EN    EN 
 
 
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION   
Brussels, 17.6.2015  
COM(2015) 297 final  
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL  
on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 762/2008 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 9 July 2008 on the submission by Member States of statistics on 
aquaculture and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 788/96   
 
2 
 1. INTRODUCTION  
Regulation (EC)  No 762/20081 on the submission by Member States of statistics on aquaculture 
was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 9 July 2008. Article 11 stipulates the 
following: ‘By 31 December 2011 and every three years thereafter, the Commission shall submit 
an evaluation report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the statistics compiled 
pursuant to this Regulation and, in particular, on their relevance and quality. This report shall 
also undertake a cost -effectiveness analysis of the system intro duced to collect and draw up the 
statistics and shall indicate best practices to lessen the workload for Member States and enhance 
the usefulness and quality of the data.’  
 
2. COVERAGE AND CONTENT  
The Regulation requires submission of data in four areas, n amely:  
(a) the annual production (volume and unit value) of aquaculture;  
(b) the annual input (volume and unit value) to capture -based aquaculture;  
(c) the annual production of hatcheries and nurseries;  
(d) the structure of the aquaculture sector.  
Data are  required annually except in the case of structure information, which is submitted every 
three years. The first year for which data were required to be transmitted (the reference year) was 
2008 and those data had to be received by Eurostat by 31 December 2 009. The Regulation made 
provision for Member States to delay implementation or to obtain a derogation from some or all 
of its requirements. Seven Member States were granted a transitional period in which to 
implement the Regulation: the Czech Republic had  to supply data for the first time for reference 
year 2009, Portugal for 2010 and Germany, Greece, Austria, Poland and Slovenia for 20112. 
Three Member States (Austria, the Czech Republic and Luxembourg) had been allowed 
derogations for data until referenc e year 2011 either to supply no information (Luxembourg) or to 
supply only estimates for some categories instead of comprehensive validated statistical data3. 
Aquaculture production data from Belgium (2010 -2012), Denmark (2011), Germany (2011, 
2012), Eston ia (2012), Lithuania (2010 -2012), Austria (2011, 2012), Slovenia (2011, 2012), 
Finland (2011, 2012) and Iceland (2012) contain many confidential values. Countries may 
declare data as confidential if it can reasonably be assumed that the disclosure of such data could 
allow the identification of individual entity attributes. Thus, where the aquaculture data 
aggregated at national level may reveal the production volume or value of single enterprises, 
those data are flagged confidential and may not be published  by the European Commission.  
2.1 Data collection and sources  
In the majority of Member States, data are collected through a complete census of registered 
aquaculture producers using annual postal or electronic questionnaires. Almost all countries have 
                                                 
1 Regula tion (EC) No 762/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on the 
submission by Member States of statistics on aquaculture and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 
788/96: OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 1 –13. 
2 Commission Decision No 2010/ 76/EU of 9 February 2010 according a transitional period for implementing 
Regulation (EC) No 762/2008.  
3 Commission Implementing Decision No 2011/626/EU of 22 September 2011 granting a derogation for 
implementing Regulation (EC) No 762/2008.  
 
3 
 incorporated the requirements of European aquaculture data collection into national law. 
Registration of aquaculture production businesses is a requirement of EU animal health 
legislation4. Non -response rates are reported to be generally low in many Member  States, and it is 
relatively simple for authorities to follow things up with data providers. Some Member States say 
that they make use of administrative information from industry sources. In a number of countries, 
veterinary offices and fisheries departme nts collaborate in cross -checking register details and 
returns.  
2.2 Data collection systems in the Member States  
The following country sections are derived from the most recent annual methodological reports 
for aquaculture statistics (reference years 2013 -2011) sent from the Member States to the 
European Commission in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 762/2008. They do not reflect any 
opinion of the European Commission.  
Belgium  
Statistics Belgium provides aquaculture data to Eurostat. There is no national law governing 
aquaculture statistics. The sampling population covers all companies registered by the Federal 
Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (FASFC). A large part of Belgium’s production is used 
for restocking or sport fishing and is not for sale, thus not forming part of Eurostat statistics. Due 
to the low production volume, Belgium may submit summary data estimating the total 
production.  
Bulgaria  
The Bulgarian National Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture (NAFA) maintains the national 
register of aquaculture premises and requires businesses to provide annual statistical data on 
production and sales. Data sources are regularly cross -checked against each other for validity. 
Data are also verified by NAFA inspectors at the time of inspection visits.  
Czech Republic  
The Ministry of Agriculture collects data for Regulation (EC) No 762/2008 from aquaculture 
producers and the Czech Anglers Union. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Czech Statistical 
Office validate and submit the data to Eurostat. No estima tions are made . 
Denmark  
The Danish AgriFish Agency within the Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries collects 
data and submits them to Eurostat. Production data ‘at first sale’ are collected from all 
commercial aquaculture production facilities. The coverage of the industry is complete and no 
sampling techniques are employed. Whereas approximate numbers of sold juveniles, based on the 
live weight, were reported in the past, since 2012 actual numbers are recorded.  
 
 
                                                 
4 Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals 
and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (OJ L 328, 
24.11.2006) and Commission Decision of 30 April 2008 imp lementing Council Directive 2006/88/EC as 
regards an Internet -based information page to make information on aquaculture production businesses and 
authorised processing establishments available by electronic means (OJ L 138, 28.5.2008, p. 12 –20). 
 
4 
 Germany  
Data are provided to the Fed eral Statistical Bureau (Destatis) through the Statistical Bureaus of 
the Länder, which carry out a full census of production volume at first sale for all registered 
aquaculture enterprises. The production value is estimated on the basis of a sample of up to 500 
companies. Missing data on production values are estimated using the weighted averages of 
groups of species (e.g. salmonids, cyprinids).  
Estonia  
Statistics Estonia collects data and submits them to Eurostat. Data collection entails a survey of 
all enterprises with commercial fish breeding, restocking of fish and fishing tourism as their main 
or secondary activity. The survey covers commercial production, breeding, sales and intermediate 
production and consumption. Data are validated and cross -checked  against fish restocking data 
from the Ministry of Environment. Estonia has identified a particular issue with double counting 
of production sold between farms.  
Ireland  
The Irish Sea Fisheries Board (Bord Iascaigh Mhara) is responsible for data collection and 
submission to Eurostat. Non -response rates are about 20  %. Missing data are estimated on the 
basis of expert opinion and average data of the last five years together with actual regional trends. 
In the case of persistent non -returnees, data are obtaine d through indirect means from other 
agencies. Data accuracy is more difficult to achieve for companies that operate across more than 
one jurisdiction, with cases of double counting having been identified.  
Greece  
The Hellenic Statistical Authority (ELSTAT) collects data and submits them to Eurostat. First 
sale production data are collected through a full census. Annual updates of the business register 
ensure full coverage of the sector. The non -response rate went down to 1.6  % in 2013 from 3  % in 
2011. Missi ng values were imputed.  
Spain  
The sub -Directorate General for Statistics of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and the 
Environment (MAGRAMA) collects data and submits them to Eurostat. The survey covers all 
active aquaculture facilities in a full census and  reliability is considered to be good. Additional 
stratified sampling of mussel producers in Galicia is carried out with a confidence level of 95  %. 
Data are screened for consistency with previous years’ submissions. In the past, Spain had 
identified a par ticular problem in attributing prices and accurate conversion factors (numbers of 
individuals to tonnes live weight) to wild caught inputs to the production cycle. This was solved 
in 2012.  
France  
The Directorate of Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture (DPMA) o f the Ministry of Ecology, 
Sustainable Development and Energy collects data and submits them to Eurostat. Data collection 
entails an annual postal survey. Online data collection is envisaged from 2015 onwards. Missing 
data are augmented by substituting dat a from similar premises in the same geographical area. 
Data validation involves outlier searches, internal cross -referencing of data and comparisons with 
earlier submissions.  
 
5 
 Croatia  
The Ministry of Agriculture’s Directorate of Fisheries uses logbooks for the annual collection of 
aquaculture data. For marine aquaculture, the non -response rate among shellfish farmers is very 
high and missing values for this subsector are estimated. Croatia is planning to address data 
quality issues for both the freshwater an d marine aquaculture sectors through workshops for 
farmers.  
Italy  
The Ministry of Agriculture (Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali) submits 
data to Eurostat. Data are collected regionally through UNIMAR, a consortium of fisheries and 
aquaculture research cooperatives. All aquaculture facilities known to the regional coordinator 
constitute the target population of the annual census. Interviews are conducted at the facilities. 
No estimations are made.  
Cyprus  
The Department of Fisheries a nd Marine Research (DFMR) of the Ministry of Agriculture, 
Natural Resources and Environment collects data and submits them to Eurostat. Data are 
collected mainly through a statistical census supplemented by site inspections and interviews 
with managers or owners of aquaculture enterprises. Additional information is obtained from 
approvals for the stocking of ponds or raceways, from details of exports and fish feed imports. 
Some inconsistencies in data sent to different organisations have been identified, bu t should be 
resolved from 2014 onwards.  
Latvia  
The Central Statistical Bureau (CSB) collects the aquaculture data. The Department of Fisheries 
of the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for ensuring data consistency and reporting to the 
European Commiss ion. Coverage of the industry by questionnaire is complete and no estimation 
is made.  
Lithuania  
The Agricultural Information and Rural Business Centre (AIRBC) collects data and submits them 
to Eurostat. All commercial aquaculture production sites report th eir data on a biannual basis. 
Response rate is 100  %. 
Luxembourg  
There is no market production of fish in Luxembourg. The only fish establishment is owned by 
the State and produces fish only for purposes of release to the wild.  
Hungary  
The main responsibil ity for aquaculture data rests with the Ministry of Agriculture. The final 
statistics are submitted to Eurostat by the Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Data are validated 
by comparing them against set minima and maxima for each species and age class. The relatively 
small statistical population makes it possible to follow up any discrepancies by phone. 
Improvements are planned for the determination of first selling point average selling prices.  
 
 
 
6 
 Malta  
The National Statistics Office (NSO) collects data and submits them to Eurostat. The small 
Maltese industry comprises only six farms, five of which specialise in tuna fattening. Data returns 
are intensively scrutinised and cross -referenced with information on live fish sales and 
international trade.  
Nether lands  
As from reference year 2013, aquaculture data are collected by Statistics Netherlands (CBS) from 
the Dutch Organisation of Fish Farmers, NeVeVi, and from the mussel auction. The value of 
oysters is obtained from the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Ther e is no market price for mussel 
seed, which is thus an indicative estimate of the Dutch Mussels Producer Organisation. An 
estimated mussel production value has been submitted for two enterprises due to confidentiality 
requirements. Data on the structure of  aquaculture facilities are estimated from the total 
production by species and production method by the NeVeVi.  
Austria  
Statistics Austria collects data and submits them to Eurostat. Data are collected through an annual 
full census of enterprises. Over the  three years since the first survey was launched, response rates 
have risen from an initial 90  % to 99  %. Estimations of the unit price of fish for human 
consumption are made in 5 -15 % of the cases where prices are unknown due to enterprises 
directly selli ng processed fish.  
Poland  
The Inland Fishing Institute in Olsztyn collects aquaculture production data and submits them to 
the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, which forwards them to the Central 
Statistical Office. The aquaculture questionnai re is distributed through websites, information 
campaigns and mailing lists. Coverage is estimated to be almost complete. The quality of data is 
influenced by the definitions of production and cultivation methods set out in Regulation (EC) 
No 762/2008, whi ch differ from Polish practice.  
Portugal  
The Directorate -General for Natural Resources, Security and Maritime Services (DGRM) 
submits data to Eurostat. DGRM collects aquaculture data for brackish and marine waters 
directly and receives data on inland aquaculture from the Institute for the Conservation of Nature 
and Forests (ICNF).  The area, type and environment of aquaculture production units are taken 
from an administrative register. All other variables are collected through an annual postal 
questionn aire and, if necessary, personal interviews. The response rate is high for finfish farms, 
but estimates are needed for on -bottom bivalve production (grooved carpet shell).  
Romania  
The National Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture (NAFA) collects data and s ubmits them to 
Eurostat. All aquaculture units are registered and licensed. Production volumes and values are 
collected on a monthly basis.  
Slovenia  
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (MAFF) and the Statistical Office of the 
Republic of Sloveni a (SURS) collect data and submit them to Eurostat. All commercial fish 
 
7 
 farmers, including angler organisations which participate as aquaculture producers at the 
aquaculture fish market, annually fill out online or postal questionnaires. Irretrievable data are 
imputed based on previous data or on the facilities’ capacity. In some cases conversion factors 
are used to convert from gutted or filleted fish to live weight. Slovenia notes that fish farmers 
have difficulties with the reliable reporting of fish eggs .   
Slovak Republic  
The Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic collects data and submits them to Eurostat. Data 
collection entails a postal census of active licensed aquaculture producers. The coverage of the 
census is complete and no estimation is performed. Continuous ch anges make it difficult to 
quantify the size of facilities/methods.  
Finland  
In Finland, aquaculture statistics are the responsibility of the Finnish Game and Fisheries 
Research Institute. The data are collected via statistical questionnaire sent to all pro duction units 
on the Aquaculture Register. In 2012 and 2013, the response rate went up to 93  % and 90  % 
(from about 75  % in previous years). Estimates of the remainder are obtained by stratifying the 
results and applying strata -specific coefficients. Some of the production volume is based on 
gutted weight converted to live weight using fixed conversion factors. The value of food fish 
production is calculated from the average producer prices.  
Sweden  
The National Statistical Institute on behalf of the Swedish  Board of Agriculture collects data and 
submits them to Eurostat. Data are collected through an annual postal census. The non -response 
rate is low. Any missing values are imputed by using information from previous years.  
United Kingdom  
Aquaculture statisti cs are collected separately by each of the regional governments: The Centre 
for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture (CEFAS) in England and Wales; Marine Scotland 
Science (MSS) in Scotland and the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) 
in Northern Ireland. The UK aggregates are compiled by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries 
and Aquaculture (CEFAS). Provision of data is reliant on the cooperation of the industry, which 
is judged as very good. Production volume data are collected with fu ll coverage by annual census 
of all producers. Unit price data are estimated, based on different sources of expert opinion. A 
weighted average unit price is submitted (based on total value) where unit prices vary per nation 
and species. Data collection for  capture -based inputs is not yet fully aligned with the 
requirements of Regulation (EC) No 762/2008.  
 
EEA Countries  
Iceland  
Since the start of 2015 the Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority has been collecting 
aquaculture production data and Statistics I celand submits the data to Eurostat. Data are collected 
annually through an online questionnaire. No sampling techniques are employed. Iceland has a 
particular problem with data on the structure of the aquaculture sector, which were not available 
before th e reference year 2013 and have thus been estimated retrospectively for 2011 based on 
 
8 
 total production. Also, non -response has been an issue in recent years. It is hoped that this can be 
solved with the new legislation, alongside inspections of aquaculture facilities.  
Norway  
The Directorate of Fisheries collects data and submits them to Eurostat. All commercial and 
research aquaculture producers are required to submit their data using a paper questionnaire. 
Missing production values are imputed on the basis of the previous year’s prices. The burden of 
complying with Regulation (EC) No 762/2008 is minimal, since the Norwegian authorities 
already collect the data for other purposes.  
 
2.3 Data quality  
The majority of data providers report comprehensive coverage of the industry and good data 
quality. A few countries do not detail the quality of data in their reports (e.g. Romania, Latvia). 
Some other countries highlight specific issues with data quality. Croatia mentions a lack of 
response for the shellfish sector . Portugal reports a low and unreliable response rate for bottom 
bivalve production. Issues of missing data and some instances of low quality are mentioned by 
Ireland and Iceland as well. Ireland notes that the rate of success in terms of percentage respon se 
and quality of the data provided or estimated depends on the goodwill of the industry. This is 
likely to be generally true, although many countries experience good cooperation with the 
industry. Concerns are raised by Spain and the UK with regard to inp uts to capture -based 
aquaculture, for which data may only be partially available. All countries that have expressed 
concerns about the availability or quality of some of their data are prepared to work continuously 
on improvements.  
Overall, at the aggregat e level, the consistency between years of aquaculture production for 
human consumption data appears to be very good. At species level, overall consistency of the 
data also seems good. Rarely do countries show sudden drops or increases in a certain species’  
production. Obvious cases of poor data quality are rare. Missing data, meaning incomplete time 
series, are fairly frequent. This may partly be explained by transitional arrangements in place 
until 2011 and partly by reporting of genera or groups of specie s instead of details at the species 
level. In some cases, however, a revision would clearly be useful. Moreover, aquaculture 
producers in many countries seem to experiment with new species in very small quantities. The 
use of these data is open to debate.  
Data on the production of fish eggs for human consumption show very good consistency between 
years at species and country level. Some time series are still short, due to derogations in place 
from 2008 to 2010.  
Data on the input to capture -based aquaculture  are deemed to be of rather low quality. The data 
for almost all species and in all countries fluctuate greatly. Despite variations in these data being 
partly explained by variations in the natural abundance of seed taken from the wild, the large 
year-to-year differences do not seem to be fully justified. Many data are missing as well, and 
some time series are too short to carry out an analysis of the consistency of data. Further 
guidelines and definitions of the data expected under this item may help to im prove data quality.  
Incomplete and highly fluctuating data are likewise very common in all producing countries for 
the number of eggs produced in hatcheries at the species level. As far as juveniles are concerned, 
 
9 
 data fluctuate greatly for some species an d countries and are incomplete for others. The time 
series for a number of countries is too short for further analysis.  
3. USE OF THE DATA (DATA DISSEMINATION ) 
The Member States’ reports are made available through Eurostat’s dissemination database at 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database . Data are also published in Eurostat statistical books, 
most recently ‘ Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics, 2014 edition'  (ISBN 978 -92-79-43201 -
9). Data collected through the Regulation are essential for informed, ev idence -based policy 
making at both national and EU level. Information about the production levels and trends in 
aquaculture is growing in relevance, in a renewed effort to develop the sector sustainably within 
the Common Fisheries Policy. Quantitative data  are particularly important in relation to drawing 
up multiannual national plans for the development of sustainable aquaculture. Data published 
through the Regulation provide policy makers, industry and civil society with an accepted set of 
reference figur es that help to inform the debate on the future of aquaculture production.  
4. COST -EFFECTIVENESS  
The cost -effectiveness of aquaculture data collection under Regulation (EC) No 762/2008 was 
assessed through the methodological country reports for 2013 with r eference to the years 2009 -
2013. Twenty -seven countries replied to the questions on cost -effectiveness. With regard to the 
production cost in monetary terms, six countries reported a low cost, three countries low -
medium, twelve countries medium, one countr y medium -high and two countries a high cost. The 
vast majority of countries also cover national needs with the aquaculture data compiled for 
Regulation (EC) No 762/2008. Altogether, 20 countries exceed 50  % coverage, with 15 countries 
going beyond 80 % and  seven countries reaching between 95 % and 100 %. Seven countries did 
not answer the question.  
A number of countries have suggested improvements aiming to reduce the burden of Regulation 
(EC) No 762/2008, particularly for improving the cooperation with oth er stakeholders in the field 
to standardise data submission requirements, concerning primarily the FAO and the Data 
Collection Framework Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. Austria wants to separate details on the 
cultivation methods from the species and to limit  the collection of detailed data to major 
production units, whereas small units would report total production only.  
From the country reports it appears that about half of the countries collect data directly from the 
facilities at production unit level whil e the others have the company managers fill out the 
questionnaires for all of their facilities. Collecting data at the level of the enterprise facilitates 
collecting data under the Data Collection Framework Regulation (EC) No 199/20085 at the same 
time, al though only Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Lithuania and Spain reportedly do so. The idea of 
covering both regulations with one data collection exercise may be worth investigating further to 
reduce the overall burden at Member State level.  
5 CONCLUSIONS  
From analysis of the data which have been collected under Regulation (EC) No 762/2008, data 
quality appears to be quite high for aquaculture production for human consumption (including 
eggs) at the aggregate level and for the major species, although for so me countries individual 
                                                 
5 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 — OJ L 60, 5.3.2008, p. 1 –12. 
 
10 
 species’ time series are incomplete and revisions may be useful. Data on the input to capture -
based aquaculture and the production of eggs from hatcheries and nurseries are of rather poor 
quality. Better consistency is shown for the  number of juveniles, although the definition of 
juveniles in the Regulation lacks precision.  
Many countries judge the quality of national aquaculture data provided to Eurostat as high. 
Others do not explicitly rate the quality of their data, but do not me ntion any shortcomings. Only 
some acknowledge shortcomings due either to difficulties within the country or to ambiguities 
found in the Regulation. In a few instances the Regulation is seen as diverging from the nature of 
the business.  
Relatively little es timation is involved in the production of aquaculture figures. The large 
majority of Member States have an annual census with complete coverage of commercial 
production. Non -response rates are generally low, except for some specific cases. It has been 
ackn owledged though that the quality and completeness of data depend strongly on the goodwill 
of the industry.  
As regards cost -effectiveness, for the reference year 2013 only four countries (Germany, Ireland, 
Greece and Poland) claimed a high burden imposed by  Regulation (EC) No 762/2008 in terms of 
time needed to collect, process and submit the data, and two countries (Denmark and Germany) 
judged the production cost as high in monetary terms. By contrast, seven countries deemed the 
burden to be low in terms of  both time and cost. These estimations do not correlate with the 
production volume of the Member States. National needs are covered to a considerable extent by 
the vast majority of countries collecting aquaculture data under Regulation (EC) No 762/2008.  
6 RECOMMENDATIONS  
The European Commission strives for continuous improvement of the quality of European 
statistics. At the same time, reducing the burden on Member States is an essential principle. To 
this end, a review of Regulation (EC) No 762/2008 may be envisaged, drawing on lessons 
learned from the years of data collection, taking into account data needs of the revised Common 
Fisheries Policy and aligning with the Data Collection Framework Multiannual Programme. In 
particular, a solution to the high quan tity of  confidential data should be found, allowing the 
production and use of harmonised aquaculture data at the European level. Synergies with the 
Coordinating Working Party on Fisheries Statistics standard aquaculture questionnaire will be 
exploited.  
At Member State level the burden of aquaculture data collection may be reduced by switching 
from paper to (partly pre -filled) online questionnaires and automatising part of the validation 
process. Bulgaria has successfully introduced new data collection form s covering both the 
statistical data requirements of Regulation (EC) No 762/2008 and the socio -economic 
aquaculture data requirements stemming from the Data Collection Framework Regulation (EC) 
No 199/2008.