCM Med&BS.

Moreover, since 2007 and operating directly under the umbrella of RCM Med&BS,

the Mediterranean Planning Group for Methodological Development –PGMed was

established, as a forum similar to the ICES Planning Group on Commercial Catch,

Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS) for discussing methodological matters

related to data collection referring particularly to the Mediterranean area. PGMed

takes place annually jointly with the PGCCDBS, with common plenaries.

A Liaison Meeting (LM) between the chair of SGRN, the chairs of the different RCMs,

the chair of the PGCCDBS, ICES and the Commission is being held annually to

analyse the RCM reports in order to ensure overall co-ordination between the RCMs.

Within the DCF, the role of the RCMs and their tasks in regional co-ordination are

clearly defined in various articles (RCM Med&BS 2011).

2. Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2011 RCM and follow

up of recommendations

The progress achieved in regional coordination since the last RCM Med&BS was

reviewed. Specifically, a review was made on the follow-up of the recommendations

of the RCM Med&BS 2011, the outputs of the 8th Liaison meeting, the outputs of

PGMed 2012 and the relevant outputs of RCM LDF 2012.


5

2.1 Review and follow-up of RCM Med&BS 2011 Recommendations – Outputs of

Liaison Meeting

The Recommendations of the last RCM Med&BS, as well as the relevant comments by

the Liaison Meeting (LM) and the progress achieved as a follow-up are provided

below.

Large pelagic issue: Assignment of large pelagic species in different RCMs

RCMMed&BS2011

Recommendation

RCM Med&BS 2011 strongly recommends that the large

pelagic species included in the Appendix VII of DCF Decision

under the Mediterranean and Black Sea remain under the

responsibility of the RCM Med&BS, for what concern the data

collection (the minimum number of individual that each

Member States must sample; the collection of stock related

variables) and Regional coordination issues (the CV calculation

as requested by EU Dec. 193/2010 must be calculated at stock

level and for large pelagic this requires a Regional approach).

For BFT, the only tuna or tuna like species which is not a

Mediterranean single stock, a collaboration is required with the

RCM LDF concerning the east Atlantic part of the stock.

Follow -up actions

needed

Responsible persons

for follow-up actions

DG MARE, Liaison meeting, RCM LDF, RCMMED&BS, MS

Time frame (Deadline)

LM 2011 comments This group (RCM LDF) recommends to coordinate the DCF

related to the all stocks managed by RFMO´s such ICCAT,

IOTC, IATTC and WCPFC. This includes the four species:

albacore, swordfish, bonito and bluefin that are included in

RCMMed&BS This issue is urgent to be clarified by

Commission. As this way of proceeding is not efficient for the

RCM LDF. The LM was informed by the Commission that

they will resolve this problem during early 2012.


6

Progress An exchange of emails was made in December 2011 between

the Commission and the Chairs of RCM LDF and RCM

Med&BS to solve this issue. However, little before the RCM

Med&BS 2012 meeting, the Chairs were informed by the

Commission that there was a misunderstanding on the

conclusion of the assignment of large pelagic: while the

Chairs of RCM Med&BS understood that the agreement was

that the Mediterranean large pelagic, including BFT, will

remain in the remit of the RCM Med&BS, the Chair of RCM

LDF understood that all large pelagic, including the tropical

ones, will go under the remit of the RCM Med&BS.

Metier related variables: Large pelagic sampling

RCMMed&BS2011

Recommendation

Concerning the issue on large pelagic, RCMMed&BS

recommends to continue the exercise carried out during

PGMed 2011 reviewing yearly the sampling figures for métier

related (length) and to estimate CV at regional level. MS

should adjust their NP accordingly to these results. Moreover,

RCMMed&BS recommend to use the conversion table finalized

during the meeting to transmit the data to the different end-

users (i.e. ICCAT and/or European Commission).

Follow -up actions

needed

Member states to review their National Programs in

accordance of the PGMed results

Responsible persons


MS, LIAISON, PGMed, RCMMed&BS, DGMARE

Time frame (Deadline) PGMed 2012 and review of the NP in autumn

LM 2011 comments LM strongly supports this approach and recommends that MS

follow this recommendation.

Progress Included in the TORs of PGMed 2012.


7

Large pelagic issue: Workshop proposal concerning large pelagic sampling

RCM MED&BS 2011

and RCM LDF 2011

Recommendation

The two groups propose a joined workshop among ICCAT

representatives, scientists involved in large pelagic sampling, as

well as representatives from RCM LDF and RCM MED&BS in

order to harmonize the biological sampling issues on large

pelagic and specify additional data or modifications that

should be included in the future DCF, taking into account the

ICCAT requirements for stock assessment.

Follow -up actions

needed

Responsible persons


DG MARE; Liaison meeting; RCM LDF; RCMMED&BS;

ICCAT; MS

Time frame (Deadline) LM 2011 comments LM recommends that STECF set up an EWG in 2012.

Progress No planning so far.

Large pelagic issue: East Atlantic Bluefin tuna and metier related data

RCMMed&BS2011

Recommendation

Concerning the east bluefin stock (Eastern Atlantic and

Mediterranean sea), the RCM Med&BS recommend that the

metier related data (i.e. length) collected by MS participating

in RCM LDF (Portugal, France, Spain) should provided data

to the PGMed, for a complete estimation of the relevant CVs

of the bluefin. The analysis of the data should be discussed

in both relevant RCMs (RCMMed&BS and RCM LDF).

Follow -up actions

needed

Transmission of data to PGMed chair

Responsible persons


MS (France, Spain) ; RCM LDF; RCMMed&BS; PGMed chair;

Liaison Meeting.

Time frame (Deadline) Before the 2012 PGMed meeting LM 2011 comments LM notes that this should be part of a Data Call for

PGMed. Non-compliance will be reported in Coverage

Report. Progress Data, though not complete, were transmitted to the PGMed

chair (see section 6.2.2).


8

Economic variables: European Database for economic data

RCMMed&BS2011

Recommendation

The Group supports the creation of database for economic

data and recommends to further investigating this proposal in

order to review different implementing procedures. A steering

Committee should be established to decide who will

administrate Database, what data should be included and

access rules. Follow -up actions

needed

Other RCMs should consider above-mentioned proposal.

Responsible persons


RCM; LIAISON; DG MARE

Time frame (Deadline) LM 2011 comments LM supports the idea and COM will follow up the

process.

Progress

Economic variables: Data calls

RCMMed&BS2011

Recommendation

RCM is aware that too many data calls take place each year

requiring too much administrative costs to MS, especially

having in mind that every data call contains the whole set of

data available. Given that the new DCF does not oblige for the

data to be destroyed after 20 days, the Group does not realize

why the same set of data are required more than once in the

same year and in different formats every time. The Group

suggests that one coordinated data call takes place each year.

Follow -up actions

needed

Responsible persons


LIAISON; DG MARE, MS, JRC


LM 2011 comments LM recognises the observed differences in Data Calls and

the Commission will follow-up.

Progress


9

Important issues that were dealt by the 8th Liaison Meeting, other than the

recommendations of the 2011 RCM Med&BS, were also presented to the Group. Such

issues where:

RCM reports: LM recommended that no more than 5 key recommendations are

presented to RCM reports for consideration and discussion by the LM. The

chairs of RCMs should also give a short overview of the report raising any

general issues for the LM.

PGECON: Establishment of an Economic Planning Group (PGECON) to

discuss methodological and coordination issues related to the economic

modules of DCF (fleet, aquaculture, processing).

Transversal variables: MS should avoid duplication of work on data collection

from the implementation of Control Regulation and Data Collection

Framework.

Review feedback from data end users: Data presentation

RCMMED&BS 2011 Following a review of the 2011-2013 NPs of the Mediterranean

MS concerning the availability of the data to end users (see data

presentation in each section of NPs), the group recommends MS

to agree on a harmonized time period required for data to be

available for transmission to end-users. The group suggests, for all

transversal and biological data collected, a time period of 6

months following the reference year of the collection of data; this

time period should be respected by the data calls and the end

users.

Follow -up actions

needed

MS modify national programmes accordingly

Responsible persons


MS, JRC, SGMED, DG MARE, Liaison Meeting, RCMMED&BS

LM 2011 comments LM notes that the Commission is in the process of reflecting

on the reasons for delays in data transmission and that this

issue will be addressed at the National Correspondents

meeting.

Progress


10

Regional data base (RDB): A representative of the RDB Steering Group should

attend the next PGMED and present the progress in RDBs in the Baltic, NA and

NS&EA regions.

The Group discussed on the future structure of the RCMs, specifically whether

national correspondents and economists should continue participating at these

meetings. In the case that only biologists would form the future RCMs, it was agreed

that PGMed would consequently have the same role with the RCM Med&BS and it

was questioned whether PGMed should continue to function.

*** On the role of RCM

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation Considering the increased regional tasks

and power of the RCMs under the EU

MAP for data collection for 2014-2020,

RCM Med& BS recommends that the

current structure of the RCMs ( i.e. the

inclusion of national correspondents,

economists and biologists) remains the

same. The Group further recommends that

PGMed continues functioning under the

umbrella of the RCM Med& BS.

Follow-up actions needed

Responsible persons for follow-up

actions

DGMARE, LM, RCM Med&BS

Time frame (Deadline) Before the new DCMAP

2.2 Review of outputs of PGMed 2012

The Chair of PGMed outlined the ToRs of the last PGMed (Rome, 2012), which are

the following:

ToR 1) Ranking system for the whole Mediterranean and for the Black Sea

ToR 2) Reviewing and update of the landing template for the Mediterranean and

for the Black Sea

ToR 3) For the metier which are exploring a shared stock and selected by the

ranking system, the number of sampling trips by metier at the GSA level can be

determined

ToR 4) Assess the CV for shared stocks both for the Mediterranean (GSA 7, GSA

15-16, GSA 17) and Black Sea


11

ToR 5) Update the work conducted in the PGMed 2011 for large pelagic species on

sampling of length and stock related variables by using 2010 data

ToR 6) Assess the CV of large pelagic for length

ToR 7) Review the methodology used in the sampling of large species and

harmonization with ICCAT requirements

ToR 8) Common understanding of Ecosystem Indicators (App. XIII EU Decision

93/2010) collection of methodologies used in the different countries

ToR 9) Compatibility and harmonisations of the DCF with GFCM task I

requirements

ToR 10) Regional Data Base

ToR 11) Proposal of workshops and studies

ToR 12) AOB

Links between PGCCDBS and PGMed

Benchmark meetings

Data Calls

Since most of the issues dealt by PGMed relate to the ToRs of the RCM Med&BS, it

was agreed that these issues would be discussed in the corresponding ToRs, for

better organising the work of the Group. The remaining issues (PGMed ToR 8, ToR 9

& ToR 12) were presented and discussed under this section.

PGMed ToR 8: Common understanding of Ecosystem Indicators (App. (App. XIII EU

Decision 93/2010) collection of methodologies used in the different countries

Before the PGMed meeting, PGMed asked all Mediterranean MS to provide an

understanding of the 9 ecosystem Indicators and methodologies used in the different

countries. The indicators with the description (methodologies, criteria to estimate,

formula ...) for each MS are provided in Tables 8.1 to 8.9 of the PGMed report

(PGMed, 2012).

PGMed recognised that for most of the indicators there isn’t a clear position at

regional level on how to approach and estimate them, and moreover there isn’t a

standard methodology to calculate the different indicators. Concerning the first 4

biological indicators related to fisheries independent research surveys, PGMed

suggested that they are addressed by the incoming WG MEDITS and MEDIAS.

Concerning the economic indicator, PGMed agreed that PGECON should address

this issue. For the rest of the indicators, the group suggested that they are discussed

in the next RCM Med&BS.


12

PGMed ToR 9) Compatibility and harmonisations of the DCF with GFCM task I

requirements

PGMed discussed the requirements between the GFCM Task 1.5 (related to biological

variables) and the EU DCF, which result to double submission of the same

information by the Mediterranean Member States following different format, design

and aggregation, and also with a high risk of inconsistencies.

PGMed was informed that during the 13th Session of the GFCM-SAC-Sub-committee

on Stock Assessment (GFCM 2012b) it was proposed that a task 2 concerning the

biological variables should be implemented instead of task 1.5, and that a roadmap

was proposed to identify new issues regarding the biological variables. The

representative of the Commission, present to the PGMed meeting, informed the

Group that an active collaboration has started between GFCM and EU in order to

harmonize as much as possible the requirements and the data collected under the

DCF and GFCM biological task.

Since the GFCM contribution to the RCM Med&BS 2012 includes information on

GFCM task 1 and the creation of task 2, discussion on this issue is presented in the

relevant section of the report (Section 3.2).

PGMed ToR 12) AOB

- Links between PGCCDBS and PGMed

During the PGMed meeting, four main issues were identified concerning the links

between the two planning groups: i) PGCCDBS and PGMed reports have become too

independent; ii) the active participation of experts from both the Mediterranean and

Atlantic in the WKs proposed during any PG is not the rule; iii) PGMed lacks time to

deal with all the ToR and iv) both PGs have been diverging during last years.

PGMed proposed the following points to be taken into account in the future

meetings and reports, in order to increase and improve the links between the groups

(which were agreed in plenary with PGCCDBS):

For the meetings: i) when possible, join all presentations of potential interests for the

Mediterranean together, in order to be able to split in PGs sooner and, thus, having

more time to work in their specific ToRs; ii) exposition of PGMed main results and

discussions in plenary on the last day.

For the report: i) include a summary of relevant issues discussed in plenary in the

PGMed report; ii) include the list of ToRs of each group in the other’s report; iii)

include the list of participants of each group in the other’s report iv) add a link to the

online report; v) include the list of workshops of potential interest of each PG.


13

- Benchmark meetings

PGMed discussed some of the problems found in the Working Groups (WGs) of

stock assessment in the Mediterranean region. As these WG are carried out under

different umbrellas (STECF and GFCM), it is even possible that the same stock is

analysed in different ways and contradictory results can be even reached. Also, in

the GFCM WG there is no continuity in the kind of methodology and interpretation

requested every year, so experts can even find that a stock assessment performed

following the rules of the previous year is not accepted the next one. The Group

requested from the representative of the ICES Secretariat to explain the objectives

and main acting rules of Benchmark meetings. The Benchmark meetings are carried

out to evaluate the appropriateness of data and methods to be used during the WG

as well as to evaluate the possible implications for biological reference points; their

main outcome is the “stock annex”, which describes the data and the methodology

for assessing the certain stocks.

Following the presentation of the above issue, the RCM Med&BS 2012 discussed on

the possibility that stock assessments in the Mediterranean region are performed and

dealt in combined meetings or one forum rather than in the STECF and GFCM

umbrellas separately.

Furthermore, there is a need for guidance on processing the data collected,

evaluating their quality and choosing the methodologies for assessing the stocks. In

this respect, the continuity of the Chairmanship at the Stock Assessment WGs under

the GFCM umbrella is essential.

The Group is concerned on the difficulties encountered by the Mediterranean MS in

trying to follow the requirements of both GFCM-Task 1 and DCF, since the two data

collection systems diverge. The GFCM representative stated that GFCM Secretariat is

aware of this situation and that the aim is to avoid duplication of work; nevertheless,

it was reminded that DCF is implemented at a European level, while the GFCM

Secretariat tries to harmonise the decisions taken by the GFCM Members.

The Group concluded on the need to harmonise the data requirements and the

assessment methods used by GFCM and at European level.

- Data Calls

PGMed remarked the problems MS found during the last Data Call from DGMare

regarding the formats and amount of data requested and suggested that all the Data

Calls come together during the year (not having different calls in the same year),


14

maintaining previous formats and that only new information should be requested

and sent.

The RCM Med&BS agreed on the ToRs of PGMed for 2012, which are provided in

Annex III.

2.3 Review of relevant outputs of RCM LDF 2012

As already mentioned, for the assignment of the large pelagic there was a

communication through emails between the Commission and the Chairs of the RCM

LDF and the RCM Med&BS. However there was a misunderstanding on the

conclusion: while the Chairs of the RCM Med&BS requested that the Mediterranean

large pelagic stocks and bluefin tuna remain under the merit of the RCM Med&BS,

the Chair of RCM LDF understood that the RCM Med&BS will be responsible for the

coordination of all large pelagic, including the ones outside the Mediterranean. This

misunderstanding became clear to the Chairs of the RCM Med&BS by the

Commission after the RCM LDF 2012 took place, during which the large pelagic

outside the Mediterranean were not included in the ToRs of the meeting.

The Group reviewed the draft report of the RCM LDF 2012, in which it is mentioned

that the coordination of all large pelagic is under the responsibility of the RCM

Med&BS. The Group requested from the Commission representative to clarify to the

Chair of the RCM LDF that large pelagic outside the Mediterranean are not under the

RCM Med&BS, and that this misunderstanding should be corrected in the report.

The large pelagic outside the Mediterranean remain in the remit of the RCM LDF and

the RCM Med&BS will be responsible for the Mediterranean large pelagic stocks (i.e.

swordfish -Xiphias gladius, albacore – Thunnus alalunga, dolphinfish -Coryphaena

hippurus, bonito – Sarda sarda) plus bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus).

The Group reviewed further the recommendations of the RCM LDF 2012, most of

them not being relevant for the RCM Med&BS.

3. Review feedback and recommendations from STECF EWGs and relevant

RFMOs

3.1 Review feedback and recommendations from STECF EWGs (on MED and BS

assessments)

A review was made on the feedback and recommendations of STECF Expert

Working Groups (EWGs) related to Mediterranean and Black Sea stock assessments.


15

Specifically, the following STECF EWGs reports were reviewed:

- STECF EWG 11-05 Expert Working Group on Assessment Mediterranean Sea

stocks – part 1 (Abella et. al, 2011) – comments and recommendations on the

quality and completeness of the official Mediterranean DCF data call, DCF

Data Review of Coastal species.

- STECF EWG 11-12 Expert Working Group on Assessment of Mediterranean

Sea stocks – part 2 (Cardinale et. al., 2011) – comments and recommendations

on the quality and completeness of the official Mediterranean DCF data call.

- STECF EWG 11-20 Expert Working Group on Assessment of Mediterranean

Sea stocks – part 3 (Cardinale et. al., 2012) - comments and recommendations

on the quality and completeness of the official Mediterranean DCF data call.

- STECF EWG 11-16 Expert Working Group on Assessment of Black Sea Stocks

(Daskalov and Rätz, 2011).

Concerning the STECF EWG 11-20, the Group was impressed to see that it

recommended that “the different MS should agree on a harmonised time period required for

data to be available for transmission to end-users. EWG suggests, for all transversal and

biological data collected, a time period of 6 months following the last day of the collection of

data (i.e. last survey day or last calendar day for landing data); this time period should be

respected by the data calls and the end users”. This recommendation is similar to the

RCM Med&BS 2011 recommendation on data presentation: “the group recommends

MS to agree on a harmonized time period required for data to be available for

transmission to end-users. The group suggests, for all transversal and biological data

collected, a time period of 6 months following the reference year of the collection of

data; this time period should be respected by the data calls and the end users.”

However, at least for the survey data required through the official data calls, the time

period of 6 months has not been respected neither in 2011 or in 2012. RCM Med&BS

reiterates once more that the time table of 6 months for delivering the data, which

considers it a reasonable time period, should be respected. The Group stresses the

importance of following a common approach in responding in data calls that do not

respect the time period or formats. The National Correspondents should collaborate

and agree on a common response.

*** Feedback from data end users: Time period for provision of data

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation RCM Med& BS, recalling its 2011

recommendation and also the STECF EWG

11-20 recommendation on a harmonized

time period required for data to be

available for transmission to end-users,

recommends that the time period of 6


16

months following the end of the collection

of transversal and biological data is

respected by the data calls and the end

users. In case this time period of 6 months

continues not being respected by the data

calls, the Group stresses the importance

that the National Correspondents follow a

common approach requesting the respect

of this time period and NOT submit the

data.



actions

JRC, DG MARE, LM, MS, RCM Med& BS,

National Correspondents.


STECF EWG 11-16 noted that there were various data deficiencies concerning the

Black Sea stocks that were assessed, and that the assessments provided were based

on the best estimates available. EWG 11-16 recommended the establishment of

fishery independent scientific surveys to monitor the living resources across all

national waters of the Black Sea including Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia, Russia,

Turkey and Ukraine.

During discussion in the RCM Med&BS 2012, it was stressed that all Black Sea stocks

are shared between EU and non-EU countries, and that the data provided by non-EU

countries of the region are inconsistent or are not provided at all, creating problems

in the stock assessments of the stocks. The GFCM representative mentioned that this

region is a priority for the GFCM and that special effort will be made to overcome

difficulties and data gaps encountered in the area; the establishment of the GFCM

Working Group on the Black Sea is an important step towards a more effective

regional collaboration. It was further mentioned that under the Black Sea

Commission all countries of the region are committed to provide fisheries data. The

Group agreed that the recommendation for the establishment of fishery independent

scientific surveys across all national waters of the Black Sea would be a solution for

an effective monitor of the resources of the Black Sea.

Another issue that was raised by the RCM Med&BS was the kind of data that were

required during the 2011 and 2012 DCF Data Calls regarding the Mediterranean and

Black Sea. These data include landings and discards, age compositions, mean length

and mean weight per age class, length compositions, fishing effort variables and

trawl and hydroacoustic survey data. During the last two years, no official data were


17

requested on growth parameters and maturity. Instead, for the stocks that have been

assessed during the relevant EWGs using biological variables, growth parameters

and maturity were provided by the scientists participating at these meetings. The

Group wondered whether there are quality reasons for not requesting the official

data on such biological variables during the last 2 years, or whether the end users

just prefer to use their own data instead of the official ones. In any case, feedback

should be provided by the end users, especially on the data that should be collected

and will be actually used for stock assessment purposes under the revised DCF, since

the collection and processing of data requires a lot of effort. It was noted though that

any modification on the type of data that will be required to be collected under the

future DCF should be made carefully, since some data may become essential later on.

In any case, the RCM Med&BS agreed that the official data should always be

requested and used, providing the necessary feedback on their quality.

3.2 Review feedback and recommendations from GFCM

The contribution of the GFCM representatives to the meeting was welcomed by the

Group.

The first presentation concerned the 1st GFCM Framework Programme (FWP), which

covers the period 2013-2018 and was adopted by the 36th Session of the Commission

in May 2012 (GFCM 2012c). The FWP includes 5 Work Programmes:

1. Improving Governance and Fisheries Management in the GFCM Area

through an integrated maritime approach

2. Strengthening the capacity of national institutions in the field of data

collection and supporting the establishment of regional databases and

information systems

3. Promoting the role of Aquaculture for food security and economic growth

4. Enhancing the development of Artisanal Fisheries. Assessing the status of

Recreational Fisheries

5. Supporting institutional and technical cooperation in the Southern

Mediterranean and in the Black Sea

Currently the work programmes are under development and operationalisation. The

Secretariat is in discussions with potential donors to start the FWP early in 2013, and

in consultations with partners in relation to actions to produce outcomes.


18

An overview followed of the general status of the Mediterranean stocks assessed in

2011 under GFCM. Specifically, a total of 47 stocks were assessed, including

demersal, pelagic, crustacean and elasmobranchs. Most of these stocks (35) are

considered overexploited or in overexploitation.

The second presentation from the GFCM representatives concerned the GFCM

regional information systems, specifically Task 1 and vessel records.

Task 1, which is based on recommendation GFCM/33/2009/3, includes the following

subtasks:

- Task 1.1: Fleet and fishing area information; capacity at Fleet Segment level)

- Task 1.2: Main resources targeted and fishing activity information per

Operational Unit). From 2010 the group of target species has changed.

- Task 1.3: Economic variables including engine power, salary share, variable

costs / fishing day per vessel, landing weight, landing value)

- Task 1.4: Catch and Effort data (catch/landing by species and overall effort

values for a specific fishing period/gear combination, pertaining a given OU.

Catches of discards and bycatch are also required). From 2010 bycatch is

required by group of species.

- Task 1.5: Biological data [describing the catch given in Task 1.4]

Information from the data submitted to the GFCM Secretariat under the above

recommendation is included in the Task 1 Statistical Bulletin, by Fleet Segment and

Operational Unit for each GFCM Geographical Sub-Area (GSA). The RCM Med&BS

was also informed on the compliance of the GFCM Members concerning the Task 1

Data Submission, on the SWOT analysis of Task 1, performed by the Sub-Committee

on Statistics and Information in its last Session in January 2012 (GFCM 2012a), as

well as the current review of Task 1 and the possible extension towards a Task 2. A

workshop on the finalization of Task 1 and Task 2 will follow in 2013, for reviewing

the work done and agree upon the final structure and definitions of Task 1 &2, as

well as propose any further actions required.

The Group was further informed on the vessel records established in the GFCM

following relevant recommendations, which aim at keeping historical records of any

addition, modification or deletion applied to the national fleets’ information.

During discussion, it was stressed that the GFCM Secretariat has to manage and tries

to adapt with two realities: the fact that the EU GFCM Members follow the DCF rules

and they request harmonization between the GFCM requirements and DCF, and the


19

fact that the non EU GFCM Members need support for capacity building. It was also

commented that in some cases data provided in the framework of DCF are not

adequate for performing stock assessments in the Mediterranean; this suggests that

an improvement is required.

The Group agreed on the necessity that the GFCM meetings relevant to data

collection are eligible under DCF, including the workshop that will be organized in

2013 for the finalization of the structure and definitions of Task 1 &2.

*** Review feedback from end-users: On the eligibility of GFCM meetings under DCF

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation The RCM Med& BS recommends GFCM to

submit to the Group a list of its planned

2013 meetings, for identifying the meetings

relevant to DCF and proposing their

inclusion in the list of eligible meetings

under the DCF for 2013. The Group was

informed on the planned GFCM workshop

that will be organized early 2013 for

finalizing the structure and definitions of

Task 1 & 2. The RCM Med&BS

recommends that this workshop will be

eligible under the DCF. MS are strongly

recommended to participate in this

workshop.



actions

GFCM, RCM Med&BS, LM, DGMARE

Time frame (Deadline) Before the 2012 LM

A preliminary discussion followed concerning the RCM Med&BS database and the

possibility that this regional database is hosted by the GFCM, independent from the

GFCM databases. The GFCM representatives stated that the Secretariat would be

happy to collaborate with the RCM on such a development, and details on the

development, maintenance and management of such a database could be defined in

an agreement between the EU and GFCM.

3.3 Review feedback and recommendations from ICCAT

The Group noted the non-attendance of an ICCAT representative at the meeting. The

issue of harmonizing the sampling of large pelagic under DCF with the ICCAT


20

requirements, as well as proposed actions for ensuring the collection and submission

of the data required by ICCAT are dealt in section 6.2.2 of the report.

4. Cooperation with third countries in the region

This ToR was not addressed due to the non-attendance of representatives of any

invited third country at the meeting.

5. Coordination on economic variables

This ToR was an addition to the generic ToRs agreed for all the RCMs, since the

coordination of economic variables is considered an essential issue for the region that

should remain under the RCM framework.

The RCM Med&BS was informed on the newly established Planning Group on

Economic Issues (PGECON), specifically on its role in the DCF and the outcomes of

the 2012 (1st) meeting of the PG. The general objective of the group is to discuss

methodological and coordination issues related to the economic modules of the DCF

at European level (fleet economic data, aquaculture, processing sector).

During the 1st meeting, the issues discussed included:

• The new Data Collection Multi Annual Plan for the period 2014-2020

• Level of aggregation of economic data:

The DCF should not be altered with respect to the resolution requirements as

it is practically impossible to get comprehensive cost data for higher

resolution scales. It is considered essential to keep the current segmentation

of the fleet also to ensure consistency on data series. The new DCF should

allow end users to ask for alternative aggregation schemes of the data and

should clearly define the governance structure (within RCMs or PGECON)

that will allow end users’ needs to be considered by Member States.

• Common understanding of the Ecosystem Indicator “Fuel Efficiency of fish capture”:

PGECON recommended that if this indicator will be kept in the future DCF,

then the name of the indicator should be changed into “value of landings per

fuel cost”. PGECON considered that the same indicator could be calculated

using estimated data rather than collected data.

• Common understanding of the variable “Direct subsidies”:

PGECON recognized that the DCF definition of the variable “direct

subsidies” requires further clarification in order to have a common

understanding and a common approach in reporting data. On the basis of


21

DCF definitions and OECD classification, the group agreed on which

components should be included and which should be excluded in the

variable “direct subsidies.

• Compare price per capacity unit, depreciation rates and other assumptions applied by

MS in estimating capital value and capital costs:

During the meeting a comparative exercise was performed on the estimation

of the relevant variables and useful information were received for improving

the estimations. PGECON concluded that this comparative exercise should be

repeated also during the next year meeting.

• Assess values of accuracy indicators and compare precision values for different fleet

segments and different variables:

A comparison of the quality indicators achieved by MS was carried out by

PGECON in order to share experiences and to improve the surveys

implemented at national level.

• Review of questionnaires used for the collection of economic data (fleet, aquaculture

and processing):

The review of questionnaires used revealed that the approaches used by MS

are very different and the level of complexity of the questionnaires ranges

from very concise ones to very structured ones. The group considered this

exercise very useful and potentially very beneficial in proving the approaches

used. A web repository has been created to collate all the questionnaires. This

instrument will allow participants to PGECON to download the different

questionnaires and to analyse them in order to improve the approaches used.

• Development of a European Data base of economic data (fleet, aquaculture and

processing):

PGECON concluded that it would be better to have a database at European

level rather than a regional database due to the problems of geographical

allocation. The group considered that no primary economic data should be

stored in European databases but only aggregated data. PGECON also

suggested that the database already set up by JRC should be the starting

point for the implementation of the European database of economic data.

PGECON suggested the Commission to investigate if the JRC or EUROSTAT

could be available to act as technical administrator of this database. A specific

workshop should be convened to discuss the practical implementation of

such database.


22

• Identify needs for further actions and suggest appropriate follow-up (studies,

workshops, RCM coordination):

No specific new studies were requested; PGECON recommended the launch

of studies already requested by previous DCF workshops and STECF

meetings. PGECON suggested the following workshops: WS on Aquaculture

data collection, WS on European economic database and on disaggregation of

economic data.

The RCM Med&BS was further informed on the outcomes of the STECF – EWG 11-18

on Review of Economic Data collected in relation to the DCF and Harmonisation of

Sampling Strategies. The ToRs were:

1. Review of the main conclusions provided by the DCF workshop on

“calculation of capital value in accordance to PIM methodology and definition of

variables not clearly defined in the DCF”. Recommend follow up actions.

2. Review of the main conclusions provided by the DCF metier workshop on

“allocation of Economic Data on disaggregated level”. Recommend appropriate

methodologies to disaggregate economic parameters at the level of metiers and

sub-areas.

3. Review of the main conclusions provided by the DCF workshop on “ statistical

issues related to the collection of economic data within the DCF”. Recommend

follow up actions.

4. Further clarify definitions and calculations of statistical indicators for quality

assessment and provide guidelines for data quality assessment methods for Non-

Probability sampling and representativeness in case of low response rates.

5. Compile a glossary of the economic terms used in the DCF.

6. Propose estimation of procedure for projections of the economic position of the

fisheries using more recent available data and extra information.

7. Review of current guidelines for AR with particular respect to clustering-

adoption of a common and consistent approach.

8. Propose common definition on “matadata” and guidelines for their storage.

9. Future needs of economic data in the DCF.

10. Definition of TORs, content and objectives of DCF workshops for 2012 on

economic data.


23

6. Harmonise and coordinate the regional aspects in the NP proposals 2013

following the DCF framework & propose actions and where possible

conclude regional agreements on the collection of data

6.1 Transversal variables - Common understanding of effort definitions in

relation to data collection methodologies

The Group reviewed the progress achieved in previous RCM Med&BS, as well as

recommendations made by STECF. Concerning the Workshop on transversal data

collection (i.e. common understanding) and statistical methodologies to estimate/reevaluate

them, with a special focus on the small scale fisheries, proposed by RCM Med&BS 2011

and eligible for 2012, the Group was informed that it will take place in the 4th quarter.

The second relevant workshop that was proposed by the Group in 2011 and is

eligible for 2012, the Workshop to develop guidelines to convert DCF biological, economic

and transversal data to GFCM Task 1 is postponed until the finalization of the GFCM

Task 1 amendments.

6.2 Metier-related variables

6.2.1 Ranking system following regional harmonisation of the metiers at level 6 – Review of

work achieved during PGMed 2012

The Chair of PGMed presented the results of the regional ranking system performed

for the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea separately (see also PGMed 2012 report).

For the Mediterranean, the ranking system was performed using as reference the

average values of landings and effort for the years 2009 and 2010; value data were

not available for all MS and were therefore excluded. Ten métiers were selected,

which were the same selected through the ranking system performed in 2011 (see

following table). PGMed agreed that this ranking system should from now onwards

be held every two years instead of on a yearly basis.

From PGMed 2012 report: Table 1.4. Summary showing mètiers selected by the ranking

systems based on landings and effort in 2009-10 for the Mediterranean region and segmented

according to Appendix VII of EC 2010/93/EU and comparison with the 2008 – 2009 ranking

results. E: Total effort as days at sea; L: landings (tons). “X: if the metier has been selected by

the ranking system.

Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 L

2008-

2009

L

2009-

2010

E

2008-

2009

E

2009-

2010

Purse seine

[PS]

Small pelagic fish >=14 X X X X


24

Bottom otter

trawl [OTB]

Demersal species >=40 X X X X

Trammel net

[GTR]


Pelagic pair

trawl [PTM]

Small pelagic fish >=20 X X

Set gillnet

[GNS]


Boat dredge

[DRB]

Molluscs X X X

Set longlines

[LLS]

Demersal fish (a) X X X X

Bottom otter

trawl [OTB]

Mixed demersal

species and deep

water species

>=40 X X X X

Drifting

longlines

[LLD]

Large pelagic fish (a) X X

Pots and

traps

Demersal species (a) X X

For the Black sea the ranking system was performed at the regional level using as

reference the average landings, effort and value data of the years 2009-2010. Five

métiers were selected, which were almost the same selected through the ranking

system performed in 2011 (see following table). PGMed agreed that as was decided

for the Mediterranean area, the ranking system should from now onwards be held

every two years instead of on a yearly basis.

From PGMed 2012 report: Table 1.8. Mètiers selected by the ranking systems based on

landings and effort in 2009-2010 for the Black Sea region and segmented according to

Appendix VII of 2010/93/EU. E: Total effort (days at sea); V: value (€); L: landings (tons). “X”:

if the metier has been selected by the ranking system.

Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 E

2008-

2009

E

2009-

2010

L

2008-

2009

L

2009-

2010

V

2008-

2009

V

2009-

2010

Midwater

otter trawl

[OTM]

Mixed

demersal and

pelagic species

13-20** X X X X X X

Stationary

uncovered

pound nets

[FPN]

Large pelagic

fish

(a) X X X


25

Set gillnet

[GNS]

Demersal

species

360-

400**

X X X X

Set longlines

[LLS]

Demersal fish (a) X X

Set gillnet

[GNS]

Small and large

pelagic fish

>=16 X X X

Pots and traps

[FPO]

Demersal

species

(a) X X

Considering that the ranking system is included in the generic ToRs of the RCMs, the

RCM Med&BS decided that although the results of the ranking system may be the

same or very similar compared with the previous years, the ranking system should

continue to be performed on an annual basis.

A discussion followed on the fact that the geographic origin of landings and effort

data may not be accurate for some MS. Two issues were identified: 1. Landing may

take place at the fishing vessel’s flag country without specifying the GSA from which

the catches originate and 2. Landing may take place in a country other than the

fishing vessel’s flag country; in this case the catches may not be declared at the

fishing vessel’s flag country. It was recalled that this issue was discussed also during

the 2008 RCM Med&BS, during which it was recommended to MS “to provide

landings and effort data according to the fishing grounds at the GSA level instead of

the landing places. The use of VMS data is recommended for analysing the fishing

grounds by GSA and identifying all metiers exercised by the Member States”.

Metier-related variables: on the accuracy of geographical origin of landings and

effort data

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation The RCM Med&BS recalls its 2008

recommendation and recommends MS to

investigate the accuracy of the

geographical origin of landings and effort

data (using the VMS data where possible).

This information should be reviewed

during the next RCM Med & BS.



actions

MS, RCM Med& BS

Time frame (Deadline) Before next RCM Med& BS


26

6.2.2 Overview of agreements for landings abroad, concurrent sampling, merging of metiers

for sampling, sampling intensities and data quality

Agreements for landings abroad: Concerning agreements for landings abroad, the

Group was informed that currently the only agreement in place is the one made

between Cyprus and Malta from 2009 concerning the inclusion of the Cyprus

trawlers operating in GSA 15 in the sampling scheme organised by Malta for the

collection of biological-metier-related variables.

Concurrent sampling: The Group reviewed the concurrent sampling strategy followed

by the MS in their 2011-2013 NPs. All participants commented that no problems are

encountered with the implementation of the concurrent sampling in their countries

and no modifications are suggested for the future DCF.

Merging of metiers for sampling: Information from Tables III_C_2 of the 2011-2013 NPs

concerning merging and disaggregation of metiers was reviewed. Only France has

included in its NP the merging of metiers, particularly GNS_DEF_>=16_0_0 and

GTR_DEF_>=16_0_0. The Mediterranean MS have included the regional agreement

on disaggregating of the metier LLD_LPF_0_0_0 in LLD_LPF_0_0_0 SWO,

LLD_LPF_0_0_0 ALB and LLD_LPF_0_0_0 BFT.

Review of work achieved by PGMed 2012 on sampling intensities and data quality

A review followed on the work achieved during PGMed 2012 on sampling intensities

and data quality, specifically:

- PGMed ToR 3: For the metier which are exploring a shared stock and selected by the

ranking system, the number of sampling trips by metier at the GSA level can be

determined

- PGMed ToR 4: Assess the CV for shared stocks both for the Mediterranean (GSA 7,

GSA 15-16, GSA 17) and Black Sea

- PGMed ToR 5: Update the work conducted in the PGMed 2011 for large pelagic

species on sampling of length by using 2010 data

- PGMed ToR 6: Assess the CV of large pelagic for length

PGMed ToR 3: For the metier which are exploring a shared stock and selected by the ranking

system, the number of sampling trips by metier at the GSA level can be determined

The RCM Med&BS reviewed the work performed by PGMed in estimating the

number of sampling trips to be performed by MS for the shared metiers selected

through the ranking system, at the GSA level. The work involved 4 metiers shared

between France and Spain in GSA 7 (Table 3.1 in PGMed report), 6 shared metiers

between Malta and Italy in GSA 15&16 (Table 3.2 in PGMed report), 3 metiers in


27

GSA 17 shared by Italy and Slovenia (Table 3.3 in PGMed report), and 2 metiers in

the Black Sea (GSA 29) shared by Bulgaria and Romania (Table 3.4 in PGMed report).

In some cases the computed values differ from the planned ones; this is mainly due

to the large differences in catches and effort among MS. However, each MS should

ensure a minimum number of samples to be taken in order to cover each métier

sampled along the year.

RCM Med&BS endorsed the conclusions of PGMed.

PGMed ToR 4: Assess the CV for shared stocks both for the Mediterranean (GSA 7, GSA 15-

16, GSA 17) and Black Sea

PGMed 2012 calculated the CV of the length frequency distribution of two Black Sea

Stocks (turbot and sprat) from Bulgarian and Romanian 2010 survey data, using

COST tools; the CV of sprat data had good values, while for turbot it had higher

values (see results in following table).

From PGMed 2012 report: Table 4.1. Species, country and survey for which the CV for length was estimated. MS Species Year Survey Length

class

N CV (shared

stock)

CV

Bulgaria P. maxima 2010 BT 3 cm 124 0.3039

(0.21)

0.30

Romania P. maxima 2010 BT 3 cm 104 0.42

Bulgaria S. sprattus 2010 PT 0.5 cm 36434 0.1280 0.11

Romania S. sprattus 2010 PT 0.5 cm 6274 2.95

Although there was data available for other shared stocks for GSA 7, GSA 15-16 and

GSA 17, it was not possible to compute the CVs due to the lack of time for working.

Actually, the work performed during PGMed 2012 with the COST tool was only

possible thanks to the participation of a COST expert. PGMed commented on the

difficulties found using the COST tool and on the need of training courses if this tool

should be further used.

PGMed ToR 5: Update the work conducted in the PGMed 2011 for large pelagic species on

sampling of length by using 2010 data

The Chair of PGMed presented to the Group the computed minimum number of fish

to be length sampled for bluefin tuna, swordfish, albacore, dolphinfish and bonito

(PGMed 2012 report, Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 respectively).


28

During discussion, the RCM Med&BS agreed that since the métier related variables

are required to be collected during concurrent sampling, only the proposed and

actual number of trips for concurrent sampling should be requested. Furthermore,

RCM Med&BS considers that regional sampling of large pelagic is restricted to the

collection of stock-related variables. The exclusion of the métier related variables

from regional sampling is considered necessary, since the number of individuals by

species that are measured depend on the number of sampling trips of the métiers

that are selected through the ranking system at the national level.

***Metier related variables – on the planned minimum number of fish to be

measured

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation RCM Med&BS recommends that in the

future NPs the planned minimum no. of

fish to be measured for métier related

variables will not be required. Since the

métier related variables are required to be

collected during concurrent sampling, the

Group considers that only the proposed

and actual number of trips for concurrent

sampling should be requested.



actions

DG MARE, STECF, LM


PGMed ToR 6: Assess the CV of large pelagic for length

The Group was informed on the work achieved during PGMed 2012 concerning the

calculation of the regional CV of the length frequency distributions of large pelagic.

Following the recommendation from 2011 RCM Med&BS, for the calculation of the

CV of bluefin tuna data had been requested additionally from 3 MS concerning the

Atlantic part of the stock; however, due to missing or not correct data submission,

the group decided not to use Atlantic data for this approach. Although national level

analyses using COST packages in R were performed for 4 MS and all large pelagic

stocks, due to lack of time for working and due to the difficulties in working with the

COST tool (see also PGMed ToR 4), only CVs for bluefin tuna were computed at

regional level, resulting a good value of CV (0.1468).


29

Métier related variables: East Atlantic Bluefin tuna

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation Concerning the east bluefin tuna stock

(Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean sea),

the RCM Med&BS appreciates the progress

achieved with the provision of metier-

related data (length) from MS participating

in RCM LDF (Portugal, France, Spain) to

the PGMed chair. However, the Group

recommends that the data are provided

according to the required data format, in

order to be actually utilized for a complete

estimation of the relevant CV of the bluefin

tuna.

Follow-up actions needed Transmission of data to PGMed chair


actions

MS (France, Spain and Portugal), RCM

LDF chair, PGMed chair

Time frame (Deadline) Before the 2013 PGMed meeting

6.2.3 Discards: review and finalise work achieved during RCM Med&BS 2010 on regional

view of discard sampling programmes

RCM Med&BS 2012 recalled that PGMed 2010 created a regional view of the discards

behaviour of the metiers, stating whether discard sampling should be mandatory or

not, or whether references should be provided at national level for requesting

derogation from sampling (Table 7 from PGMed report 2010). This work was

endorsed by RCM Med&BS 2010; the group further prepared a regional view of the

discard sampling programmes (a table on discards metadata), through all GSAs, with

the identification of gaps and discrepancies for optimising the spatial, time and

metiers coverage (Annex IV of RCM Med&BS 2010 report).

Concerning métiers for which reference should be provided on their discard

behavior for requesting derogation, participants of RCM Med&BS 2012 were asked

whether any pilot studies were performed by their countries for requesting

derogation, and whether such derogations were granted. The Group was informed

that Italy performed two pilot studies in 2011 concerning GSA 19, one for hand and

pole lines targeting cephalopods and the second for gillnets for small and large pelagics

(GNS_SLP_>=16_0_0), driftnets for small pelagic fish (GND_SPF_0_0_0), gillnets for

demersal fish (GNS_DEF_>=16_0_0), trammel nets for demersal species

(GTR_DEF_>=16_0_0) and beach and boat seines for demersal species (SB-


30

SV_DEF_0_0_0), for requesting derogation in 2012. Cyprus mentioned that due to

high percentage of discards of lessepsian species (specifically Lagocephalus spp.) in

the métiers for which reference should be provided on their discard behavior, no

derogation is intended to be requested.

The RCM Med&BS 2012 agreed that PGMed 2013 should collect information on a

regional level on the métiers for which reference should be provided on their discard

behavior, for comparing the discard behavior of the métiers across the GSAs. It was

specified that the percentage may concern the species listed in Appendix VII of the

Decision 93/2010/EU, and also all species caught. This was suggested since in certain

cases the percentage of discards differentiates a lot when considering all species

instead of only the species in Appendix VII.

6.2.4 Recreational fisheries –review of actions proposed in NP proposals, identify possible

regional coordination

A review on the actions proposed in the 2011-2013 NPs concerning recreational

fisheries for eel and bluefin tuna was made in previous RCM Med&BS, specifically

RCM Med&BS 2009 and RCM Med&BS 2010. The participants of RCM Med&BS 2012

were invited to provide any information on modification in their NPs or clarification

concerning recreational fisheries.

Cyprus clarified that since 2011 recreational fishermen are prohibited to catch bluefin

tuna, therefore no actions need to be taken concerning recreational fishery for this

species.

Greece informed the group that a pilot survey for eel (including recreational fishery)

is included in its 2011-2013 NP and is expected to be performed this year in autumn;

depending on the outcomes of the pilot study, a decision will be made whether

derogation will be requested or sampling on eel will be regularly performed.

Concerning bluefin tuna, Greece mentioned that there is no recreational fishery on

this species and that derogation has been requested.

The participants were further invited to provide information on recreational fisheries

of sharks in their countries; they all mentioned that there is not such fishery in their

country.

The Group further discussed on possible addition of species in the future DC -MAP

for monitoring their recreational fishery. It was stressed that information is lacking

concerning the recreational fishery of coastal species, such as Sparidae or groupers,


31

although their impact on the stocks may be important. Groupers were proposed as a

candidate species, however as they are targeted by scuba divers it was admitted that

the monitoring would be very difficult. The Group agreed that in case coastal species

should be monitored in the future, the approach to monitor the recreational coastal

fisheries should be decided at the national level since many differences may occur

among the countries.

6.2.5 Vessels without logbooks – allocation of data to metiers

The Group discussed on methods used by the different MS for allocating métiers

concerning vessels without logbooks.

In Spain, the allocation of data to métiers for the artisanal fishery is made through

the use of sales notes; it was clarified that the vessels are involved in only one métier

by fishing trip.

In Cyprus, for the vessels with no obligation to record data on logbooks, reports are

provided to a sample of around 10% of the licensed vessels, for recording landings

and effort data by métier; it is noticed that for the artisanal fishermen it is a common

practice to be involved in more than one métier during one fishing trip. In addition

to the reports, the results of a census survey made in previous years on the

percentage of days spent by the artisanal vessels on each metier and on the

percentage of days during which they were involved in more than one metier

(polyvalent activity) are used for allocating effort data to metiers.

According to PGMed 2009, “For the Mediterranean the basic métier for which a

threshold is required for allocating the target assemblages at level 5 is the bottom

otter trawl, with three target assemblages (demersal species, deep water species,

mixed demersal and deep water species).” Since vessels operating with bottom otter

trawl have logbooks, the allocation of target assemblages at level 5 is clear for vessels

without logbooks.

6.3 Biological stock-related variables

6.3.1 Review of Work achieved in PGMed 2012

The Chair of PGMed presented the work achieved in PGMed 2012 concerning

biological stock-related variables, specifically:

-PGMed ToR 2: Reviewing and update of the landings template for the Mediterranean and

the Black Sea


32

- PGMed ToR 5) Update the work conducted in the PGMed 2011 for large pelagic species on

sampling of stock –related variables by using 2010 data

- PGMed ToR 7: Review the methodology used in the sampling of large species and


PGMed ToR 2: Reviewing and update of the landings template for the Mediterranean

and the Black Sea

The RCM Med&BS reviewed the updated Mediterranean and the Black Sea landings

templates (PGMed ToR2, tables 2.1 and 2.2 in PGMed 2012 report). The update of the

landings template, made annually, is based on the average 2008 – 2010 landings data

per country and is used as a reference for the selection of species to be included in

the biological sampling. The Group was informed by the PGMed Chair on having

received new data concerning 2008 by Greece, after the end of the PGMed meeting,

and that these data modify the percentage contribution by MS in the region greatly;

the Group decided that the table prepared by PGMed during the meeting should be

considered by the MS as the reference table.

PGMed ToR 5) Update the work conducted in the PGMed 2011 for large pelagic

species on sampling of stock –related variables by using 2010 data

The Group was informed on the update of the minimum number of fish to sample

for stock related variables for bluefin tuna, sworidfish, albacore, dolphinfish and

bonito made by PGMed (PGMed 2012 Report, Tables 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10

respectively). The Group agreed with the suggestion of PGMed that MS should

follow the tables computed during PGMed 2011 and not the updated ones in their

NPs, as the sampling plan has already been designed by each MS; this exercise will

be repeated in 2013, for planning the sampling of large pelagic for the new period

(2014-2020).

6.3.2 Task sharing for ageing

The stocks in the Mediterranean region for which MS are obliged to provide age

estimates, based on their NPs and the new Medits protocol (MEDITS 2012a), are

provided in Table 6.3.2. Cyprus expressed its interest to assign the age reading of

hake – Merluccius merluccius to another MS, since the age reading of this species is

considered very difficult and the obligation for Cyprus to perform age reading

derives only from the Medits protocol, not being important in the landings. The

Group suggested Cyprus to request derogation from age reading hake at the next

Medits coordination meeting, or to contact labs involved in hake age reading for

further arranging a possible agreement with another MS.

In the Black Sea, Bulgaria and Romania perform age reading for the same 4 species:

Sprattus sprattus, Trachurus mediterraneus ponticus,

maxima maeotica; the Group was informed that a task sharing for ageing between the

two countries is already established.

Table 6.3.2: Species for which age reading is performed in

Medits protocol)

PGMed ToR 7: Review the methodology used in the sampling of large species and


During the large pelagic regional coordination between the RCM Med&

RCM Long Distance Fishery in 2011, there was a discussion about the problems of

data deficiencies on large pelagic encountered in the ICCAT SCRS species group

meetings. Therefore one of the ToRs of the PGMed 2012 was to review the

methodology used in the sampling of large species and the harmonization with

ICCAT requirements.


33


Trachurus mediterraneus ponticus, Engraulis encrasicolus

; the Group was informed that a task sharing for ageing between the

two countries is already established.

: Species for which age reading is performed in Mediterranean (source NPs &



During the large pelagic regional coordination between the RCM Med&




ed in the sampling of large species and the harmonization with



Engraulis encrasicolus and Psetta

; the Group was informed that a task sharing for ageing between the

Mediterranean (source NPs &


During the large pelagic regional coordination between the RCM Med&BS and the




ed in the sampling of large species and the harmonization with


34

PGMed reviewed the methodologies used by the MS for sampling métier-related

variables and stock-related variables, as well as the ICCAT requirements for

assessing large pelagic species, for identifying possible additional data/

modifications to be included in the future DC-MAP. The Group concluded that the

ICCAT requirements for assessing the large pelagic species are covered by the

current DCF (except for genetic sampling and tagging). Therefore, PGMed considers

that the problem of data deficiency, at least for the MS, is mostly because there are

currently no relevant reporting forms for submitting data on age, maturity and

weight to the ICCAT Secretariat. The Group recommends the development of

reporting forms by ICCAT Secretariat for submitting information on individual

stock-related variables – length, weight, sex, maturity and age estimation. An

alternative proposal would be the launch of Official Data Calls on biological data

collected for large pelagics by DGMare. The data could be analysed by experts and

submitted to the relevant ICCAT scientific meetings.

The RCM Med&BS recalled the 2011 RCM Med&BS and RCM LDF recommendation

for a joined workshop among ICCAT representatives, scientists involved in large

pelagic sampling, as well as representatives from RCM LDF and RCM MED&BS in

order to harmonize sampling on large pelagic and specify additional data or

modifications that should be included in the future DC-MAP; although LM 2011

recommended STECF to set up an Expert Working Group in 2012, this workshop has

not been organized so far. Since such workshop is considered essential for ensuring

that the future DC-MAP will include all ICCAT required data, the Group reiterates

its 2011 recommendation on a joined workshop.

Furthermore, the Group agreed with the recommendation of PGMed on the

development of reporting forms by ICCAT Secretariat for submitting information on

individual stock-related variables.

*** Workshop on large pelagic

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation RCM Med&BS reiterates the 2011

recommendation by RCM Med&BS and

RCM LDF on a joined workshop among

ICCAT representatives, scientists involved

in large pelagic sampling, as well as

representatives from RCM LDF and RCM

MED&BS for harmonising the biological

sampling issues on large pelagic and

specifying additional data or modifications


35

that should be included in the future DC-

MAP, taking into account the ICCAT

requirements for stock assessment.



actions

DG MARE; Liaison meeting; STECF; RCM

LDF; RCM MED&BS; ICCAT; MS


Stock related variables: Development of ICCAT reporting forms for submitting data

on large pelagic

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation RCM Med&BS endorses the

recommendation made by PGMed on the

development of reporting forms by ICCAT

Secretariat for submitting information on

individual stock-related variables – length,

weight, sex, maturity and age estimation

for the large pelagic, and awaits DG MARE

to contact and collaborate with ICCAT on

the development of the forms.



actions

DG MARE; ICCAT


7. Black Sea sub-group: Preparation of data on sprat, whiting and dogfish for

the STECF EWG 12-16 BS meeting

This task was added in the agenda of the meeting for allowing the two Black Sea

Member States to collaborate in compiling and preparing data on three common

species, sprat, whiting and dogfish; these data would be used for stock assessment at

the upcoming STECF EWG 12-16 BS meeting.

The Black Sea sub-group completed the data preparation without encountering

problems and presented the work achieved to the rest of the group.


36

8. Surveys coordination

8.1 Review of outcomes of MEDITS Working Group

The main outputs of the 2012 Medits Coordination Meeting (MEDITS 2012b),

prepared by the Medits international coordinator, were presented by the Slovenian

Medits national coordinator.

The meeting was held in Ljubljana from 6-8 March 2012, with the following ToRs:

• The MEDITS survey within the Data Collection Framework (inputs from

RCMMed&BS 2011, PGMED, etc.);

• The role and use of MEDITS data within EWG-STECF (Reference to the

analysis of minilog, net opening, Atris, etc. reference to the report of EWG in

Cyprus, 2011);

• Review the implications of GFCM activities and recommendations;

• Review on achievement of the 2011 MEDITS survey in each country/GSA;

• Planning of the MEDITS survey 2012;

• Management of the MEDITS data: a) Upgrade of RoME routine on MEDITS

data; b) State and progress of the database (Regional MEDITS Database);

• Finalization and adoption of the new lists of species (MEDITS G1 and G2);

• Progress of the Permanent Working Group for the updating of the MEDITS

Reference Taxonomic list (criteria and methods adopted for revision);

• Harmonized protocol for collection of biological parameters (i.e. collection of

otolith and individual weight measurements);

• Format for the storage of the new data set on age and individual weight

measurements;

• Exercise with RoME routine on MEDITS data;

• The estimate of the gear geometry/performance, the quality check of the gear

setting, equipment for the estimation of gear performance, data acquisition,

data processing and analyses Review of the MEDITS manual;

• Harmonization of methodology for estimating Ecosystem Indicators from

fisheries independent research surveys (App. XIII EU Decision 93/2010);

• Review of the MEDITS manual;

• Progress in common research activity:

o Species assemblages and diversity;


37

o Analyzing functional community changes in the Mediterranean;

o Habitat prediction approach and possible application in connection with

MEDITS;

o Spatial patterns of fishing impact in the northern Mediterranean using

demersal community metrics and effort data;

o The effect of fishing exploitation on the recruitment of hake in the

Mediterranean Sea;

o WG on Maturity stages update;

o Spatial differences and temporal trends in cephalopod populations along

the Mediterranean: effects of environmental parameters and fishing

exploitation”;

o Harmonization (field guide, methodology….) of the data on

Elasmobranches collected under the surveys.

• MEDITS publication;

• Task sharing of the age reading of otolith among MS participating to the

survey;

• Review of the MEDITS web site;

• Cooperation within MAREA project;

• Planning of activity of the group for the next twelve months, including venue

and date for the next meeting.

The meeting was attended by 31 scientists from 10 countries (Albania, Croatia,

France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Montenegro, Romania, Slovenia and Spain. The

participation of colleagues from Romania was important for the common work

toward protocol standardization in Mediterranean and Black Sea.

The first important novelty on the meeting was the new MEDITS protocol. The

Instruction manual version 6 from March 2012 is operative and available to public

(http://www.sibm.it/MEDITS%202011/principaleprogramme.htm). It includes these

main innovations:

• The MEDITS reference list includes, since 2012, 82 species, 32 of which are

Elasmobranches. The list also includes all species of the Epinepheus and

Scomber genera. These species are split in 2 groups: MEDITS G1 which

includes 41 species with 9 demersal (3 fish, 4 crustaceans and 2 cephalopods)

and 32 Selachians, and MEDITS G2 which includes 42 species.

• For all species (G1 & G2) the total number of individuals, the total weight and

the individual length should be collected.


38

• For G1 species also biological parameters including sex, maturity, individual

weight should be collected; for 4 teleosteans of the MEDITS Group 1-

Merluccius merluccius, Mullus barbatus, and M. surmuletus age is required as

well.

In addition,

- a detailed protocol has been agreed for sampling otolith, individual weight

and maturity stage. This protocol tries to harmonize data collection of

biological parameters in the Mediterranean with the protocol of other

demersal routine surveys as EVHOE and IBITS.

- The format of data exchange has been reviewed to take into account the

modifications to the protocol for biological data collection.

- The number of faunistic categories has been expanded and more detailed in

order to take into account the need of information for the aim of the Marine

Directive Strategy.

- A maturity scale for viviparous Elasmobranchs has been adopted according

to the specification of the WKMSEL REPORT 2010 and has been included in

the new MEDITS manual.

- A permanent Working Group has been established for the maintenance and

updating of the MEDITS FM list of species.

- Some changes and improvements were introduced concerning the

standardization of the MEDITS gear as much as possible in all different

phases of the capture process for avoiding the introduction of bias in the

sampling.

The second important novelty on the meeting was the common MEDITS web based

database (FISHTRAWL) which is currently under construction with support from

COISPA. For the data validation the upgraded RoME (currently under upgrading)

will be used in order to account for protocol changes in the format of data exchange.

A reference group for the testing of the whole system was established.

Concerning quality control, during the meeting a multidisciplinary WG was

established with the following tasks:

1) preparing a clear commented and documented checklist for the quality

control of the technical characteristics of the MEDITS gear, in order to avoid the

use of a gear that has not exactly the same characteristics from year to year...;


39

2) preparing a clear and standard procedure, easily to apply in the field also for

non technologists, for the monitoring and collection of the data on the gear

performance, including the monitoring of gear horizontal and vertical opening,

the duration of trawling and the measurement of the distance covered, etc..;

3) evaluate and make available tools that enable, using the same

methodological approach, the estimate of the parameters of the gear

performance which affect the estimates of the swept area, thus influencing the

abundance indices.

Concerning the Harmonization of methodology for estimating Ecosystem Indicators from

fisheries independent research surveys (App. XIII EU Decision 93/2010), a review on the

Indicators was made analysing the following issues:

• Deep insight into the indicator n. 4 as requested by RCMMed&BS, identifying

an estimation procedure to be implemented;

• Analysis of the approaches for the calculation of the Indicators n. 1-3 and

preparation of a common tool for estimation.

• Insights, suggestions and way forward.

As regards the Harmonization of the data on Elasmobranches, the determination of the

maturity stage is one of the most complex and important aspects. The MEDITS and

ICES protocols are comparable. There are few differences between ICCAT and

MEDITS protocol regarding the morphological measurements to be collected:

• in the case of sharks Total Length or Fork Length for MEDITS, only TL for

ICCAT;

• in the case of the batoids species TL or Disk Width for MEDITS, only DW for

ICCAT.

Thus for sharks the two protocols are compatible for batoids (not listed in the

previous table) the collection also of DW can be useful.

To reach an operational standard work on board and in laboratory the group also

suggested to finalize the identification field guides of demersal sharks and batoids

collected during surveys.

The ToRs on the common research activities highlighted good progress in the

common work especially on some projects, in particular those launched since longer

time (e.g. maturity stage, species assemblage, etc..).

Most of the ongoing research projects within MEDITS aim at providing insight into

ecosystem changes trying to disentagle fishing pressure from environmental drivers.

Habitat modelling is also seen as a powerful tool to predict, on the basis of


40

environmental variable available at large scale, the resource distribution and

abundance.

The following ToRs were proposed for the 2013 Medits Coordination Meeting

• Feedback on the use and application of the version 6 of the MEDITS manual;

• Implementation of the common MEDITS Data Base and related issues;

• Extended checks of MEDITS data through the common database and

auxiliary tools as RoME;

• Progress on the estimation using common methodology and tool of the

Indicator 1-4 of the DCF;

• Progress of the multi-disciplinary WG on the evaluation of gear performance

and parameters besides the quality checks of gear characteristics;

• Progress in the common research activities and MEDITS special publication.

The RCM Med&BS 2012, following the outcomes presented, endorsed the proposed

ToRs for the 2013 Medits Coordination Meeting.

8.2 Review of outcomes of MEDIAS Working Group

The Chair of Medias presented the outcomes of the 5th Annual Steering Committee

Meeting of the MEDIAS surveys, which was carried out in Sliema, Malta, 20-22th

March 2012 (MEDIAS 2012).

Participants in the meeting were representatives from all European countries

involved in acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean Sea (i.e. Greece, Italy, Slovenia,

Malta, France and Spain) as well as representatives from the European countries

operating in the Black Sea (i.e. Bulgaria and Romania), Croatia, Morocco and

Tunisia.

The aim of the 5th MEDIAS meeting was:

• To present the results from the MEDIAS acoustic surveys carried out in 2011;

• To coordinate the MEDIAS surveys that were going to be performed in 2012;

• To improve and update the common Protocol for the MEDIAS acoustic

surveys that is incorporated in the DCF framework and reflected in the

MEDIAS Handbook;

• To present the results from the ACOUSMED project “Harmonization of the

past acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean 2002-2006” granted by the

DGMARE;


41

• To carry out a Workshop on “Ecosystem Indicators available from acoustic

surveys”;

• To present a summary of the last ICES Working Group on Small Pelagic

Fishes, their Ecosystems and Climate Impact (WGSPEC), Fuengirola, Spain,

27 February – 02 March 2012;

• To revise the MEDIAS ToR’s from 2012 and to establish the ToR’s for 2013.

MEDIterranean Acoustic Surveys 2011

Mediterranean Acoustic Surveys (MEDIAS) have been performed by EU countries in

following regions: Adriatic Sea; Gulf of Lions; Strait of Sicily; Iberian coast; Black Sea

(Rumania and Bulgaria). In addition the surveys have also been performed in some

non EU countries: Croatia, Tunisia, and Morocco.

Greece has not applied the Data Collection Program since 2009, and it is important to

note the impact of the absence of the Greek coverage in the MEDIAS surveys.

MEDIAS common protocol

A general discussion on the revision of the common MEDIAS protocol and an update

of the MEDIAS handbook was carried out (see Annex IV of the Report of 5th meeting

for MEDIterranean Acoustic Surveys (MEDIAS).

Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries: How much acoustic surveys can contribute?

During the meeting standard and potential ecosystem indicators associated to the

MEDIAS acoustic surveys were proposed, for a strong contribution to ecosystem-

based management.

Terms of Reference for the “MEDIAS 2012”

• To finalize the MEDIAS handbook: updated;

• Development of a Regional Database;


42

• Development of a website;

• Use of data for stock assessment purposes;

• Propose workshop and studies to be evaluated by the RCMMed&BS 2012.

Database for acoustic survey

In the framework of the AcousMed project as well as a MEDIAS workshop, a

common data base design has been concluded for all MEDIAS surveys. The MEDIAS

coordination meeting agreed to use this data base framework to store acoustic and

biological data collected within the acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean Sea.

Regarding Common Database for Acoustics, adopted in the 5th MEDIAS meeting,

the following has been agreed:

1. input information related to export data from acoustic software;

2. input information related to biological sampling and environmental data

sampling;

3. queries-calculations to fulfill DCF requirements;

4. queries-calculations to facilitate abundance/biomass estimates;

5. echosounder calibration report;

6. data input validation and control checks;

7. up to date demands related to surveys and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries.

Studies

“Ex situ” experiment for TS measurement on anchovies (Engraulis encrasicolus) and

sardines (Sardina pilchardus).

The MEDIAS project aims to standardize and harmonize among countries the

acoustic biomass evaluation in the Mediterranean Sea and should give information

for management decisions and provide input to assessment for stocks which are

managed internationally.

One of the most important variability source among different research group

working on acoustic biomass evaluation is the target strength (TS) used for sardine

and anchovy.

An important step towards the progress of the harmonization of the MEDIAS survey

is to carry out a joint TS measurement experiment, by the different Institutes

(Ifremer, France; IEO, Spain; CNR, Italy; HCMR, Greece) in order to test all the

possible hypothesis about the variability of TS estimation and finally to adopt the

same equations.


43

Workshops

During the MEDIAS meeting, the needs of the MEDIAS acoustic surveys were

discussed and the opportunity for the MEDIAS group of sharing knowledge with

other Atlantic acoustic teams (France, Portugal, England…) was considered. The

proposed workshops by the Group are provided in Section 12 of this report.

The following ToRs were proposed for the 2013 MEDIAS Meeting

• To join and harmonize the ongoing acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean Sea

and Black Sea;

• to provide information for management decisions;

• to provide input to assessment for stocks which are managed internationally.

• Update MEDIAS handbook;

• Develop the MEDIAS Website;

• To agree on a code list for the common database;

• To work on common procedures to estimate a coefficient variation for

acoustic estimates;

• To work on procedures to filter echograms to improve acoustic estimates.

Following the presentation, the RCM Med&BS 2012 endorsed the proposed ToRs for

the next MEDIAS Meeting.

During discussion, the EC representative clarified that the proposed calibration

study, which has been proposed also in the past, is considered a priority for

DGMARE for the next year. The Chair of Medias stressed that the Medias group

needs to know in advance when the calibration study will take place, due to

bureaucratic reasons. The Group was informed by the EC representative that in

October the list of studies to be financed in 2013 should be available, and that in the

future, under the EU 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Programme (MAP) for Data Collection

the funding of studies will be easier. The Group was further informed that the new

proposed areas to be covered by the MEDIAS survey will be eligible under the new

DC-MAP.

8.3 Black Sea Bottom Trawl Survey and Pelagic Trawl Survey

The RCM Med&BS was informed on the progress of the Black Sea Bottom Trawl and

Pelagic Trawl surveys, performed by Bulgaria and Romania. Each survey is

performed in the 2nd and 4th quarter (May and October respectively). From 2010 the

two Black Sea MS implement a common protocol. The demersal survey is performed

by a Romanian vessel, while the pelagic survey is performed by a vessel from

Bulgaria. The same hauling stations are used every year and the survey includes the


44

collection of data for the estimation of the ecosystem indicators required by the DCF

Decision.

As it was previously mentioned, during 2012 Black Sea representatives participated

in the two Mediterranean Survey Coordination Meetings, in view of a

standardization of protocols of the surveys in the Mediterranean and Black Sea.

The RCM Med&BS 2012 was informed on the problems that Bulgaria and Romania

face in carrying out the surveys. Specifically, the Bulgarian vessel is not considered

suitable for performing the survey and both vessels used are small, restricting the

number of people that can board for performing the surveys. Considering the

recommendation for the establishment of fishery independent scientific surveys

across all national waters of the Black Sea, a new research vessel is required for the

Black Sea, large enough for collaborating also with 3rd countries in the region. The

absence of a regional project, which would assist the collaboration of the countries in

the area in fisheries data collection and management, is also a major problem.

The representatives of Romania expressed the willingness of the institute NIMRD

Constanta to acquire a new research vessel under the Axis 5 – Technical Assistance of

the EFF under the Operational Programme for Fisheries. Considering that this

institute has a large experience in the field of maritime protection, and that it is

already deeply involved in regional cooperation regarding fisheries data collection,

collaborating with the Bulgarian part in demersal and pelagic surveys, the RCM

Med&BS 2012 invites the Commission to facilitate Romania with the purchase of a

research vessel through the EFF; such purchase would improve the capacity for

assessing fish stocks in the Black Sea.

8.4 Review of RCM Med&BS 2010 proposed list of surveys for new DCF

The Group was informed by the EC representative that at the moment no new

criteria have been established for evaluating the surveys proposed for the new DCF.

Considering this, no progress can be made concerning the proposed list of surveys.

The work of the RCM Med&BS 2012 was restricted to the review of the proposed list

of 8 surveys that was established during the RCM Med&BS 2010, as well as the

evaluation of these surveys by the STECF-SGRN 10-03 Review of needs related to

surveys (Sampson, 2010). These surveys are the following: Bluefin tuna aerial survey

(BFTAS), Pan-Mediterranean Acoustic Survey (MEDIAS), Beam trawl survey in

North Adriatic (ARTS), Bottom trawl survey in Black Sea, Pelagic juvenile survey in

Black Sea, Pelagic trawl survey in Black Sea, International bottom trawl survey in the

Mediterranean (MEDITS), and Trawl survey in the Mediterranean (TSMEDI).

Annex IV provides the proposed surveys by RCM Med&BS 2010 and their

evaluation by STECF-SGRN 10-03.


45

The Chairs of the RCM Med&BS forwarded to the Group the information they

received from the Chair of the ICES Working Group on Beam Trawl Surveys

(WGBEAM), concerning the acceptance of the proposed Beam Trawl Survey- North

Adriatic to be coordinated under the WGBEAM, having met all the criteria to be

coordinated by that WG.

The participants were further invited to provide any additional information

concerning their participation in the proposed list of surveys. Greece informed the

Group that they are reconsidering the possibility in participating at the second

Medits survey (Trawl survey in the Mediterranean -TSMEDI).

9. EU Multiannual programme (MAP) for data collection for 2014-2020

The EC representative made a presentation concerning the new EU Data Collection

Multi-Annual Programme (EU DC-MAP) 2014-2020. The CFP reform proposal

(specifically Articles 37&38) will repeal the existing DCF legislation. Details on data

collection obligations will be laid down in a new EU Multi-Annual Programme,

replacing Regulation 199/2008, while the financial basis for the new EU DC-MAP will

be covered in the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The MS

Operational Programme will include a chapter on data collection and additionally

Annual Work Plans are proposed to be submitted. The objectives of the new EU DC-

MAP are:

• A seven year, i.e. predictable framework for Data Collection for the period

2014-2020

• Improving the flexibility of the legal framework and simplification

• Enhancing financial stability for the MS

• Integration and harmonization with other EU legislation (e.g. avoid overlaps

in the collection of data, use EUROSTAT definitions where possible)

• Improving quality and availability of data for ecosystem based management.

Options concerning important issues such as the kind of data to be collected, a

simplification of rules and better flexibility in the legal framework, integration and

harmonization with other EU legislation, simplification of data formats, better link of

data collection with data needs were also presented.

The Group was informed on the recent meeting between the Commission and the

National Correspondents that took place middle of July and that MS are invited to

provide feedback and comments concerning the new EU MAP.


46

It was agreed that at this moment it is too early to prepare a roadmap for the

development of a regional sampling programme.

Concerning the proposed EU discard ban in the proposal for the reform of the CFP,

RCM Med&BS expressed its concern on the negative impact that it will probably

have on the observer programmes. Fishermen may refuse to accept observers on

board, as they may consider that they observe for control purposes. Furthermore,

with a possible discard ban the need for implementing observer programmes may

need to be re-evaluated, as well as the tasks of the observers.

10. Data Quality issues

The RCM Med&BS discussed on the usefulness of calculating the CVs as a quality

indicator. Considering also that this indicator is not evaluated by the end-users, it

was questioned whether the CVs should be required in the new DC-MAP and

proposed that another quality indicator is included.

*** On the usefulness of CV as a quality indicator

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation RCM Med& BS considers that the

calculation of the CV is a poor indicator for

quality. Considering also that this value is

not being assessed by the end-users, it is

recommended that the future DC-MAP

will not include the CVs as a quality

indicator.



actions

DG MARE, STECF, LM

Time frame (Deadline) Before the new DC-MAP

11. Regional databases

A presentation was made concerning the Med&BS Regional Data Base, specifically

on the progress achieved so far and important issues to be considered for its

development. It was recalled that initially the RCM Med&BS did not consider that a

regional database is a priority issue for the region; however, after requests to the

Group to reconsider its position, during its 2011 meeting the RCM Med&BS

reconsidered its position, recommended PGMed 2012 to propose priorities on

thematic issues, types of data and aggregation levels and proposed the creation of a

Steering Group for proposing a RDB project to the National Correspondents (NCs)


47

and the RCM Med&BS 2012 for advice. PGMed 2012 proposed a roadmap for the

implementation of a RDB, defining the actions required to be taken by the Steering

Committee and setting some deadlines for the actions. However for various reasons

there was no progress on the work of the Steering Committee. Some issues to be

taken into consideration were presented, such as biological assumptions, reluctance

of some MS to upload data in a RDB, implications of different options for hosting the

Med&BS RDB, technical points that should be addressed and of course which would

be the goals of the RDB and the types of data with their aggregation level that would

be included.

During discussion, it was noted that the first step towards the development of the

Med&BS should be to take decisions on confidentiality and access to data. The

Commission representative clarified that the Commission gives the freedom to the

region in deciding where the RDB will be hosted. The Group, having in mind the

positive comment by the GFCM representatives and their willingness to host the

Med&BS RDB, agreed that the best option for the region would be that the RDB is

hosted by GFCM. Concerning the format, the Group intends to check the ICES

format and will try to follow it where possible; this of course does not mean that the

ICES format will be followed a priori, considering also that the end users of the region

are GFCM and ICCAT. The Commission representative mentioned that there will be

no legal instruments forcing MS to participating in RDB; however he stressed the

benefits of establishing a RDB for a region, since it will contribute to the

simplification of the data management system and confidentiality rules will be

established.

The RCM Med&BS agreed that the MED &BS RDB will include biological and

transversal data, while for the time being survey data will be excluded, considering

that a regional database for the surveys is under development. It was further decided

that economic data should be excluded, considering the decision by PGECON to

develop one European Database for including economic and transversal data from

all supra-regions.

The Group also agreed on increasing the members of the relevant Steering

Committee for including 1 person per MS, 1 economist for the transversal data, the

Chairs of Medias and Medits and a GFCM representative.

The updated synthesis of the Steering Committee, as decided by the Group, is the

following: Paolo Carpentieri (Italy), Violin Raykov (Bulgaria), Bojan Marceta

(Slovenia), Roberta Misfud (Malta), Christian Dintheer (France), Charis Charilaou

(Cyprus), George Tserpes (Greece), Marcel Danilescu (Romania), Maria Gonzalez

(Spain), Evelina Sabatella (Italy), the Chairs of MEDIAS and MEDITS and a GFCM

representative.


48

*** On the regional database

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation The Group agreed that the MED&BS RDB

will include biological and transversal

data. It was decided that economic and

survey data will be excluded for the time

being from the RDB, following the decision

by PGECON to develop one European

Database for including economic and

transversal data from all supra-regions.

The Group agreed that the Mediterranean

& Black Sea regional database could be

hosted by GFCM and that the Steering

Committee for the development of the

RDB will include 1 person per MS, 2

economists for the transversal data, the

Chairs of Medias and Medits and a GFCM

representative. It was further agreed that

the RDB steering group will be represented

at the planned GFCM Workshop for the

finalization of GFCM Task 1 and Task 2.



actions

DGMARE, MS, LM, RCM MED&BS,

GFCM


A presentation followed by Isabelle Terrier from the IRD institute, involved in

tropical large pelagic fisheries, concerning a proposal for a Regional Database for

Large Pelagics (RDB LP). As it was mentioned also in previous sections of the report,

due to misunderstanding on which RCM is responsible for the coordination of large

pelagic outside the Mediterranean, the RCM LDF 2012, which preceded the RCM

Med&BS 2012, did not include the coordination of large pelagic outside the

Mediterranean in its ToRs. Therefore, in order the proposal on a RDB LP reaches the

LM 2012, the relevant scientist was invited to present the proposal during the RCM

Med&BS 2012. During the presentation (see Annex V for a complete presentation),

the need for establishing a RDB LP was stressed, as well as the planned phases for its

development, the possible users of the database and of course the actual proposal for

considering the implementation of the RDB LP as an RCM recommendation.

The RCM Med&BS agreed to support the implementation of a Regional Data Base on

Large Pelagics (RDB LP). Since such a proposal should normally be addressed at the


49

RCM LDF, it was considered more appropriate that the proposal is included in the

reports of both the RCM Med&BS and the RCM LDF, and is presented in the LM as a

recommendation of the RCM LDF. However, following the meeting, it was requested

by the RCM Med&BS to present the recommendation at the LM, since the RCM LDF

did not agree to include the proposal as RCM LDF recommendation, as it was neither

presented nor discussed at the meeting; for this, RCM Med&BS agreed to present the

recommendation at the LM.

*** Implementation of a Large Pelagics RDB

RCM 2012 Recommendation The RCM recommends the implementation

of a large pelagics RDB

Follow-up actions needed Organisation of a regional meeting

(included in NP 2013) for discussing the

prototype prepared by IRD and drafting a

multiannual plan 2014-2020


actions

IRD, DG MARE, LM, RCMs, RDB-SC

Time frame (Deadline) July 2013

12. Studies, workshops and pilot projects

12.1 Studies

- Studies suggested by MEDIAS 2012

The RCM Med&BS 2012 proposes the 2 following studies, suggested by MEDIAS

2012:

1. Inter-calibration exercise by the MEDIAS research vessels and to investigate

the possibility to include in this study Croatian research vessel as well, that

probably in near future will be a vessel involved in the MEDIAS.

Objectives: The MEDIAS project aims to join and harmonize the five ongoing acoustic

surveys in the Mediterranean Sea and should give information for management

decisions and provide input to assessment for stocks which are managed

internationally.

The MEDIAS survey is a multi-vessel survey that target mainly sardine (Sardina

pilchardus) and anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) Mediterranean stocks and each

research vessel covers most part of the distribution area of sardine and anchovy. In


50

order to obtain comparable results and be able to produce one single estimate of

target species abundance it is necessary to inspect and calibrate any possible

differences in the respective research vessels measurement capabilities.


is to carry out an inter-calibration between the research vessels used by the different

Institutes (Ifremer, France; IEO, Spain; CNR, Italy; HCMR, Greece) in order to test

the overall performance of the acoustic and hauling equipment of the vessels in the

field. It could be considerate the possibility to include in this study a Croatian

research vessel as well, that probably in near future will be a vessel involved in the

MEDIAS acoustic surveys.

These inter-ship comparisons is necessary to be done in a suitable area with known

small pelagic fish aggregation characteristics, having substantial quantities of fish in

layers and dispersed aggregations of varying density. Results of each research vessel

will be analyzed, compared and evaluated for the selected area in terms of echo-

integration of the water column (fish density) and/or concerning the bottom echo-

integration.

Duration: 20 months.

Cost: 500.000,00 Euros.

2. Standardization of the target strength vs. length equations for sardine and

anchovy in the Mediterranean sea by the MEDIAS

The MEDIAS project aims are to standardize and harmonize among countries the

acoustic biomass evaluation in the Mediterranean Sea and should give information

for management decisions and provide input to assessment for stocks which are

managed internationally.

One of the most important variability source among different research group

working on acoustic biomass evaluation target strenght vs length relationship for

sardine and anchovy

The MEDIAS survey target mainly sardine (Sardina pilchardus) and anchovy

(Engraulis encrasicolus) Mediterranean stocks covers most part of the distribution area

of sardine and anchovy. In order to obtain comparable results and be able to produce

one single estimate of target species abundance it is necessary to use the same target

streght vs. length equation for each species. Unfortunately not enough data are

present in literature to select the best value for all surveyed areas, and every group

use its preferred equation based on literature or in situ measurement (or both).


51


is to carry out a joint TS measurement experiment, by the different Institutes

(Ifremer, France; IEO, Spain; CNR, Italy; HCMR, Greece) in order to test all the

possible hypothesis about the variability of TS estimation and to finally adopt the

same equations.

Duration: 18 months.

Cost: 250000 €

- Studies suggested by PGMed 2012

The RCM Med&BS 2012 agrees on the proposal of the two following studies, agreed

by PGCCDBS and of potential interest for PGMed. Details on these studies are

provided in the PGCCDBS 2012 report.

- A collaborative study on anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) Priority 1.

- A collaborative study contract on ‘Support design based regional data

collection programmes‛.

12.2 Workshops

- Workshop on large pelagic

As already mentioned, and considered as a key recommendation, RCM Med&BS

reiterates the 2011 recommendation by RCM Med&BS and RCM LDF on a joined

workshop among ICCAT representatives, scientists involved in large pelagic

sampling, as well as representatives from RCM LDF and RCM MED&BS for

harmonising the biological sampling issues on large pelagic and specifying

additional data or modifications that should be included in the future DC-MAP,

taking into account the ICCAT requirements for stock assessment.

- Workshops suggested by PGMed 2012

The Chair of PGMed presented the list of proposed workshops agreed by PGCCDBS

and of potential interest for PGMed; the details of these workshops are provided in

the PGCCDBS 2012 report. The RCM Med&BS 2012 agrees on the proposed

workshops, which are the following:

1. WKARBLUE, Workshop on age reading of Blue whiting, Chaired by M.

Meixide, Spain and J. Amtoft Godiksen, Norway will meet in Bergen,

Norway, from 10–14 June 2013.


52

2. WKMIAS, Workshop on Micro increment daily growth in European

Anchovy and Sardine, will meet in Mazara del Vallo, Sicily from 21–25

October 2013. Appointed chairs , G. Basilone, Italy, B. Villamor, Spain and M.

La Mesa, Italy.

3. WKPICS3, Workshop on the Practical Implementation of Statically Sound

Catch Sampling Programmes, Chaired by Jon Helge Vølstad, Norway and

Mike Armstrong, UK, will meet at ICES in Copenhagen in November 2013.

4. WKNARC2, The Workshop of National Age Readings Coordinators,

Chaired by Ângela Canha, Portugal, and Lotte Worsøe Clausen, Denmark,

will meet in Horta (Portugal), 13–17 May 2013.

5. WKAVSG, Workshop on Age Validation Studies for Gadoids, Appointed

chair Karin Hussi,Denmark, and Beatriz Morales-Nin, Spain, will meet in

IMEDEA, Mallorca and the 22–26 April 2013.

6. WKSABCAL, Workshop on the Statistical Analysis of Biological Calibration

Studies has been postponed until 2014; the ToRs for this WK are available in

the PGCCDBS 2011 report.

- Workshops suggested by MEDIAS 2012

The RCM Med&BS 2012 proposes the two following workshops, suggested by

MEDIAS 2012:

1. Joint Workshop with the WGACEGG acoustic scientists, next November in

Fuengirola, Spain, for two days duration, working on 3 different subjects:

- ecosystem indicators from acoustic surveys (half a day).

- the use of R scripts developed for the estimation of spatial indicators

using acoustic surveys data: A practical session and potential application

for metadata analysis (Half a day).

- the use of R scripts developed for acoustic estimation by Ifremer (M.

Doray): a practical session (One day)

2. Workshop in the next MEDIAS meeting (2013) dealing with the use of

Echoview (Myriax, LTD) software tools, considering the participation of

some expert from Myriax. This would require extra funding.

Specifically: 2 days workshop, 10-15 people: AUD $14,000 for up to 15

attendees. (requested budget from Myriax)


53

13. AOB

13.1 Chairmanship

The RCM Med&BS proposed Constantin Stroie (Romania) as the new chair of the

Group for the period 2013-2014.

The RCM Med&BS further agreed to set up a long-term schedule on the future

chairmanships. This will assist both the Group for avoiding the procedure finding

Chair candidates every two years, and also the future Chairs who will know in

advance when they will chair the RCM.

The agreed schedule covers the period 2013-2023 and is the following:

Romania (2013-2014), Greece (2015-2016), Slovenia (2017-2018), Bulgaria

(2019-2020) and Malta (2021-2023).

13.2 Venue & dates of next RCM Med&BS

Following the kind invitation of the Romanian colleagues to host the next RCM

Med&BS meeting in Romania (Constanta), the RCM Med&BS agreed with the

proposal. The dates of the next meeting will be defined in early May.


54

14. Summary of 2012 RCM Med&BS recommendations

In accordance with the 2011 LM recommendation to RCMs on selecting the key

recommendations to be addressed in the future LMs, the key recommendations of

the Group are indicated with the sign “***”.

*** On the role of RCM

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation Considering the increased regional tasks

and power of the RCMs under the EU

MAP for data collection for 2014-2020,

RCM Med& BS recommends that the

current structure of the RCMs ( i.e. the

inclusion of national correspondents,

economists and biologists) remains the

same. The Group further recommends that

PGMed continues functioning under the

umbrella of the RCM Med& BS.



actions

DGMARE, LM, RCM Med&BS


*** Feedback from data end users: Time period for provision of data

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation RCM Med& BS, recalling its 2011

recommendation and also the STECF EWG

11-20 recommendation on a harmonized

time period required for data to be

available for transmission to end-users,

recommends that the time period of 6

months following the end of the collection

of transversal and biological data is

respected by the data calls and the end

users. In case this time period of 6 months

continues not being respected by the data

calls, the Group stresses the importance

that the National Correspondents follow a

common approach requesting the respect

of this time period and NOT submit the

data.



55


actions

JRC, DG MARE, LM, MS, RCM Med& BS,

National Correspondents.


*** Review feedback from end-users: On the eligibility of GFCM meetings under DCF

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation The RCM Med& BS recommends GFCM to

submit to the Group a list of its planned

2013 meetings, for identifying the meetings

relevant to DCF and proposing their

inclusion in the list of eligible meetings

under the DCF for 2013. The Group was

informed on the planned GFCM workshop

that will be organized early 2013 for

finalizing the structure and definitions of

Task 1 & 2. The RCM Med&BS

recommends that this workshop will be

eligible under the DCF. MS are strongly

recommended to participate in this

workshop.



actions

GFCM, RCM Med&BS, LM, DGMARE

Time frame (Deadline) Before the 2012 LM

Metier-related variables: on the accuracy of geographical origin of landings and

effort data

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation The RCM Med&BS recalls its 2008

recommendation and recommends MS to

investigate the accuracy of the

geographical origin of landings and effort

data (using the VMS data where possible).

This information should be reviewed

during the next RCM Med & BS.



actions

MS, RCM Med& BS

Time frame (Deadline) Before next RCM Med& BS


56

***Metier related variables – on the planned minimum number of fish to be

measured

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation RCM Med&BS recommends that in the

future NPs the planned minimum no. of

fish to be measured for métier related

variables will not be required. Since the

métier related variables are required to be

collected during concurrent sampling, the

Group considers that only the proposed

and actual number of trips for concurrent

sampling should be requested.



actions

DG MARE, STECF, LM


Métier related variables: East Atlantic Bluefin tuna

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation Concerning the east bluefin tuna stock

(Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean sea),

the RCM Med&BS appreciates the progress

achieved with the provision of metier-

related data (length) from MS participating

in RCM LDF (Portugal, France, Spain) to

the PGMed chair. However, the Group

recommends that the data are provided

according to the required data format, in

order to be actually utilized for a complete

estimation of the relevant CV of the bluefin

tuna.

Follow-up actions needed Transmission of data to PGMed chair


actions

MS (France, Spain and Portugal), RCM

LDF chair, PGMed chair

Time frame (Deadline) Before the 2013 PGMed meeting

*** Workshop on large pelagic

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation RCM Med&BS reiterates the 2011

recommendation by RCM Med&BS and

RCM LDF on a joined workshop among

ICCAT representatives, scientists involved


57

in large pelagic sampling, as well as

representatives from RCM LDF and RCM

MED&BS for harmonising the biological

sampling issues on large pelagic and

specifying additional data or modifications

that should be included in the future DC-

MAP, taking into account the ICCAT

requirements for stock assessment.



actions

DG MARE; Liaison meeting; STECF; RCM

LDF; RCM MED&BS; ICCAT; MS


Stock related variables: Development of ICCAT reporting forms for submitting data

on large pelagic

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation RCM Med&BS endorses the

recommendation made by PGMed on the

development of reporting forms by ICCAT

Secretariat for submitting information on

individual stock-related variables – length,

weight, sex, maturity and age estimation

for the large pelagic, and awaits DG MARE

to contact and collaborate with ICCAT on

the development of the forms.



actions

DG MARE; ICCAT


*** On the usefulness of CV as a quality indicator

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation RCM Med& BS considers that the

calculation of the CV is a poor indicator for

quality. Considering also that this value is

not being assessed by the end-users, it is

recommended that the future DC-MAP

will not include the CVs as a quality

indicator.


Responsible persons for follow-up DG MARE, STECF, LM


58

actions

Time frame (Deadline) Before the new DC-MAP

*** On the regional database

RCM Med&BS 2012 Recommendation The Group agreed that the MED&BS RDB

will include biological and transversal

data. It was decided that economic and

survey data will be excluded for the time

being from the RDB, following the decision

by PGECON to develop one European

Database for including economic and

transversal data from all supra-regions.

The Group agreed that the Mediterranean

& Black Sea regional database could be

hosted by GFCM and that the Steering

Committee for the development of the

RDB will include 1 person per MS, 2

economists for the transversal data, the

Chairs of Medias and Medits and a GFCM

representative. It was further agreed that

the RDB steering group will be represented

at the planned GFCM Workshop for the

finalization of GFCM Task 1 and Task 2.



actions

DGMARE, MS, LM, RCM MED&BS,

GFCM


*** Implementation of a Large Pelagics RDB

RCM 2012 Recommendation The RCM recommends the implementation

of a large pelagics RDB

Follow-up actions needed Organisation of a regional meeting

(included in NP 2013) for discussing the

prototype prepared by IRD and drafting a

multiannual plan 2014-2020


actions

IRD, DG MARE, LM, RCMs, RDB-SC

Time frame (Deadline) July 2013


59

15. References

Abella, A., Rätz, H-J., Charef, A. 2011. STECF EWG 11-05 Expert Working Group on Assessment Mediterranean Sea stocks – part 1. Ponza, Italy, 23-27 May 2011, 249pp. Cardinale, M., Rätz, H-J., Charef, A. 2011. STECF EWG 11-12 Expert Working Group on Assessment of Mediterranean Sea stocks – part 2. Larnaka, Cyprus, 26-30 September 2011, 608pp. Cardinale, M., Rätz, H-J., Charef, A. 2012. STECF EWG 11-20 Expert Working Group on Assessment of Mediterranean Sea stocks – part 3. Madrid, Spain, 16-20 January 2012, 404 pp. Daskalov, G., and Rätz, H-J. 2011. STECF EWG 11-16 Expert Working Group on Assessment of Black Sea Stocks. Sofia, Bulgaria, 10-14 October 2011, 213 pp. EC 2008a. Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community Framework for the collection, management and use of data in fisheries sector for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy

– OJ L60, 5.3.2008, p.1-12. EC 2008b. Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008 of 14 July 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy – OJL 186, 15.7.2008, p.3-5. EC 2008c. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States for the collection and management of the basic fisheries data - OJ L 295, 4.11.2008, p. 24–33. EU 2010. Commission Decision 2010/93/EU of 18 December 2009 adopting a multiannual Community programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013– OJ L41, 16.2.2010, p.8-71. GFCM 2012a. Report of the 12th Session of the Sub-Committee on Statistics and Information (SCSI). FAO HQs, Rome, Italy, 23-26 January 2012, 20pp. GFCM 2012b. Report of the 13th Session of the Sub-Committee on Stock Assessment (SCSA). FAO HQs, Rome, Italy, 23-26 January 2012, 44pp. GFCM 2012c. Report of the thirty-sixth session. Marrakech, Morocco, 14–19 May 2012. GFCM Report. No. 36. Rome, FAO. 2012. 71 pp.


60

Liaison Meeting, 2011. Report of the 8th Liaison Meeting between the Chairs of the RCMs, the chair of ICES PGCCDBS, the chair of PGMED, the ICES representative, the Chairs of STECF DCF EWG’s and the European Commission. Brussels, Belgium, 4-5 October 2011, 117 pp. MEDIAS 2012. Report of 5th meeting for MEDIterranean Acoustic Surveys (MEDIAS) in the framework of European Data Collection Framework. Sliema, Malta, 20-22 March 2012. MEDITS 2012a. MEDITS-Handbook. Revision n.6, April 2012, MEDITS Working group. 92pp. MEDITS 2012b. Report of the MEDITS Coordination Meeting (Mediterranean International Trawl Survey. Ljubljana, Slovenia, 6-8 March 2012, 79pp. PGMed 2010. Report of the 4th Meeting of the Mediterranean Planning Group for Methodological Development (PGMed). Lisbon, 1-6 March 2010, 35 pp. PGMed 2012. Report of the 6th Meeting of the Mediterranean Planning Group for Methodological Development (PGMed). Rome, 30 January -5 February 2012, 79 pp. RCM LDF, 2012. Report of the Third Regional Co-ordination Meeting for Long Distance Fisheries (RCM LDF). Madrid, Spain, 9-13 July 2012, 45 pp. RCM Med&BS, 2009. Report of the 6th Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCM Med&BS). Venice, Italy, 13-16 October 2009, 162pp. RCMMed&BS, 2010. Report of the 7th Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCMMed&BS). Varna, 17-21 May, 2010, 96 pp. RCMMed&BS, 2011. Report of the 8th Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the Mediterranean and Black Sea (RCMMed&BS). Ljubljana, Slovenia, 10-13 May 2011, 79pp. Sabatella, E. and Virtanen, J. 2011. STECF – EWG 11-18 on Review of Economic Data collected in relation to the DCF and Harmonisation of Sampling Strategies. Salerno, Italy, 17-21 October 2011. Sampson, D. B. 2010. STECF-SGRN 10-03 Review of needs related to surveys. Brussels, Belgium, 4-8 October 2010, 70pp.


61

Annexes


62

Annex I – List of participants

Name Country Institution Role email

Stoyan Urumov Bulgaria NAFA DCF National Correspondent [email protected]

Violin Raikov Bulgaria Institute of Oceanology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciencesassistant [email protected]

Herwig Ranner Commission DG MARE European Commission [email protected] part time

Myrto Ioannou Cyprus Department of Fisheries and Marine ResearchCo-chair of RCM Med&BS, DCF National

[email protected]

Charis Charilaou Cyprus Department of Fisheries and Marine Research Co-chair of RCM Med&BS, biologist [email protected]

Christian Dintheer France Ifremer Scientist [email protected]

Valérie Dehaudt France Directorate for fisheries DCF National Correspondent [email protected]

Isabelle Terrier France Ifremer Biologist [email protected] part time

Miguel Bernal GFCM GFCM representative [email protected] part time

Federico De Rossi GFCM GFCM representative [email protected] part time

Argyris Kallianiotis Greece Fisheries Research Institute Biologist [email protected]

Manos Koutrakis Greece Fisheries Research Institute Biologist [email protected]

Paolo Carpentieri Italy MIPAAF Biologist [email protected]

Clayton Buttigieg Malta Fisheries Control Directorate - AFRD [email protected]

Pedro Lino Portugal INRB-IPIMAR Biologist [email protected]

Constantin Stroie Romania NAFA Romania DCF National Correspondent [email protected]

Gheorghe Radu Romania NIMRD Constanta Biologist [email protected]

Victoria Ciupitu Romania IRDEAFA Galati Economist [email protected]

Jernej Švab Slovenia Ministry of Agriculture and Environment DCF National Correspondent [email protected]

Bojan Marčeta Slovenia Fisheries Research Institute Biologist [email protected]

Edo Avdič Slovenia Fisheries Research Institute Economist [email protected]

Maria Gonzalez Spain Spanish Institute of Oceanography Biologist [email protected]

Beatriz Guijarro Spain Spanish Institute of Oceanography Chair of PGMed - Biologist [email protected]

Magdalena Iglesias Spain Spanish Institute of Oceanography Chair of MEDIAS [email protected] part time

Pablo Abaunza Spain Spanish Institute of Oceanography Biologist [email protected] part time

Rosaura del Val Spain Secretary of Fisheries vice-DCF National Correspondent part time


63

Annex II – Terms of Reference for the 2012 RCM Med&BS (v2)

1. Review progress in regional co-ordination since the 2011 RCM (follow-up of recommendations) and 8th Liaison Meeting report. Evaluate the outcomes of the RCMs that took place in 2011 & of any other RCMs that took place in 2012, pending availability of outcomes, in terms of complementarities and actions to be carried out by MS in the RCM region of competence.

2. Review feedback and recommendations from data end users (STECF EWGs, ICES asessement WGs and benchmark meetings, GFCM Subcommittees and relevant WGs, and ICCAT assessment WGs) and PGCCDBS.

3. Harmonise and coordinate the regional aspects in the NP proposals 2013 following the DCF framework, with particular emphasis on the following:

a) Metier-related variables

• Ranking system following regional harmonisation of the metiers at level 6, update of the 2011 regional view on fishing activities; creation of a regional ranking system to assess the Member States obligations and demands for derogation.

• Landings - sampling agreement for landings abroad; discussion/agreement on concurrent sampling; agreement on merging of metiers for sampling; sampling intensities and data quality.

• Discards - creation of a regional view of the discard sampling programmes, identification of gaps and discrepancies for optimising the spatial, time and metiers coverage. Complete the list of métiers important to sample and provide justification for not sampling certain metiers for discards.

• Recreational fisheries - review of the actions proposed in the NP proposals, identify whether there is scope for regionally co-ordinated actions.

• Vessels without logbooks – analyse and where possible propose a way forward to allocate data to metiers for vessels without logbooks.

b) 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.

• Coordinate biological sampling for stocks where the sum of MS having a share of quotas/landings less than 10%, altogether exceeds 25% (exemption rule III.B2.5.1.(b) in Decision 2010/93/EU).

c) Transversal variables

• Common understanding of effort definitions in relation to data collection methodologies.

4. Propose actions and where possible conclude regional agreements on the collection of data outlined under ToR 3.


64

5. Data Quality issues

• Review progress on quality control, validation etc. in NP proposals.

6. Regional databases: update since RCMs 2011. Identify needs of the RCMs that could be addressed by the RDB SC and suggest any new features/reports to be developed.

7. EU Multiannual programme (MAP) for data collection for 2014-2020

• Provide feedback on the draft EU MAP2014-2020

• Prepare a roadmap for the development of a regional sampling programme

• Discuss the potential impacts of an EU-wide discard ban on observer programmes

8. Review current DCF surveys in the region (MEDITS, MEDIAS, Black Sea Bottom Trawl Survey and Pelagic Trawl Survey) and potential new surveys that in the future could be included in the DCF list of surveys (review RCM Med&BS 2010 proposed list of surveys).

9. Studies, workshops and pilot projects

10. Coordination on economic variables (Role and outcomes of 1st meeting of PGECON (2012), Review of STECF-EWG 11-18 and 2012 Economists workshop)

11. Cooperation with third countries in the region. Presentation of current data collection programmes, discussion for cooperation.

12. Black Sea sub-group: Preparation of data on sprat, whiting and dogfish for the STECF EWG 12-16 BS meeting

13. Any other business


65

Annex III – Terms of Reference for PGMed 2013

ToR 1) Ranking system for the whole Mediterranean and for the Black Sea

ToR 2) Reviewing and update of the landing template for the Mediterranean and for

the Black Sea

ToR 3) For the metier which are exploring a shared stock and selected by the ranking

system, the number of sampling trips by metier at the GSA level can be determined.

ToR 4) Assess the CV for shared stocks both for the Mediterranean (GSA 7, GAS 15-

16, GSA 17) and Black Sea.

ToR 5) To analyse the extension of the problem concerning the fishing performed in a

different GSA than their original one

ToR 6) Update the work conducted in the PGMed 2012 for large pelagic species on

sampling of length and stock related variables by using 2011 data

ToR 7) Assess the CV of large pelagic for length

ToR 8) Progress in the Mediterranean & Black Sea Regional Data Base

ToR 9) Discards. Comparison at regional level

ToR 10) Proposal of workshops and studies

ToR 11) AOB


66

Annex IV – Surveys proposed by RCM Med&BS 2010 for new DCMAP and their evaluation by STECF-SGRN 10-03.

Name of the survey Acronym Area Period Current DCF Priority score

Bluefin tuna aerial survey BFTASGSA 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16,

18, 19 Summer (qtrs 2 &3) No 1.40

Pan-Mediterranean Acoustic Survey MEDIASGSA 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15,

16, 17, 18, 20, 22 Spring-summer (qtrs 2-3) Yes 1.10

Beam trawl survey - North Adriatic ARTS GSA 17 Winter (qtr 4) No 1.05

Bottom trawl survey in Black Sea GSA 29 Spring - autumn (qtrs 2,3,4) Yes 1.10

Pelagic juvenile survey in Black Sea GSA 29 Autumn (qtrs 3 &4) No 1.55

Pelagic trawl survey in Black Sea GSA 29 Spring-autumn (qtrs 2,3,4) Yes 1.20

International bottom trawl survey in the

Mediterranean MEDITS

GSA 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18,

19, 20, 22, 23, 25 Spring-summer (qtrs 2-3) Yes 1.15

Trawl survey in the Mediterranean TSMEDIGSA 9, 10, 11, 15, 16,

17, 18, 19, 25 Autumn-winter (qtr 4) No 1.15

Annex V – Proposal for a Regional Database for Large Pelagics (RDB LP)


67

Proposal for a Regional Database for Large Pelagics (RDB LP)


Proposal for a Regional Database for Large Pelagics (RDB LP)


68



69



70



71



72


Date post:	03-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Report of the 9th Regional Coordination Meeting...RCM Med&BS Report 2012 3 1. Introduction The 9th...

Documents