EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 18.6.2015 SWD(2015) 118 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Towards a new Union Framework for collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy Accompanying the document Proposal for a

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment of a Union framework for the collection, management and the use of data in the fisheries sector and support for the scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy

(recast)

{COM(2015) 294 final}



COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Towards a new Union Framework for collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy Accompanying the document Proposal for a

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment of a Union framework for the collection, management and the use of data in the fisheries sector and support for the scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy

(recast)





Contents 0. List of acronyms 1.INTRODUCTION 1.1.Background 1.2.What data do Member States collect, and what for? 1.3.How do Member States collect data? 1.4.Who has access to data? 2.PREPARATORY WORK AND CONSULTATIONS FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE DCF 2.1.Consultation of interested parties 2.2.Studies 2.2.1.Impact Assessment (IA) carried out in the framework of the CFP reform 2.2.2.Interim evaluation on Council Regulation 861/2006 2.2.3.Ex-post evaluation of the Data Collection Framework 2.2.4.Assessment of implementation of the DCF through field visits in Member States 2.2.5.STECF evaluations of Member States' Annual Reports 2.2.6.Interim evaluation of the European Marine Observation and Data Network 2.2.7.Feasibility study on data storage and transmission 3.STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 4.THE BROADER CONTEXT

5.PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION 5.1.The future data collection process 5.1.1.End-user oriented data collection 5.1.2.Strengthening regional and EU coordination 5.2.The scope of the future DCF – what data should Member States collect and how to avoid overlaps 5.2.1.Data on marine biological resources 5.2.2.Data on fishing activity 5.2.3.Data on the aquaculture and processing sectors 5.3.How data should be collected 5.4.Ensuring adequate quality of the data 5.5.Improving availability of data 5.6.Data collection in external waters 5.7.Programming and reporting 6.LEGAL ARCHITECTURE 7.ANNEXES 1. The revised DCF Regulation 2. The EU Multiannual Programme 3. Operational Programmes 4. National work plans 5. Regional work plans

0. List of acronyms CCTV Closed-circuit television CECAF Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic Fisheries CFP Common Fisheries Policy DCF Data Collection Framework DCR Data Collection Regulation EFARO European Fisheries and Aquaculture Research Organisations EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund EUCG European Union Coordination Group EU MAP European Union Multiannual Programme ICES International Council for Exploration of the Sea GFCM General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean JRC Joint Research Centre of the European Commission MEDIAS Mediterranean Acoustic Survey MEDITS International Bottom Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive NP National Programme

RCG Regional Coordination Group RCM Regional Coordination Meeting RFB Regional Fisheries Body RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organization SFPA Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement STECF Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries WECAFC Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission



1.INTRODUCTION This document accompanies the COM(2015)294final proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment of a Union framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (recast) explaining the rationale behind the modifications and simplification and the technical details necessary to understand those modifications. This document describes the current data collection system and informs about the need to maintain most of the elements of the current legislation and the need, however, to amend and improve some aspects of it in line with the wish of the co-legislators and the recommendations from the consultations and evaluations. It describes the preparatory work consisting of the publication of a roadmap discussing several legislative options, further consultations and explains the options choices for improvement and simplification of the system, including the modification of the legal setup. 1.1.Background Data collection is part of the core functioning of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Reliable and complete data are central to well-functioning fisheries management as they provide the basic information for scientific advice and for the monitoring of the European fisheries sector. For this reason, an EU framework for the collection and management of fisheries data was established in 2000 (referred to as the data Collection Regulation, DCR) , and then reformed in 2008 resulting in the Data Collection Framework (DCF). The DCF establishes a harmonized set of EU rules governing the collection of biological, environmental, technical, and socio-economic data on the fishing sector, the aquaculture and processing sector striving for better availability of data to the scientists resulting in improved advice to data users including the Commission. The DCR and subsequent DCF did not necessarily imply an increase in the number of the data previously collected by Member States. What it did was to provide the general framework and the quality controls necessary to ensure the homogeneity of the data sets and a common collection system.

The legal set-up for the DCF can be summarised as follows ( Figure 1 ). Financial (up to 31.12.2013) Scientific The DCF consists of the following legal instruments: Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 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 framework for fisheries 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 Commission Decision 2010/93/EU of 18 December 2009 adopting a multiannual Community programme (EU MAP) for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013 (C(2009) 10121). The application of this decision has been extended by Commission Implementing Decision of 13.8.2013 to the period 2014-2016 (C(2013)5243). Beyond this legal framework, the main tools to implement the DCF are: Programming: Member States multi-annual programmes (referred to as National Programmes, or NPs). These are set for three years (currently 2014-2016) and contain the Member States' obligations to collect and provide data relevant to their region/fisheries/sectors pursuant to the EU Multiannual Programme. NPs are analysed by the EU's Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) and are adopted by the Commission. NPs can be modified if requested by a Member State and after evaluation of the proposed changes by the STECF. Monitoring: Member States are required to submit Annual Reports on the implementation of their NPs. These present an overview of the data that were collected in a given year (number of samples taken, quality of data collected, percentage of sector surveyed etc). The Commission assesses the implementation of National Programmes on the basis of 1) the STECF's evaluation of the Annual Reports and 2) a consultation of appropriate Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) and international scientific bodies such as ICES regarding the DCF data they received from Member States. Financial support: until end of 2013, Member States' data collection activities under their DCF National Programmes were eligible for 50% EU co-financing (Regulation (EC) No 861/2006). As of 2014, such activities are eligible for EU co-financed under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), which is the financial pillar of the new CFP. The DCF is applied in the 23 coastal Member States but not in land-locked Member States. 1.2.What data do Member States collect, and what for? The EU MAP further details the requirements of the DCF for Member States to collect data. The EU MAP essentially contains data collection requirements relating to the following: the categories of data covered by the EU MAP (i.e. species and variables, such as age, length, weight etc), the sectors they cover and the methods to be used to collect these data (see Table 1 ). The EU MAP contains not only lists of data that should be collected, but also detailed provisions on the methodology to be followed to collect them, the precision levels that should be achieved and the frequency with which the data should be collected.

DCF Fishing sector Aquaculture & Processing Industry Marine Ecosystem Socio-economic data Biological data Fishing activity data Research surveys at sea Aquaculture: Socio-economic Processing: Socio-economic Metier-related Stock-related Appendices of EU MAP II , III , VI , VIII I , II , IV , VII VII V , VIII IX X , XI XII II , XIII Variables (examples)

Enterprises Employment Income Expenditure Capital value Fuel costs Repair & maintenance Investments Subsidies Discards Effort Growth Landings Maturity Sex ratio Capacity Effort Landings Several at-sea research surveys (demersal and pelagic) Income Personal costs Energy costs Raw Material costs Other Operational costs Capital costs Extraordinary costs Capital Value Net Investment Debt Employment Enterprises Member States must collect and make these data available to data users to support scientific analysis for the following purposes: (a) as a basis for advice to fisheries management, including to Regional Advisory Councils; (b) in the interest of public debate and stakeholder participation in policy development; (c) for scientific publication. Concretely, DCF data serve a range of purposes, aiming to enable the assessment of: a) the state of exploited marine biological resources i.e. fish and certain invertebrates. This is done through scientific assessment of the state of these stocks and the impact of fisheries on them; b) the impact of fishing activities on other parts of the marine eco-systems (beyond the fish and invertebrates targeted by fisheries); c) the socio-economic performance of the fisheries, aquaculture and processing sectors and the social and economic impacts of policy measures. The way in which DCF data are used is described in Textbox 1 . Textbox 1 – How are DCF data used 1. For the assessment of the socio-economic situation of fisheries: the data collected under the DCF are used to: Carry out impact assessments of fisheries policy measures (e.g. on the CFP reform, on deep sea stocks, cost-benefit assessment of EU Fisheries Partnership Agreements, etc…) and analysis of conservation measures (evaluation of all management plans, bio-economic modelling to assess fisheries policy options, negotiations on Atlantic mackerel with non-EU countries, etc..). Fulfil the international obligations of the EU: DCF socio-economic data are used by other international institutions dealing with fisheries policies e.g. the FAO or the OECD. Prepare and monitor the impact of EU funding programmes: in the preparation of the EMFF operational programmes, DCF data are used to support the analysis of structural policies in fleets, aquaculture and fish processing sectors (i.e. common indicators in the EMFF, evaluation of EU-funded programmes in fisheries, etc) Calculate overcapacity indicators that are necessary for Member States and the Commission to conduct an analysis of the balance of EU fleets as required by the CFP Regulation. Provide the basic input in fisheries research projects: socio-economic DCF is the main source in research (FP 7 projects) and recent scientific literature dealing with management of EU fisheries. Prepare and monitor EU policy planning and programming: DCF data are the basis for the indicators and results in the Commission (DG MARE) annual management plans. Monitoring of the EU fisheries policy by stakeholders: many studies on fisheries policy by the European Parliament, NGOs, academics, etc and general public publications are based on DCF data. 2. For the purpose of scientific advice on exploited fisheries: The process of scientific advice provision in fisheries is organized in three consecutive steps: 1.Data collection by Member States (for example quantity of hake caught in a given area, as well as biological characteristics such as weight, ages etc.) 2.Transmission of raw or processed data to data users (i.e. scientists) 3.Scientific advice to Commission; the Commission relies on different scientific bodies to provide it with scientific advice, such as the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the scientific committees of RFMOs. Decisions on fisheries management are then based on such scientific advice (for example setting annual total allowable catches (TACs) at EU level and corresponding national quotas), as illustrated below: 3. For the assessment of fisheries impacts on other parts of the ecosystem: this is rarely done currently in part because of the difficulty of accessing data for this purpose. 1.3.How do Member States collect data? In each Member State, DCF data are collected from various sources and the different categories of data covered by the DCF are collected in different ways. Biological data on fish stocks are collected by Member States' scientific institutes through both fisheries dependent and independent surveys. More specifically: Fisheries dependent data are obtained through sampling of catches that are either sampled at sea through scientific observers on commercial vessels, or by scientists in harbours when the fish are landed. Scientists collect data on things like numbers, length, total weight, sex, fecundity of a part of the fish caught by the fishermen on board. Such surveys are based on representative sampling i.e. not all fishing trips are covered and not all landed products are sampled. Fisheries independent data are obtained through research surveys at sea that are carried out by a team of scientists and technicians on board a dedicated research vessel, carrying out standardized sampling (they can decide where to take the boat and where to carry out hauls). Scientists collect similar data to those collected in fisheries-dependent surveys, but research surveys at sea allow for greater control of the experimental design and provides data used to complement the fisheries-dependent data in stock assessments. Data on fishing activity (capacity, effort, catches and landings) are collected by Member States' competent authorities using primarily the tools established under the Control Regulation (see Table 6 for further details on relevant EU legislation for such data). They are referred to as "transversal data" under the DCF and come from VMS, logbooks, landings authorizations and sales notes. These data are provided to and used by scientific institutes as they are an integral part (together with biological data collected under the DCF) of the estimates that constitute stock assessments as well as being essential for science based management measures and evaluation of management objectives. For example, capacity, effort and landings data are necessary to calculate the catch per unit effort, to enable scientists to identify the top métiers to sample for biological data, as well as to disaggregate the fleet economic data so they can be combined with biological data. Social and economic data concern not only fisheries but also aquaculture and processing industries. They are collected by Member States' scientific or statistical institutes, or national governmental departments, either through questionnaires and/or phone interviews, and also by using data from company accounts (e.g. on employees, profits etc) that can be obtained via the national statistical office.

1.4.Who has access to data? The DCF Regulation distinguishes between several categories of data: ‘primary data’ means data associated with individual vessels, natural or legal persons or individual samples; ‘meta data’ means data giving qualitative and quantitative information on the collected primary data; ‘detailed data’ means data based on primary data in a form which does not allow natural persons or legal entities to be identified directly or indirectly; aggregated data’ means the output resulting from summarising the primary or detailed data for specific analytic purposes; Primary data collected under the DCF are the property of the Member State who collected them. These primary data remain at the national level, and are stored in national databases (generally several in each Member State) Member States are required to ensure that the data collected under the DCF are safely stored in these national databases and to take all necessary measures to ensure that primary data are treated as confidential. They must also take all necessary technical measures to protect such data against unauthorised consultation (Article 13). Member States must process primary data into detailed and aggregated data (Article 17), in order to make them available to data users. Users of DCF data are defined in the DCF Regulation (as 'End-users') as follows: bodies with a research or management interest in the scientific analysis of data in the fisheries sector. This includes, for examples, RFMOs such as the GFCM or international scientific bodies such as ICES. Regarding the use of these data, Member States are required to ensure that relevant detailed and aggregated data are sent on a regular basis to the appropriate RFMOs to which the EU is a contracting party or observer and to relevant international scientific bodies in accordance with the international obligations of the EU and the Member States (Article 20). If a specific request for data ( a so-called 'data call') is made by an end-user for the purpose of supporting scientific analysis, then Member States should also provide them with detailed and aggregated data (Article 18). Depending on the purpose that the data will be used for, Member States have different deadlines to make the data available to the end-users (Article 20): (a) as a basis for advice to fisheries management, including to Regional Advisory Councils (within one months of receiving the request for data); (b) in the interest of public debate and stakeholder participation in policy development (within two months of receiving the request for data); (c) for scientific publication (within two months of receiving the request for data but under certain conditions data may be withheld for three years following the date of collection of the data).. However, Member States must ensure that personal data are protected and may therefore refuse to transmit the relevant detailed and aggregated data to end-users if there is a risk of natural persons and/or legal entities being identified, in which case the Member State may propose alternative means to meet the needs of the end-user which ensure anonymity (Article 20). 2.PREPARATORY WORK AND CONSULTATIONS FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE DCF

In order to identify the issues that needed to be improved in the current DCF Regulation, and how best to do this, extensive consultation of stakeholders and many studies were carried out. The proposed changes to the DCF Regulation are based on the outcomes of these consultations and studies, as well as existing knowledge on the policy. 2.1.Consultation of interested parties Extensive consultations on the revision of the DCF have taken place, in line with Commission practice. As the topic of fisheries data collection is a very technical one, target groups of practitioners and policy makers were principally consulted, and several methods of consultation were used. The consulted parties included the Council and European Parliament, Member States, the scientific community, DCF Regional Coordination Meetings, data users such as the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), other Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and Advisory Groups (AC, formerly RACs), national research organisations through their network EFARO. Specifically, since 2011, experts from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) have been consulted in eight Expert Working Groups (EWG). Ten Regional Coordination Meetings for scientists and data users and four National Correspondents meetings were organised to provide advice on preparatory documents concerning future rules on data collection. Members of the European Parliaments were invited to comment twice and NGOs three times since 2011. Advisory Councils, RFMOs and EFARO were consulted once. Consultations took place mainly through expert meetings in the context of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), written consultations (Member States, key data users including ICES and GFCM), and a questionnaire in the context of an ex-post evaluation. To conclude this series of consultations, a stakeholder workshop was held in Brussels on 16 January 2014 focussing on the key topics for the revision. Participants included: Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), including the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), Advisory Councils (ACs), the International Council for Exploration of the Seas (ICES), the European Fisheries and Aquaculture Research Organisation (EFARO), NGOs, Member States, Commission services (MARE, JRC, ESTAT, ENV, RTD). The workshop revealed that there is general agreement on : (1) the need for a limited expansion of the scope of the DCF to adjust to the new CFP (in particular the ecosystem approach), (2) how to improve data quality, (3) the need and means to simplify and rationalize (e.g. through streamlining EU legislation (4) the importance of improved availability of data (in particular availability of fishing activity data for scientists and shift from data calls to pull mechanisms); (5) the potential to strengthen regional coordination. In addition, in March 2014, the Fisheries Directors General of the 28 Member States were consulted in writing. The Member States agreed with the aims of the DCF revision, namely: to retain the core elements of the DCF system as they proved to be efficient, whilst integrating needs stemming from the CFP reform; to simplify the DCF by distinguishing between core aspects of EU data collection and aspects that are regional or national; to remove redundancies by aligning the DCF and other EU legislation, and to reduce the administrative burden by using IT technology for data transmission, eliminating overlaps and simplifying reporting and sampling. Member States also came with specific comments. They supported the idea of pooling their data at a regional level and of improving regional planning. They also expressed the need to prioritize data needs and to set only minimum requirements at EU level. They were supportive to adapt the scope of the DCF to new needs of the CFP, but wished to limit costs for example by using a risk-based approach to collecting data on by-catches or pilot studies. Landlocked countries expressed some concerns, in view of the limited resources available, about possible additional data requirements for freshwater aquaculture. Following the results of a feasibility study, a further written consultation of stakeholders was carried out in the autumn 2014, specifically dedicated to the issues of overlaps between legal requirements and prospects for using IT tools to facilitate data transmission and dissemination. Section 2.2.7 provides greater details on the outcomes of the study and of the consultations. A public consultation via a green paper on Marine Knowledge also took place in 2012 in which fisheries data collection formed a substantive part, in particular concerning the issue of public access to data. The outcome of this consultation gave clear indications about the importance given by the general public to open access to good quality scientific information. A list of all the consultations that took place can be found in Annex I. 2.2.Studies Several evaluations and other analyses of the Data Collection Framework have been carried out, as summarized below. 2.2.1.Impact Assessment (IA) carried out in the framework of the CFP reform In 2011, the Impact Assessment (IA) carried out in the framework of the CFP reform assessed, amongst other things, the DCF with its predecessor the DCR and made the following conclusions: The DCF generally meets the purposes for which it was set up: the production of sound scientific advice and contributes to better fisheries policy making.

The DCF is a substantial improvement over its predecessor, in part by increasing availability of data and also data quality. Further rationalisation of the different EU rules governing collection of data should be strived for to reduce administrative burden. 2.2.2.Interim evaluation on Council Regulation 861/2006 In 2011, an interim evaluation on Council Regulation 861/2006 ("second financial instrument") was carried out. This highlighted that the collection of basic data through the National Programmes under the DCF has mostly been relevant and effective, resulting in an improved availability of data for scientific advice. The study concluded that the resulting data is considered to be of relatively good quality, but identified room for improvement regarding timely delivery of data and data formats. The data provided under the DCF was considered to be instrumental to policy making under the CFP. The DCF was considered to have led to improved regional cooperation. The evaluation concluded that by and large, compliance is good. 2.2.3.Ex-post evaluation of the Data Collection Framework In 2012, a specific external evaluation was carried out aiming to assess in more details the results obtained by the DCF and to verify that they were consistent with the objectives set. The main conclusions of this evaluation were: The current data collection framework meets the needs for which it was established: the majority of data users consider that the DCF has produced data that enables the production of sound scientific advice and contributes to better fisheries policy making. Stakeholders consider that the usefulness and relevance of data collected under the DCF is relatively high for their needs. The outputs of the process (e.g. advice by ICES) have been increasing over time in quantity and quality. The DCF has met the challenges presented by the previous CFP, by ensuring the availability of data that enables the production of sound scientific advice and contributes to better fisheries policy making. The outputs of the DCF process have been increasing over time, as has the data quality. For example, the level of recurrent advice provided by ICES supported by the data collection has increased from 122 items in 2008 to 165 items in 2012. The DCF provides value for money: the average cost of data collection under the DCF is 2.1% of catch value, placing it at the lower end of the spectrum when compared to fisheries outside the EU (2.5% to 7.5% according to Burke, 2000). Observer programs and research surveys at sea are well coordinated and provide high quality data. The DCF is a key source for much of the socio-economic data used to assess the fisheries, aquaculture & processing sector. Compliance with the obligations by Member States was generally high. Nevertheless, the evaluation identified some challenges that should be addressed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the DCF: The system of provision of data to data users through data calls is very demanding for Member States, due to the number of data calls and the time spent in re-aggregation data in different ways in response to the various data calls (involving different formats). Data transmission could be made more effective, for example by increasing the accessibility of data to the different users so they can select the data they need and then aggregate it to suit their needs. Overlaps and redundancies exist relating to data collection or transmission under different EU instruments and these should be minimized. Regarding the data to be collected, the DCF was considered to not be sufficiently data user oriented, i.e. insufficiently flexible to evolving needs of scientists and policy makers. Flexibility should be more built into the system of collection and provision of data. Incentives for regional collaboration should be strengthened. "Metiers" proved not always to be considered the most appropriate unit for sampling, although it was considered to be a useful way in which to aggregate data after it has been collected. 2.2.4.Assessment of implementation of the DCF through field visits in Member States

A report was prepared in 2014 by an external contractor summarizing the findings of field visits in 11 Member States carried out in 2011-2014. These field visits aimed at analysing the data collection, storage and transmission systems in the Member States. This analysis showed that data collection was well organised in almost all Member States, and has improved over time. The report revealed the following: Quantity and quality of DCF data have increased over time. There are (sometimes too) many different institutions involved in data collection in each Member State, which therefore required strong coordination, at sometimes high transaction costs. In many Member States, the national statistical institute is not involved (enough) despite the fact that this could avoid duplication of collection/processing of certain data and improve data quality. There are wide divergences in data storage systems and data transmission across Member States, and IT systems within and between Member States are generally not compatible. Documentation of the databases is often incomplete and few Member States have a centralised database for DCF data. Improving interoperability of databases within and across Member States would increase the efficiency of data sharing. The formats of the various data calls launched by data users are often modified over time which constitutes a significant and increasing workload for Member States to adapt the data formats to each data call. This could be addressed either by getting data users to better coordinate their data calls and formats, or by moving to a system of interoperable databases to which data users have access to obtain required data. Data should be stored at the most disaggregated level possible in databases, to enable different data users to be able to aggregate them to the levels that meet their respective needs. The current quality targets set by the EU MAP are not realistic, resulting in the precision level targets for biological data not being achieved by Member States. The report recommends reviewing measures of precision and suggests looking at precision at a stock-level (i.e. several Member States) rather than on a Member State basis as is currently the case. The latter could also result in cost savings through lower sample sizes. Although Member States apply quality control procedures to the data they collect, the levels of control and methods used vary enormously between Member States and for economic data, most Member States have not implemented formal quality assurance procedures. Generally, quality control should be improved e.g. through setting minimum standards, or by following standards such as the EU Statistics Code of Practice, formalizing procedures and by having methodologies reviewed by national statistical institutes. Problems of scientific observers not having access to commercial vessels have been reported. This can lead to biases in sampling and the data collected. Regarding fisheries dependent data, data on effort and landings from the Control Regulation are essential for scientific analysis. In the case of small scale fleets, for which logbooks are not mandatory under that regulation, complementary sampling is recommended as it generates valuable information. Regarding fisheries independent data, research surveys were considered to have been well carried out, providing good quality and essential data for stock assessments. Regarding recreational fisheries, in most of the Member States visited, the knowledge about these fisheries is quite scarce, being collected generally only through a few recent pilot projects. However, where data are available, recreational fisheries were found to have an impact that is not negligible on some of the (few) species included in the DCF. This calls for the inclusion of these data in the stock assessments for such species and, therefore, the need for a more regular data collection system, bearing in mind the great number of recreational fishermen and their wide dispersion along coasts and rivers. Regarding aquaculture, given the difficulty to sample this sector, the study recommended greater harmonization with EU statistical regulation on aquaculture. Regarding economic data, the study found the data on fleets to be of good quality. Methods for collection varied between Member States but were not considered to require harmonization. Instead, the outputs should be harmonized so that they can be aggregated at regional or EU level. Regarding the processing sector, the study found that in some Member States, the Structural Business Statistics (SBS) is used as a primary source of information for the DCF and that these data are of good quality. The study recommended making more use of statistical data that are collected through the Structural Business Statistics so as to avoid double data collection. Synergies between Member States should be found to increase efficiencies in data collection and management and spread best practice e.g. sharing IT tools or developing common questionnaires to collect data. Sharing tasks that require very specific knowledge, such as age-reading, was also recommended. The current DCF programming (National Programmes) and reporting (Annual Reports) requirements and formats result in a very heavy workload on Member States and the Commission. Financial restrictions in some Member States have resulted in lower implementation rates of EU funding and weaker implementation of the DCF. 2.2.5.STECF evaluations of Member States' Annual Reports Successive STECF evaluations of Member States' Annual Reports also showed that Member States comply in general well with their obligations to collect and transmit data, and with the requirements on reporting about data collection. However, the STECF evaluations have demonstrated how complex the process of Annual Reporting is, both for Member States to complete and for the Commission and STECF to evaluate. It has proven hard, for example, to distinguish (real) problems of implementation of the DCF, from problems of reporting (whereby implementation is good but not evident due to bad reporting).

Recommendations have been made on how to substantially simplify the format and to automatize part of the reporting, such as using of IT tools for reporting, creating automatic reports from certain databases, or using tools to cross-check National Programmes with Annual Reports. 2.2.6.Interim evaluation of the European Marine Observation and Data Network In 2012, an interim evaluation of the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) strongly supported increasing and simplifying access to fisheries data, and recommended a shift from collecting data for specific purposes by many isolated institutes to collecting data only once and make them generally available and accessible, thereby avoiding duplication, saving costs and ensuring a better and wider use of data. 2.2.7.Feasibility study on data storage and transmission To further investigate the question of data storage and transmission, in 2013-2014, a feasibility study was contracted to review the current situation in relation to DCF data storage, transmission, quality control and dissemination and to design possible future scenarios for the organization of the fisheries data system (see Annex II), in a manner that would improve availability of data, as well as data quality, whilst reducing the workload on Member States for providing data to data users. The study also detailed existing procedures to ensure data quality, protection of personal data and confidentiality of commercial data. The study confirmed that answering data calls represents a large burden on Member States, due in part to the increasing number of data calls but also to the diversity of aggregation levels required by different data users and the fact that these often change over time. The study also identified many areas of overlap in the legislative frameworks on data collection (this is elaborated further in section 5.9.1 and see also Annex III). The study identified some key principles that any future system should comply with: Primary or at least detailed data should be the basic building block stored in national databases, rather than the current aggregations to fleet segments (as per the requirements of the current DCF), as the latter limits the way in which data users can aggregate data (including biological, economic and fishing activity data) and leaves the burden on Member States' data collection services to carry out the required aggregation work. A clear distinction must be made between production (where data are processed and validated) and dissemination databases (from which data are made available to data users, usually in a more aggregated manner). This is common practice in all statistical institutes. It allows for processes like correction of errors or estimation of missing data so that a consistent data set is presented to data users. The system should use common accepted nomenclatures (species, gears, fishing areas). This is already the case in some areas (species), but for other variables, common nomenclatures still need to be agreed upon e.g. gears. Data and databases should continue to be organized along thematic modules (biology, economics, fisheries/control data) as they follow very different structures. These modules or databases should be linked. Data quality procedures should be strengthened and encompass the whole process from planning of the sampling until dissemination. This whole process should be properly documented to ensure transparency, transfer of experience and further development. Scientists who are closely involved in policy related research (e.g. STECF, GFCM, ICES) should be also closely involved in development of the system so that it responds to their needs (i.e. to their ability to answer policy questions). Under any scenario, protection of personal data has to be, and can be, ensured, and shall be subject to applicable rules on protection of personal data. The Commission services consulted Member States experts and key data users (RCM chairs, ICES, GFCM) at the end of 2014 on the main findings of the study as set out above. There was significant consensus on the key principles to be followed, except with the first point, whereby most respondents were in favour to make only detailed data the building blocks for data exchange. Based on the responses, there was a large consensus as regards existing overlaps between different data flows and the awareness that it could be avoided by streamlining EU legislation. Respondents agreed that the current data call system is very burdensome and that both protection of personal data as well as greater transparency regarding structures and processes are important. 3.STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK Based on the consultations and studies described above, the strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of the DCF have been established (see also Annex IV), and the following conclusions can be drawn: Data quantity: The DCF has significantly increased the quantity of fisheries data. The DCF is generally considered to be fit for purpose, and most data collected are relevant and useful to data users. The DCF has provided an EU-wide framework with harmonized procedures, and has enabled development of time series of data. Nevertheless, the current data collection system has focused on providing data primarily for fisheries management, while under the reformed CFP, data will be needed also to support several new or strengthened policy objectives: the move to ecosystem-based fishery management; a new emphasis on the development of sustainable aquaculture; an improved impact assessment of decisions on fisheries management, such as the landing obligation. An adjustment to the scope of data to be collected and the way this is done is therefore required. This would, in the case of ecosystem data, also contribute to strengthening links with data collection required under environmental law.

Data quality is now considered to be relatively good but there remains scope for improvement. Some problems with the current system include inappropriate and unrealistic quality targets, which can lead to an inefficient use of resources. Quality assurance and control procedures vary greatly between Member States and should in general be further strengthened, in particular for socio-economic data. Data availability is the area where most progress should be made. The main issues are the following: i) timeliness of data provision by Member States to end-users has not always been satisfactory; ii) the process through which end-users requests data form Member States is very resource intensive due to numerous and varied (formats of) data calls; iii) internal organisation in Member States of data storage and transmission systems is often too complex, and IT systems are often incompatible among and within Member States; and iv) restrictions exist, in a non-harmonized way, on access to data for scientific purposes. Availability of data should therefore be increased and processes simplified. As the need for information on marine environment is increasing, there is an opportunity for multi-purpose collection of data that should not be missed. This will follow-up on the Commission's Communication on innovation in the Blue Economy as well as facilitate implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (see Chapter 4). Flexibility: The DCF has been an improvement in setting common rules for all Member States, which allow policy makers (including at national level) to base their decisions on a similar, comparable set of information. However, the legal set-up of the DCF is generally considered excessively prescriptive and detailed. This has resulted in a cumbersome and insufficiently responsive system, which has sometimes prevented timely changes to accommodate new needs and insufficient adaptation to specific regional of national realities. It is therefore necessary to better incorporate end-users in the design and implementation of the DCF to ensure closer alignment between data needed and data collected. Complexity: The DCF is considered by all as too complex, both the legal framework, and in terms of reporting and data transmission procedures. Improvements have been called for to increase efficiency of the system and to reduce administrative burden. One source of complexity and inefficiency that has been repeatedly pointed out is the duplication between data covered by the DCF and other EU legislation such as the Control Regulation and EU statistical regulations . Another area is to increase synergies with the objectives of other EU legislation. This is primarily the case for the MSFD: through its revision, the DCF should ensure that data can be used also for the purpose of implementing the MSFD (see Chapter 4). Regional cooperation is widely heralded as one of the key strengths of the DCF and should be further strengthened in line with the direction taken by the CFP reform. To support the regionalisation of the fisheries management measures by adequate scientific advice at regional level, there is an opportunity to further encourage cooperation between Member States also in the area of data collection. 4.THE BROADER CONTEXT Section 3 presents the intrinsic reasons why the DCF needs to be revised. Beyond these reasons, extrinsic developments result in further reasons to revise the DCF in order to align it with other relevant EU policies and legislations. Institutional changes – the Lisbon Treaty: The DCF is no longer aligned with the provisions foreseen under Lisbon Treaty , which resulted, amongst others, in changes to comitology procedures. Rules applicable to comitology procedures therefore need to be updated. Changes in the financial instrument – the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund: Until 2013, data collection was financed under the so-called "Second financial instrument" (Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006) under a system of direct management and detailed rules on implementation were set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008. As of 1.1.2014, the legal basis for financing of data collection in the EU is the EMFF, which foresees funding under shared management of Member States' data collection activities, as well as additional funding in direct management to support cooperation between Member States in the field of data collection. Specific references in the DCF to the previous financial instrument and regulations have now become obsolete. Open access to research data: The Commission's Communication on better access to scientific information, calls for a wide availability of publicly-funded research results that exist in the form of data, in all scientific fields, in order to improve transparency of the scientific process, to foster collaboration, avoid duplication of effort and accelerate innovation. In this context, according to the Green Paper on Marine Knowledge 2020, due to fragmentation, duplication of data generation and unawareness of what information is available, a great amount of resources (human, financial and natural) are wasted and certain synergies remain unused. If several types of data were interconnected or if data were made available for more than one purpose, tremendous savings could be made. This is because several marine activities that are apparently unrelated such as offshore mining, blue energy, tourism, fisheries and aquaculture have great impact on each other and when assessing that impact, information from widely different sources need to be combined. The European Parliament supported the conclusions of the Communication . Following on the Green Paper, the Commission's Communication on innovation in the Blue Economy identified several issues that currently hinder innovation in the blue economy, of which a key problem is the gaps in knowledge about the sea, the seabed and the life it supports. The Communication noted that different sets of marine data are held by many different organisations and that identifying who holds data and obtaining authorisation to use them can be time-consuming and expensive. Furthermore, higher quality and more readily available marine data would facilitate implementation of the MSFD (see below). On this basis, the Commission aims to ensure that marine data is easily accessible, interoperable and free of restrictions on use. EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020: In 2011, the European Commission adopted an ambitious strategy to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020. The so-called 'EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020' sets two long-term goals: The 2020 Headline Target – to halt biodiversity loss and ecosystems degradation The 2050 Vision – where EU's natural capital is protected It also contains six main targets, of which Target 4 aims at better management of fish stocks. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive: One of the key tools to achieve the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 is the MSFD, the environmental pillar of the Integrated Maritime Policy. The MSFD aims at reaching "good environmental status" of the EU's marine waters by 2020. It sets out different requirements and methods to achieve this. In particular, the environmental status of marine waters will be assessed, among other tools, by 11 qualitative descriptors (see Annex V). Descriptor 3 focuses on the state of commercial fisheries, and requires that: "Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock". The DCF is the key source of data for calculation of this Descriptor. In addition, there are other MSFD Descriptors that are less directly related to fisheries, but for which the DCF already provides some of the necessary data, for example Descriptors 1 (Biological diversity), 4 (Food-webs) and 6 (Sea-floor integrity). The revised DCF would therefore help achieve not only goals set out by the MSFD but would also contribute towards the 2020 Biodiversity Target and 2050 Vision. The interactions between the DCF and some of the above elements are summarised in Figure 2 .

5.PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION This section presents, for each change to the DCF that is presented in the Proposal for a

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of… concerning the establishment of a Union framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (recast), the specific problems with the current DCF and the rationale for choosing the proposed option when several options were available. For major topics, for which different options were considered, the process for identifying the proposed option is also included in tabular format to simplify presentation of the issues. The Commission proposal relates to co-decided legislation. However, for transparency purposes, and because legislation, rules giving effect or supplementing it and practical implementation are so intertwined in such a technical area, possible adjustments to current implementing rules (essentially the EU Multi-annual Programme) or practice are also presented when these can already be envisaged as a result of the evaluations and consultations carried out by the Commission. This should in no way encroach on the Commission's institutional prerogatives to adopt implementing rules, nor does this prejudice further additional consultations, based on the ultimate decision of the co-legislator. 5.1.The future data collection process 5.1.1.End-user oriented data collection Background and legal provisions of the DCF The raison d'être of the DCF is to ensure that relevant data are available to scientific end-users to achieve the objectives of CFP. The current DCF defines end-users as bodies with a research or management interest in the scientific analysis of data in the fisheries sector (Article 2). The current DCF considers end-users of DCF data only in the context of providing them with data: on the one hand concerning Member States' obligations to make data available to end-users (Articles 18-21) and on the other hand, concerning end-users' obligations regarding what they can and cannot do with these data, and relating to providing feedback on data transmission failures by Member States (Article 22). The current DCF has been criticized by a broad range of stakeholders including the STECF, Member States and end-users, for not reflecting sufficiently the needs of end-users in terms of deciding on what data should be collected or how this should be done, and not being flexible enough to address their evolving needs, e.g. new stocks being exploited, changes to technical measures regulations, development of scientific advice, move to statistically sound sampling schemes etc. Indeed, currently, the DCF Regulation (Art. 3) contains provisions for the establishment of 3-year multiannual EU programmes but no provisions are included regarding modifications of these three year programmes, or how the needs of end-users should be taken into account to draw them up or modify them. Problems identified Objectives of revision Options for addressing problem Proposed solution The DCF does not reflect sufficiently the needs of end-users in terms of the data covered to be followed Member States should collect data only where there is an end-user need. 1. Include criteria in the DCF Regulation to determine what data should be included, including the end-user need for the data. 2. Develop the new EU MAP, and future revisions of it, based on consultation of end-users. 3. Not include data to be collected in EU MAP but let end-users decide on these directly with Member States in Regional Coordination Groups. 1. Include criteria in the DCF Regulation to determine what data should be included in the EU MAP, including the end-user need for the data. 2. Design the new EU MAP, and future amendments to it, based on consultation of end-users. The DCF is not flexible enough to address evolving needs of end-users over time The system should allow for modifications to the data covered or methodologies to be used 1. Provisions on what should be collected should be established in the EU MAP. Member States in Regional Coordination Groups can decide to collect additional data based on end-user input. 2. Provisions on what should be collected should not be included in EU MAP but left to end-users to decide on directly with Member States in Regional Coordination Groups. 2. Methodological aspects should no longer be specified in the EU MAP but coordinated by Member States in Regional Coordination Groups or the EU Coordination Group. 4. The DCF Regulation should contain provisions on the amendment of the EUMAP. 1. Provisions on what should be collected should be established in the EU MAP. Member States in Regional Coordination Groups can decide to collect additional data based on end-user input. 2. Methodological aspects should no longer be specified in the EU MAP but coordinated by Member States in Regional Coordination Groups or the EU Coordination Group. 3. The DCF regulation should contain provisions on the amendment of the EUMAP.

Changes to the DCF The definition of "end-users" in the current DCF Regulation is meant to have the same meaning as "end-users of scientific data" in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, and does not need to be modified. It is meant to include also scientific bodies with an interest in the environmental aspects of fisheries management. Other interested parties are to be understood as Advisory Councils established under Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 1380/2013, or members of the scientific community or members of the public who are interested by data in the interest of scientific publication, public debate and stakeholder participation in policy development. In the future data collection system, there should be four key areas of the data collection process in which end-users of DCF data should be better involved: (1)end-user input (advice) in determining what should or should no longer be collected; (2)end-user involvement in designing the sampling programmes that Member States must carry out to collect those data that end-users will use; (3)end-user access to DCF data; (4)end-user feedback on the data they have accessed. Of the four areas above, the first is summarized below (see Annex VI for further detail on this process). The issue of end-user involvement in designing the sampling programme is dealt with in section 5.1.2 whilst the last two – access to data and feedback – are dealt with in section 5.5. Despite the undoubted advantage of involving end-users more in defining the data to be included in the EU MAP, this comes with risks. Changing needs may entail frequent changes of data requirements, whilst there is a need to keep proper balance between flexibility and continuity (one of the strengths of the DCF being its building of time series). It is also necessary to avoid increasing the cost of data collection as requests from end-users tend to demand more rather than less data. In addition, every time there is a change in the EU MAP, this will require Member States' to amend their sampling plans. Therefore, although this could be considered as a faster process, it does not seem appropriate to allow end-users to express their needs directly to Member States regarding what data should be collected (for example in the context of Regional Coordination Groups), and it is preferable to maintain an EU-level filtering or prioritizing process, through adoption of the EU MAP – and its modifications – by the Commission. On this basis, end-user input would take place in two ways: 1. Regarding data covered by the EU MAP, end-users would be able to express their needs to the Commission (see Annex VI for further details on the process of establishing and amending the EU MAP). 2. For additional data (beyond the data collected under the EU MAP), or regarding aspects of how data should be collected, end-users could express their needs directly to Member States in Regional coordination Groups (RCGs) (see section 5.1.2 for more details on RCGs). If these changes are agreed in those fora, Member States would amend their work plans accordingly, without the need for modification of the EU MAP. The above would be achieved by including provisions in the DCF Regulation: i) Providing for the consultation by the Commission of Regional Coordination Groups, the STECF and any other relevant scientific advisory body, such as the EU Coordination Group, during the preparation and any amendment of the EU MAP. ii) Establishing criteria which the Commission would take into account when deciding whether to include/remove a species/variable from the EU MAP. The criteria, based in large part on advice from the STECF would include the needs of the scientific community and the need and relevance of data for decisions on fisheries management and protection of the ecosystem including vulnerable species (see Annex VI for full list of possible criteria). 5.1.2.Strengthening regional and EU coordination Background and legal provisions of the DCF

Regional coordination, achieved mainly through annual Regional Coordination Meetings (RCMs), is considered one of the big achievements of the DCF. Over the past years, there has been a clear strengthening of regional coordination, in particular in the Baltic and the North Sea, and Member States have expressed their interest in further strengthening regional coordination, including through the Oostende Declaration that was submitted by chairs of Regional Coordination Meetings to the Commission. The current DCF Regulation already contains provisions whereby Member States should coordinate their National Programmes with other Member States in the same marine region, and should amend their National Programmes based on recommendations of Regional Coordination Meetings. In practice however, Member States design their National Programmes and then try to align them/task share in Regional Coordination Meetings (Art. 5). In some regions and for some data (e.g. collection of biological data on EU fisheries off West Africa – see Textbox ), Member States have established bi- or multi-lateral agreements to task share in their collection of data, resulting in considerable savings for all Member States involved compared to if they had to establish and run individual data collection programmes. Carrying out joint sampling also results in overall cost reduction and avoidance of duplication or excess of data collected. In practice, regional coordination for data collection applies almost exclusively to biological data, for which regional differences are more pronounced, whilst coordination of methodologies for economic data collection are done at EU-level through the Planning Group for Economic Issues (PGECON), that is not established in the DCF but has emerged from a need for greater cooperation between Member States. Textbox 2 - Cost savings through the development of a joint sampling programme off West Africa For 2012 and 2013, five Member States (Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands and Poland) signed a multilateral agreement to carry out a joint sampling programme for their long-distance fisheries in the CECAF waters, off West Africa. The joint CECAF sampling programme is based on 12 trips (3 per quarter) per year carried out by employees of the Mauritanian Fishery Research Institute coordinated by a fishery scientist from the Netherlands. Total costs, of around 65 000 Euro, are split between the Member States involved based on their historical share of catches in the area. The costs for Member States under this multilateral agreement were several times lower than before, when they each had to carry out individual sampling programmes, and had to cover travel and coordination and data management costs for observers from each Member State. For example, Germany's annual costs were around 5 times higher, and Poland's three times higher, before joining the multilateral agreement. Source: information received from Member States under their DCF Annual Reports and by correspondence Article 25 of the CFP Regulation reiterates the principle that Member States should coordinate their data collection activities with other Member States (and third countries, where possible) in the same region. Beyond this article on data collection, the CFP Regulation provides for enhanced regional coordination between Member States in certain areas such as the development and implementation of conservation measures.



Problems identified Objectives of revision Options for addressing problem Proposed solution EU framework for data collection is very complex and does not take sufficiently into account regional specificities Allow certain aspects of data collection to be coordinated by Member States in Regional Coordination Groups (for biological data) or to the EU Coordination Group (mainly for economic data). A range of scenarios with at one end all data and details specified at EU level, and at the other end nothing specified at EU level and all aspects of data collection (what and how) coordinated by Member States in Regional Coordination Groups or the EU Coordination Group. Keep key aspects of what should be collected specified at EU level, (what species, variables, coverage, periodicity and aggregation level) but leave methodological aspects to be coordinated by Member States in Regional Coordination Groups and the EU Coordination Group. For additional areas of data collection, Regional Coordination Groups to agree on all aspects of data collection (including what & how) National approaches to sampling may result in oversampling and inefficient use of resources Increase cost-efficiency of sampling planning and collection 1. Continue business as usual – plan sampling at national level then coordinate at regional level. 2. Regional Coordination Groups may plan sampling at regional level and agree on task allocation between Member States. EU MAP specifies basic rules on which Member States should sample which species/variables. Beyond this, Regional Coordination Groups may coordinate further sampling at regional level and agree on task allocation between Member States. DCF no longer in line with spirit of new CFP regarding regionalisation Align with regionalisation of new CFP conservation measures/target-made data for sea basin policies. 1. Establish Regional Coordination Groups as legal entities (like Advisory Councils). 2. Strengthened Regional Coordination Meeting structures (no legal entity) for Regional Coordination Meetings, with broadened scope of areas they may work on. Strengthened Regional Coordination Meeting structures (no legal entity) for Regional Coordination Meetings, with broadened scope of areas they may work on. Changes to the DCF In line with strengthened provisions on regionalization in the CFP Regulation, the revised DCF Regulation should provide regions with a greater range of tasks concerning planning and implementing data collection. This would be achieved through the establishment of Regional Coordination Groups (RCGs), to deal with regional issues (essentially, biological/stock issues), as well as an EU Coordination Group (EUCG), to deal with EU-wide issues (essentially socio-economic data, but perhaps also covering areas such as environmental impacts of aquaculture). The RCGs and EUCG would enable Member States to work on regional or EU cooperation throughout the year, rather than just through an annual meeting as is currently the case for RCMs and PGECON, and would no longer depend on the Commission, with the assistance of a Chair, calling and organizing the meetings. The DCF Regulation would detail the membership of RCGs. This would consist of experts from Member States, the Commission and relevant end-users of data.. The DCF Regulation would set out the main tasks of the RCGs. These groups would no longer simply consider already established national work plans and coordinate their implementation, but may instead be involved in all steps of the process from the development of national work plans, through to agreeing on how sampling should be carried out to finally evaluating the quality of the data collected at regional/stock level. There was broad support during consultations to strengthen regional coordination in this way. The RCGs would essentially have four main tasks, relating to regional cooperation, which are summarized below and further detailed in Annex VIII. 1. Data to be collected: i) Advising the Commission, when establishing the EU Multiannual Programme and amendments thereof. ii) Agreeing on additional data to be collected at regional level 2. For all data to be collected (whether covered by the EU MAP or agreed in RCG), agreeing on methodological aspects of data collection such as identifying guidelines and best practice methodologies to be followed, agreeing on sampling strategies and agreeing on sampling levels (i.e. the latter will no longer be specified in the EU MAP).

3. Planning and coordinating the sampling at regional level: RCGs may develop and coordinate the implementation of a regional work plan and sampling strategy in order to achieve an adequate division of tasks among the Member States for e.g. biological data on shared stocks, or on by-catch of protected species. This would replace the current approach of national planning of sampling. 4. Contributing to the quality assurance and control of data. RCGs would be tasked with establishing guidelines for quality assurance and control and identifying best practices and methodologies that Member States should follow. RCGs could submit a regional work plan to the Commission including agreed procedures and methods, as well quality assurance and control measures, and a regionally-coordinated sampling strategy. Such a regional work plan may replace parts of the work plans drawn up by each Member State. The EUCG would have similar tasks to the RCGs, apart from task 2 above which is not relevant for the EUCG, but for data sets for which EU-wide, as opposed to regional coordination is more relevant (essentially socio-economic data and data on sustainability of aquaculture). In terms of governance structure, one option would be to establish RCGs and the EUCG as legal entities (such as an Advisory Council or Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs)). This would increase clarity of the obligations or rights of participants, but would be less flexible and would require additional legal acts and delays in establishing such structures. Providing EU funding to such legal entities is not foreseen in the EMFF Regulation. Consultations with Member States revealed that such a formal set up for RCGs or EUCG would go beyond what they desire. The preferred approach is therefore to rather strengthen the current RCM mechanism (established in the DCF with specific tasks), without giving them a legal entity, but extending their tasks as set out above. As opposed to the current provisions in DCF Regulation, whereby the Commission organizes the Regional Coordination meetings, the future DCF Regulation would specify that RCGs should be established by the relevant Member States in each marine region. With regards to an EU Coordination Group, this would be established as an expert group of the Commission and would take over the current tasks of the PGECON, expanded as necessary into other areas (for example to allow for coordination between National Correspondents for data collection and to allow for coordination between RCG chairs on supra-regional issues, which was dealt with in the past through a so-called "DCF Liaison Meeting"). Beyond legal provisions, three areas can be further developed to strengthen regional coordination: Regional cooperation, and in particular of planning of sampling at regional level, will be greatly facilitated through IT developments that will ensure progressively the interoperability of information systems in the Member States as well as harmonizing protocols for availability of data (see Chapter 5.5). Regional cooperation will be encouraged by providing EMFF funding under direct management in addition to the co-financing of national actions under shared management (see Chapter 7). As coordination within Regional Coordination Groups and the EU Coordination Group increases over time, there is a risk of widening differences, or even divergences that may result in a reduced homogeneity at EU level. Therefore, coordination between groups on issues affecting several regions (e.g. stocks like eels found in several regions) should also be foreseen. This would be one of the tasks of the EU Coordination Group. 5.2.The scope of the future DCF – what data should Member States collect and how to avoid overlaps The scope of the DCF should be aligned with new needs arising from the revision of the CFP Regulation. This requires adjustments relating to: The impact of fisheries on the marine biological resources and ecosystems, and more specifically, synergies with the MSFD, The need to provide data to carry out impact assessments of policy measures, The manner in which sampling is carried out under the landing obligation, Socio-economic data on freshwater aquaculture, and sustainability of aquaculture in general. In addition, the scope of the DCF should also include alignment between the DCF and other relevant EU legislation and initiatives relating to data collection and data provision so as to reduce overlaps and therefore reduce costs of the entire system of marine data. In particular, the DCF will only create data collection obligations insofar as they are not already covered by other EU legislation (see Annex III). However, the DCF will be the major legal instrument by which the obligation is created upon Member States to provide any data necessary to data users, whatever the source of the legal obligation under which the data are collected (DCF or any other EU legislation), unless the other legal instrument already provide for the availability of the data (e.g. most statistical Regulations).

5.2.1.Data on marine biological resources 5.2.1.1.Data on fish stocks Background and legal provisions of the DCF The current DCF covers data collection as regards commercial – and in some cases recreational – fisheries carried out by EU vessels both within and outside EU waters, and includes inland waters fisheries only as regards eels and salmon (Article 3). The DCF Regulation also requires Member States to establish a scheme for at-sea monitoring of commercial and recreational fisheries, where necessary (Article 4). The list of stocks to be sampled (over 425) is included in Appendix VII of the EU Multiannual Programme. For the majority of stocks, only commercial data need to be collected but for a few stocks, recreational fisheries data also needs to be collected. The detailed data that should be collected are also specified, per stock, in the EU Multiannual Programme, and include variables such as volume and length distribution of retained catches and of discards, age, weight, sex, maturity and fecundity of individual fish, as well as the frequency of collection of these parameters (see Chapter III and Appendix VII of the EU Multiannual Programme). The consultations on the DCF, including the external evaluation, have been unanimous in outlining how important the DCF's achievements have been in terms of ensuring the collection and provision to end-users of time series of harmonized data sets, collected in a standardized way across the EU. However, the DCF has also been criticized by many stakeholders, and in particular Member States who need to implement it, for its excessive complex, detailed and prescriptive nature. Regarding recreational fisheries, lighter data collection obligations currently apply (Article 3), and only for a limited number of species for marine fisheries (eel, salmon, seabass, cod, sharks, Bluefin tuna) as well as inland fisheries (eels and salmon). For these species, Member States must collect basic data in the form of quarterly weight of the catches (Article 9). Evaluations of the DCF have revealed that the knowledge about recreational fisheries is still relatively low, and that the DCF is a key data source on recreational fisheries. However, recreational fisheries are known to potentially have an important impact on the stocks. For example, in Germany, recreational fisheries contribute to around 50% of total offtake of cod in the western Baltic. Over the period of the current DCF, Member States were given the possibility to first carry out a pilot project on recreational fisheries, to determine the importance of recreational fisheries and the feasibility of setting up a data collection programme. Member States should now all be in a position to carry out data collection on their important recreational fisheries. Problems identified Objectives of revision Options for addressing problem Proposed solution Overly prescriptive provisions at EU level regarding how data should be collected, leading to very complex and inflexible legislation Simplify the EU legislation and broaden the scope of tasks for Member States in Regional Coordination Groups regarding data collection. Specify what data should be collected and how they should be collected in the EU MAP Specify only what data should be collected in the EU MAP, and let Member States in RCGs or the EUCG coordinate on how this should be done. No specific data requirements in the EU MAP, but let Member States in RCGs agree on what data should be collected and how it should be collected. Specify only what data should be collected in the EU MAP, and let Member States in RCGs coordinate on how this should be done. Changes to the DCF Commercial fisheries With a view to address excessively prescriptive provisions at EU level and cater for an increased tailor-made decision making at regional level, several options could be considered regarding the extent to which data collection requirements are specified at EU level versus being agreed at regional level (see Table 4 above). As is the case currently, the revised DCF Regulation would contain an obligation for Member States to collect biological data on all stocks targeted or by-caught by Union vessels in Union and external waters to enable ecosystem based management and conservation. The details regarding for example which stocks and which variables, the coverage, and periodicity of collection, would be specified in the EU MAP. To ensure consistency of data collected and the need to maintain time series, and on the basis that these parameters should not vary much over time, key parameters on what data should be collected (species, area/stock, type of data to be collected), how frequently, and to what level of disaggregation would be included in the future EU MAP (see Annex IX for further details). By contrast, provisions on how the data are to be collected, and the intensity of sampling required, which are likely to evolve over time and may be sea-basin specific, would be determined by Member States through coordination in RCGs as part of the RCGs' new task of coordinating biological sampling at a regional level (see Section 5.3.).

Recreational fisheries The CFP Regulation, in a recital, recalls that recreational fisheries can have a significant impact on fish resources and Member States should, therefore, ensure that they are conducted in a manner that is compatible with the objectives of the CFP. In order to fully evaluate total impacts of fisheries on the fish resources, data collection on recreational fisheries should continue. The DCF Regulation provisions requiring Member States to sample their recreational fisheries would therefore be maintained but the definition of recreational fisheries in the current DCF Regulation should be made more inclusive to ensure the whole recreational fisheries sector is covered. As is the case currently, the EU MAP would further detail the obligations regarding the variables to be collected, the periodicity, the coverage, and the stocks for which it should be collected. On this basis, minimum data on the whole sector may be necessary periodically, to enable an early identification of any problems, as well as more regular (e.g. annual) data collection on catches for important stocks. 5.2.1.2.Impact of fisheries on the marine biological resources and the ecosystem Background and legal provisions of the DCF The impacts of fisheries on ecosystems come in many forms, of which the major and most direct impacts are: (1) the impact on target resources, reducing abundance, spawning potential and other population parameters such as age, size structure, sex ratio etc); (2) the impact on other species that are associated with the target species, such as other commercial fish that co-exist with the target species, leading to mixed fisheries (e.g. sole and plaice); (3) the impacts on unwanted specimens of commercial species (e.g. juveniles or undersized fish) which may be caught, and discarded, in considerable volumes; (4) there are also unwanted catches of non-commercial, "protected" species (e.g. birds, marine mammals, turtles) which tend to be caught incidentally and infrequently; (5)there are indirect impacts on non-target species that are dependent on the target species, e.g. as predators or prey, creating knock-on effects in the foodwebs and species composition. (6)there are also alterations of habitats, most notably by destroying and disturbing bottom topography and the associated habitats (e.g. seagrass and algal beds, coral reefs) and benthic communities that live in or on the seabed e.g. through the "ploughing" effect of dredges and trawls. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) contains 11 Descriptors to be considered when evaluating the state of a Member States' marine waters (see Annex V). Descriptor 3 covers the state of commercial fisheries (Impacts 1-3 above). Descriptor 1 covers biodiversity, including protected species (Impact 4 above). Descriptor 4 covers foodwebs (Impact 5 above) whilst Descriptors 1 and 3 are related in part to the state of habitats (Impact 6 above). The current DCF has focused on providing data to assess the impacts of fisheries on commercial fisheries species (the resource), covering both targeted catches and by-catches (impacts 1-3 above). The current DCF also provides data on where fishing activities take place and with what gear, which contributes to determining the fisheries impacts on seabed habitat (impact 6). The current EU Multiannual Programme also includes a list of indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem (Appendix XIII). However, since the adoption of the current DCF and EU Multiannual programme, more detailed descriptors and environmental indicators have been developed in the framework of the MSFD. Regarding incidental catches of protected species (impact 4), there are no binding obligations in the current DCF for Member States to collect such data, as the DCF only covers fisheries species (fish and certain invertebrates). This is at odds with the fact that Member States are required, under several other EU instruments (e.g. the Birds Directive , Cetacean Regulation , Habitats Directive ), to sample and report on incidental catches of certain protected species, including marine mammals, birds and marine turtles. Regarding knock-on effects in the foodwebs (impact 5), analysing stomach contents (who eats whom) is one of the key method to identify these effects. Stomach content data is also beginning to be included in multi-species stock assessment, which will increasingly be used under the CFP's requirements to carry out ecosystem-based management of fisheries. The current DCF does not contain any requirements for Member States to collect data on stomach contents, but some Member States have nevertheless collected stomach content data for some species through their DCF funded research surveys at sea. Regarding the impacts of fisheries on habitats (impact 6), and in particular on the sea bed, data on the distribution of fishing activity, its intensity and the type of gear involved (i.e. the fishing pressure) are already routinely collected under the DCF (through VMS and logbook data and effort data). With the knowledge on the seabed composition and of the type of fishing taking place there (e.g. trawling on a coral reef habitat), one can deduce what impact the fishing gear is having in order to take appropriate management decisions (e.g. limiting certain type of gear uses in certain sensitive areas). Deep-sea seabed organisms are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of fisheries as they occur in low-energy environments and are therefore slow growing, taking longer to regenerate after an interaction with fishing gear. For this reason, specific monitoring measures have been introduced for these deep-sea organisms e.g. in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). The Commission's proposal for a deep sea access regime also includes specific data collection requirements on sensitive seabed species, for this vulnerable marine ecosystem. Under this proposal, Member States should identify and document the weight of any stony coral, soft coral, sponge or other organism belonging to the same ecosystem taken on board by the vessel's gear. There will be a need to ensure alignment between the needs of the proposal for a new DCF Regulation and the needs and the Deep sea access regime proposal, as regards the data collection provisions referred to in article 19 and Annex II of the latter. Table 5: Needs the DCF should address: Provide reliable data on ecosystem impacts of EU fisheries to enable ecosystem assessments and to contribute to the MSFD

Problems identified Objectives of revision Options for addressing problem Proposed solution Insufficient data on some ecosystems impacts of EU fisheries to enable ecosystem assessments Ensure DCF provides more data on ecosystem impacts of EU fisheries, namely: - - Data on by-catch of non-target species Include explicit reference to this new area of data collection in the DCF regulation. In addition, 1. Include detailed requirements in the EU MAP regarding what species and variables should be sampled and how this should be done. 2. Include detailed requirements in the EU MAP regarding what species and variables should be sampled but let RCGs determine how this should be done. 3. RCGs to determine the most appropriate sampling approach for their region. Include explicit reference to this new area of data collection in the DCF regulation. In addition, RCGs to agree on the most appropriate sampling approach for their region. Data on predator-prey interactions (foodwebs), i.e. stomach-content data for food-chain analysis Include explicit reference to this new area of data collection in the DCF Regulation. In addition, 1. Collect data on stomach content as part of routine sampling (species to be determined by RCGs). 2. Collect data on stomach content as part of routine sampling (species to be listed in the EU-MAP). 3. Data collection on stomach content through dedicated projects. Include explicit reference to this new area of data collection in the DCF Regulation. In addition, Member States to collect data on stomach content as part of routine sampling on selected species listed in the EU MAP. Data on impacts of fisheries on habitats Include explicit reference to this new area of data collection in the DCF Regulation. In addition, 1. Regular data collection on fishing pressure (VMS & gear type) included in EU MAP 2. Dedicated research projects on specific impacts on fisheries on different seabed types and organisms (under EMFF or other instruments) 3. List specific seabed organisms in the EU MAP that Member States should monitor when they are caught by fisheries at a minimum those from existing international or EU obligations). 4. Let RCGs decide on which seabed organisms should be monitored when they are caught by fisheries. Include explicit reference to this new area of data collection in the DCF Regulation. In addition, Data collection on fishing pressure (VMS & gear type) included in EU MAP 2. Dedicated research projects on specific impacts on fisheries on different seabed types and organisms (under EMFF or other instruments) 3. List specific seabed organisms in the EU MAP that Member States should monitor when they are caught by fisheries (at a minimum those from existing international or EU obligations). Changes to the DCF One of the principles of the CFP Regulation (Article 2) is that it "shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised, and shall endeavour to ensure that aquaculture and fisheries activities avoid the degradation of the marine environment.”. Furthermore, the CFP should also “be coherent with the Union environmental legislation, in particular with the objective of achieving a good environmental status by 2020” in other words, with the objectives of the MSFD. Regarding data collection (Article 25), the CFP Regulation requires that Member States collect and provide to end-users data that shall enable assessing the level of fishing and the impact that fishing activities have on the marine biological resources and on the marine ecosystems. In this context, the current DCF does not provide sufficient data on some ecosystem impacts of fisheries, that is incidental catches of protected species (birds, marine mammals, turtles etc. - impact 4 above), effects on foodwebs (predator-prey relations), typically measured through stomach content analysis (impact 5) and only contributes some of the required data on the impact of fishing gear on the seabed habitats, namely data on fishing pressure (impact 6). On this basis, the scope of the DCF should be amended to reflect the CFP's new emphasis on ecosystem impacts of fisheries. Whilst DCF core business remains data collection on fishing activity, there is scope for maximising the synergies between the legislative frameworks by aligning the obligations Member States have to collect certain fisheries-related environmental data and to improve the quality and coverage of the data collected. Additional data on the three ecosystem impacts above could be collected, at minimal additional costs (see Annex X), through existing or modified DCF mechanisms such as fisheries research surveys at sea or sampling of commercial vessels' activities. The revised DCF could therefore contribute additional required information relating to fisheries impacts on the ecosystem , thereby enhancing synergies with MSFD requirements whilst following the most cost-effective solutions. Specifically, the relevant provisions of the DCF Regulation relating to the contents of the EU MAP should be further specified to include data collection on impacts on non-target species including species protected under international or EU legislation, impacts of fishing gear on marine habitats and impacts on food webs. Also, inclusion of data collection provisions in the DCF on by-catch of non-target species, in particular species protected under international or EU law– a dedicated data collection instrument – should improve the quality and harmonization of the data collected and would include standardized procedures to ensure data are provided to the data users that need them. The EU MAP would detail these provisions further (see Annex X for more details). 5.2.1.3.Socio-economic data on the catch sector Regarding the catch sector, the current DCF contains provisions requiring Member States to collect economic data on the EU fleet, to enable the assessment of the economic performance of the sector. No other EU legislation requires the collection of such data, and the DCF Regulation would therefore continue to be the basis for collection of these data. The exact data to be collected would be detailed further in the future EU MAP. 5.2.1.4.Assessing the impacts of the landing obligation Background and legal provisions of the DCF The CFP Regulation introduced an obligation for Member States to land all catches of species which are subject to catch limits and, in the Mediterranean, also catches of species which are subject to size limitations, caught during fishing activities in Union waters or by Union fishing vessels outside Union waters in waters not subject to third countries' sovereignty or jurisdiction, in the fisheries and geographical areas listed in that regulation. However, the CFP Regulation contains a number of exemptions namely: i) species not covered by catch limits; ii) species where high survivability can be demonstrated; iii) prohibited species; iv) limited volumes of permissible discards which can be triggered under certain conditions (the so called "de minimis exemptions"), and v) inter-species and inter-annual quota flexibility mechanisms. Therefore, in practice, in most if not all fisheries, some discarding will still be authorized. There are two questions arising from the inclusion of a landing obligation in the CFP Regulation that the DCF should address: I.How does the landing obligation affect the sampling of catches, including discards? II.Do we have the necessary data to evaluate the impacts of the landing obligation? Regarding the first question, under the current DCF, discards are sampled through at-sea scientific monitoring of commercial catches (by scientific observers) (Article 11.1). This at sea monitoring covers both discards and retained catches. For retained catches (that are landed), biological data are also collected in harbours. This collection of data on catches, including discards, for scientific purposes is separate from the collection of data on catches for control purposes, under the Control Regulation. Data are collected by different bodies, under different legislations and for different purposes. This distinction between scientific observers and control inspectors is essential as they do not pursue the same goals; the former are operating in the context of sampling programmes, for which collaboration of the fishing sector is essential; the latter is conducted to check compliance of individual vessels with EU and national legislation on fisheries. Despite this difference in purposes, and although under the DCF, scientific observers must be given access by captains to fishing vessels to carry out their work (Article 11.3), in practice, access relies to a large extent on the good-will of captains and in many Member States, scientific observers have experienced problems gaining access to vessels for their DCF work. Under the landing obligation, there is therefore widespread concern amongst the scientists that access to vessels may become even more difficult, as scientific observers may be perceived by fishermen to have also a control function, in an environment where discarding is, for the most part, illegal. Where scientists are granted access to vessels, there is a concern that the fishing behaviour/areas visited etc. may be changed to avoid areas with high by-catch and will result in biased results. However, scientific observer at sea programmes will need to continue, as some sampling cannot take place in harbours, namely (authorized) discards, discards of incidental by-catch such as birds and marine mammals, sampling of fish that will be frozen and/or processed on board, and sampling in long-distance fisheries.

It will therefore be important to ensure that the DCF Regulation maintains provisions on access for scientific observers to vessels. The most appropriate way to carry out scientific data collection on catches including discards (observers at sea, CCTV etc.) and how to address the issue of potential bias, are issues that will require further expert work, such as is already ongoing within STECF. As regards evaluating the impacts of the landing obligation, the EU and its Member States should ensure they have the necessary data, in a few years' time, to evaluate what the impacts of the landing obligation have been on the state of exploited marine biological resources and on the economic performance of the fleets. Possible impacts include for example, development of more selective gears to reduce by-catch, an improvement of the fish stocks in the EU due to improved selectivity and reduced overall catches, development of new markets to make use of the unwanted catches for non-human consumption, changes in profitability of certain sectors/fisheries, or negative impacts on some stocks due to removal of a food source (the discarded fish). Changes to the DCF In light of the current uncertainty regarding the impacts of the landing obligation on catch sampling under the DCF, and in particular on the reliability of data collected through observer schemes, the revised DCF Regulation should include an obligation for Member States to carry out biological sampling on all stocks targeted or by-caught by EU vessels, including on the discarded fraction of the catches, but without specifying the method for the data collection (i.e. whether it is through observers at sea or CCTV or other methods). The EU MAP may detail this general obligation further, and may specify the methods to be used when scientific discussions have advanced enough and if they have concluded that the method should be specified at EU level rather than left up to Member States or regional groupings. The scope of the current DCF does not refer to the need to collect data to support assessment of the impacts of EU policies relating to fisheries, such as the landing obligation. As the instruments providing data for implementation of the CFP, the DCF should, however, enable such assessments of policy measures stemming from the CFP. The future DCF Regulation would therefore include, as part of the criteria for determining what data to include in the EU MAP, the need to support impact assessments of policy measures. This would enable future inclusion of additional data under the EU MAP, if required, to evaluate for example the impacts of the landing obligation. Regarding ensuring access to vessels for scientific observers, the existing legal provisions in the DCF Regulation requiring captains to grant access to scientific observes are appropriate: the problems observed in the past regarding this aspects of the DCF relate not to the legal framework, but to a lack of compliance by captains with these provisions, and insufficient follow-up by Member States to ensure the provisions are complied with. The DCF Regulation would therefore also include a provision enabling the Commission to adopt an implementing act to establish detailed provisions to ensure a harmonised and effective implementation of this provision. The current clear separation between scientific observers and control observers should be maintained. The problems that have arisen in the past should be addressed through improved enforcement by Member States. Therefore, the Commission will work closely with Member States to ensure they enforce this provision and can share their experiences to increase compliance with this requirement. 5.2.2.Data on fishing activity Background and legal provisions of the DCF Data on fishing activity (e.g. capacity, effort, landings and catches) are required for analysis of both biological and economic data. In the current legislative framework, such data are collected and made available under several pieces of EU legislation: primarily the Control Regulation, but also the Fishing Authorisations Regulation, Fleet Register Regulation, and several Statistical Regulations catch statistics and on landings of fisheries products (see Table 6 ). In addition, the DCF contains provisions on use of data on vessels' activity coming from VMS, and on data allowing the estimation of total volumes of catches, including discards, including where relevant data on catches from recreational fisheries (Article 15). The exact data relating to fishing activity data are listed in Appendix VIII of the EU MAP, and include for example weight of landings per species. Legislation Data Tools/Data sources Control Regulation Fishing effort & catches of EU vessels in EU waters. Landings of EU vessels in EU & external waters. Logbooks, landing declarations, sales notes and VMS. Commission Fleet Register Regulation Capacity of EU vessels EU fleet register Fishing Authorisations Regulation Fishing effort & catches of EU vessels in external waters. Catches of non-EU vessels in EU waters. EU fishing authorisation information system Statistical Regulations on catch statistics and on landings of fisheries products Landing and catches Data are assembled and reported under these legislations, and disseminated by Eurostat. As regards articulation between DCF data and data stemming from the Control Regulation, the DCF concerns the fishing activity data collected under the Control Regulation insofar as it requires that these data be transmitted to end-users upon request. Hence, the obligations on collection are laid down in Control Regulation, whilst the obligations on transmission to end-users are set out in the DCF Regulation. However, some discrepancies exist. Under the Control Regulation, Member States are not required to fill out electronic logbook for some segments (less than 12 meters) of the fleet, for catches below a certain threshold (50 kg) and for recreational fisheries. They are required to fill out paper logbooks for segments between 10-12 meters, and to keep sales notes (from which information on catches can be derived) for smaller vessels but there are no obligations to record catches below 50kg. However, data on catches from the whole sector, including all segments, are needed for scientific purposes. Therefore the Control Regulation does not provide data on all catches (i.e. below 50kg) and f