Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Implementation of the Community framework for the collection and management of data needed to conduct the common fisheries policy
Date: 2004-04-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common fisheries policy, data collection, database

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 2.4.2004 
COM(2004) 225 final 

 . 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Implementation of the Community framework for the collection and management of 
data needed to conduct the common fisheries policy 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Experience to date ........................................................................................................ 4 

The National programmes of Member states ............................................................... 4 

Co-ordination between the Commission and Member States ...................................... 4 

Roles of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 
(STECF), the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) and 
the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) ................................. 4 

2.3.1.  STECF.......................................................................................................................... 4 

2.3.2.  ACFA ........................................................................................................................... 5 

2.3.3. 

ICES ............................................................................................................................. 5 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

8. 

9. 

The data collected ........................................................................................................ 6 

Data Management ........................................................................................................ 7 

Studies and pilot projects ............................................................................................. 8 

Financial aspects .......................................................................................................... 8 

Future developments .................................................................................................... 9 

Reinforcement of the present Regulation (N°1639/20014) .......................................... 9 

Immediate improvements of the Regulation N°1639/2001 4 (2004) ......................... 10 

Preparation of the future developments (2006).......................................................... 12 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 13 

List of abbreviations................................................................................................... 14 

TABLE 1 Data Collection budget 2001-2003 (commitments) ................................................ 15 

TABLE 2 Maximum EU contribution 2002-2003 by Member States and tasks ..................... 16 

TABLE 3 Timetable on Data Collection Exercises ................................................................. 17 

TABLE 4 Timetable on the submission of documents by Member States 

(until mid-January 2004)............................................................................................ 18 

2 

 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  systematic  collection  of  reliable  basic  data  on  fisheries  is  a  cornerstone  for  the 
implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). 

As far back as 1993 the Council recognised “the necessity to maintain, extend or create an 
appropriate data base, covering biological, ecological, technical and socio-economic aspects, 
as vital for the implementation of the CFP.”1 

A  legal  Community  framework  for  the  collection  and  management  of  such  data  was  put  in 
place in 2000 with the adoption of a Council Regulation2 and a Council Decision3, followed 
in 2001 by a Commission Regulation4 laying down the detailed rules of application. 

This framework aims to consolidate and to strengthen the existing data collection activities in 
Member  States.  Through  a  better  co-ordination  and  co-operation  of  these  activities  the 
efficiency  of  the  collection  and  management  of  data  will  be  improved  and  the  provision  of 
Community financial support should facilitate data collection. 

The  Council  Regulation  stipulates  in  Article  10  that  “the  Commission  shall  present  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  at  three  yearly  intervals  and  for  the  first  time  by 
December  2003,  a  report  evaluating  the  measures  taken  by  each  Member  State,  the 
appropriateness of the methods used and the results achieved as regards the data collection 
and management referred to in this Regulation. This report shall also evaluate the utilisation 
by the Community of the data collected”. The same Article states that “By 31 December 2003 
the Commission shall review whether it is appropriate to extend the range of data collected 
under this Regulation”. 

This report responds to this legal requirement and is based on the information received from 
Member  States  on  the  tasks  carried  out  during  2002.  Although  experience  with  the  data 
collection framework has been briefer than originally foreseen, an early review is appropriate 
to adjust the technically complex Community framework for data collection. 

The improvement of the data collection framework for the collection and management of data 
needed to evaluate the situation of fisheries resources and the fisheries sector is a basic step 
towards carrying out the CFP. Difficulties are generally to be expected at the outset of such an 
ambitious  and  technically  complex  process.  From  the  beginning,  the  Commission  has 
assumed  that  the  establishment  of  national  programmes  to  systematically  collect  the  data, 
including  the  economic  ones,  would  be  a  real  challenge  for  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission. Despite the difficulties identified in this report, the Commission believes that a 

1 
2 

3 

4 

Council Document SN 3289/1/93 of 24 July 1993. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  N°  1543/2000  of  29  June  2000  establishing  a  Community  Framework  for 
the  collection  and  management  of  the  data  needed  to  conduct  the  common  fisheries  policy  – 
OJ L 176,15.7.2000, p.1, (hereinafter, “Council Regulation N° 1543/2000”). 
Council  Decision  N°  439/2000  EC  of  29  June  2000  on  a  financial  contribution  from  the  Community 
towards  the  expenditure  incurred  in  Member  States  in  collecting  data,  and  for  financing  studies  and 
pilot projects for carrying out the common fisheries policy – OJ L 176, 15.7.2000, p. 42. 
Commission Regulation (EC) N° 1639/2001 of 25 July 2001 establishing the  minimum and extended 
Community programmes for the collection of data in the fisheries sector and laying down detailed rules 
for  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  N°  1543/2000  –  OJ  L  222,  17.8.2001,  p.  53  
(hereinafter, “Commission Regulation N° 1639/2001”). 

3 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
good start has been made and positive long-term effects are expected for each Member State 
and for the Commission. 

2. 

EXPERIENCE TO DATE 

2.1. 

The National programmes of Member states  

Member States submitted their national programmes for the first time during 2001 covering 
the  year  2002.  The  Programmes  were  evaluated  with  the  assistance  of  external  experts,  the 
Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) and the services of the 
Commission  resulting  in  the  formal  adoption  of  the  Commission  Decision  on  the  financial 
contribution towards the expenditure incurred  by Member States in August 2002.  The  same 
procedure was followed for 2003. 

Based  on  the  experience  of  2002  and  following  the  recommendation  of  the  STECF 
concerning  the  scientific  programmes  and  the  Commission  concerning  the  introduction  of 
standardised  financial  tables,  the  submissions  for  the  exercise  2003  and  2004  have  been 
significantly  improved.  This  continuous  improvement  in  the  overall  quality  of  successive 
submissions from Member States is encouraging. However, some programmes remain poorly 
integrated as a result of a lack of co-ordination at national and international levels. 

2.2. 

Co-ordination between the Commission and Member States  

The  co-ordination  between  the  services  of  the  Commission  and  Member  States  takes  place 
almost  entirely  through  the  network  of  the  nominated  national  correspondents,  who  meet 
several  times  a  year  in  formal  meetings  of  the  Management  Committee  for  Fisheries  and 
Aquaculture to give their opinion, and in informal meetings to exchange information. 

The  network  of  national  correspondents  is  important  for  the  implementation  of  the  data 
collection  framework.  Bilateral  contacts  are  frequent  throughout  the  year  and  all  national 
programmes, reports from the external experts and the STECF are available to all concerned 
to guarantee full transparency. 

The implementation of the data Regulation framework has been a real challenge both for the 
Member States and the Commission. The experience with the Programmes for 2002, the only 
year for which technical and financial reports are available, demonstrated that the network of 
national correspondents has been effective. Their work has been successful in general, despite 
the fact that some Member States have underestimated the workload of these correspondents. 
This  was  mainly  the  case  for  the  Member  States  where  many  partners  (Oceanographic 
Institutes, Universities) are involved. 

2.3. 

Roles  of  the  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries 
(STECF),  the  Advisory  Committee  on  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  (ACFA)  and 
the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) 

2.3.1. 

STECF 

From the beginning of the data collection programme, the STECF has been heavily involved 
in its implementation. 

Over the period four meetings were held, to analyse the derogations and non-conformities of 
data collection programmes (March and December 2002), to analyse the catch per unit effort 

4 

 
 
  
 
(cpue) data collection within the national programmes from 2003 onward (March 2003), and 
to conduct the present review of the data collection regulation (July 2003). 

Reports of these meetings were presented and discussed at the STECF plenary meetings and 
then, with some additional comments and considerations, endorsed by the STECF5. 

2.3.2.  ACFA 

The  ACFA  was  first  informed  about  the  data  collection  exercise  in  May  20016  The 
Committee was updated on the current status and development during its meetings of 2002. 

The ACFA welcomed the data collection programme and wished to be involved in the data 
collection  process.  The  Committee  accepted  to  participate  actively  in  the  collection  of 
economic data on condition that the confidentiality of such data would be guaranteed by the 
Commission. 

2.3.3. 

ICES 

The  scientific  community  in  general  and  some  international  scientific  bodies  such  as  ICES 
have responded positively to the Community’s data collection initiative. Data collected under 
the data collection framework are considered to be highly relevant to ICES work on assessing 
the  state  of  fish  stocks  and  to  advise  on  management.  ICES  and  the  Commission  have 
common  interests  in  this  field  and  ICES  has  subsequently  created  a  Planning  Group  on 
Commercial  Catch,  Discards  and  Biological  Sampling  (PGCCDBS)7  which  has  met  twice 
since the Regulation came into force. STECF Members and Commission officials participated 
in these two meetings. 

5 

6 

7 

STECF, 2002. Report of the STECF Sub-group on Research Need : Evaluation of National 
Programmes. Brussels, 4-7 March 2002. 46 p. 
STECF, 2002. Report of the STECF Sub-group on Research Need : Analysis of Derogations and no-
conformities of Data Collection Programmes for 2003 and further evaluation of Blackspot sea bream 
recovery plan. Brussels, 9-13 December, 69 p. 
STECF, 2003. Report of the STECF Sub-group on Research Need : Analysis of CPUE Data Collection 
within National Programmes in 2003 and onward and their utility over the period 1995-2000. 
Brussels, 24 - 28 March, 51 p. 
STECF, 2003. Report of the STECF Sub-group on Research Need : Mid-term Review.  
Brussels, 7 - 11 July, in press. 
STECF, 2002. 14th Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for fisheries. 
Brussels, 22 - 26 April, 120 p. 
STECF, 2002. 15th Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for fisheries. 
Brussels, 4 - 8 November, 140 p. 
STECF, 2003. 16th Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for fisheries. 
Brussels, 31 March - 4 April, 84 p. 
STECF, 2003. 17th Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for fisheries. 
Brussels, 3 - 7 November, in press 
ACFA, 2001. Summary record of the meeting of the Working Group I (Resources) of the ACFA held 
on 4 May 2001 in Brussels. 9 p. 
ICES, 2002. Report of the Planning Group on Commercial Catch, Discards and Biological Sampling 
(PGCCDBS). ICES CM 2002/ACFM: 07, 102 p. 
ICES, 2003. Report of the Planning Group on Commercial Catch, Discards and Biological Sampling 
(PGCCDBS). ICES CM 2003/ACFM: 16, 38 p. 

5 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Furthermore,  since  the  adoption  of  the  data  collection  framework,  several  ICES  Working 
Groups8 have provided spontaneous comments and suggestions on the data collection scheme. 
As end users of the data collected their inputs are very useful and a formal request to all ICES 
Working  Groups  to  provide  feedback  on  the  quality  of  data  provided  will  be  made  by  the 
Commission. 

3. 

THE DATA COLLECTED 

The data collection Regulation provides two sets of data. Mandatory data collected under the 
control Regulations N°2090/1998  9, N°2807/1983  10, N°2847/199311 and N°104/200012 (e.g. 
fishing  capacities,  fishing  effort  and  catches  and  effort)  and  other  data  not  systematically 
collected in the past by all the Member States but necessary to evaluate the  situation of the 
fishery resources and the fisheries sectors (e.g. discards, recreational fisheries, catch per unit 
of  effort,  surveys,  length  and  age  composition,  biological  parameters,  economic  data 
concerning the fleets and the processing industry). 

The purpose of the framework, while including the first set of data within the Regulation, was 
to  give  the  scientists  access  to  these  data  for  better  analysis  of  the  status  of  the  stocks  and 
knowledge of the fisheries. 

For the second set of data, it was decided to maintain the usual scientific networks for being 
used by the traditional end users (e.g. ICES, ICCAT, NAFO, GFCM , etc.). During 2003, the 
data collected in 2002 under the data regulation framework have been used by the scientific 
working groups in charge of the stock assessments.  

Analysis of the national programmes and their results for the 2002 exercise have shown that 
national programmes are generally consistent with the arrangements and the aims of the data 
collection  Regulation  to  obtain  more  accurate  data.  All  Member  States  have  fulfilled  the 
required  obligations  in  establishing  means  to  achieve  the  goals  of  the  data  collection 
framework.  

1/ However, information has not been always provided on the methodologies used and only a 
few Member States have explained the statistical background of their sampling strategies and 
provided estimates of the level of precision achieved. 

2/ Member States have in particular underestimated the difficulties and the costs of estimating 
discards.  First  experience  suggests  that  the  costs  of  the  sampling  strategies  required  to 
correctly  estimate  discards  were  higher  than  previously  foreseen,  especially  because  a  fleet 
basis  approach  was  generally  used.  Furthermore,  as  discards  are  generally  estimated  by  on-
board sampling, the lack of national legislation obliging the skippers of the vessels to accept 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

ICES, 2002. Report of the Working Group on the Nephrops stocks. ICES CM 2002/ACFM: 15, 246 p. 
ICES, 2003. Report of the International Bottom Trawl Survey Working Group.  
ICES CM 2003/D: 05 , 79 p. 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2090/98 of 30 September 1998 concerning the fishing vessel register 
of the Community OJ L 266, 01.10.1998, p. 27. 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  2807/83  of  22  September  1983  laying  down  detailed  rules  for 
recording information on Member States' catches of fish OJ L 276, 10.05.1983, p. 1. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2847/1993 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to 
the common fisheries policy OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  104/2000  of  17  December  1999  on  the  common  organisation  of 
the markets in fishery and aquaculture products OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22. 

6 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
scientists on-board introduced bias into the discard estimates. The sampling methodologies of 
the  majority  of  the  Member  States  deviated  from  the  principles  of  random  sampling  when 
selecting vessels. 

3/ At the start of the data collection Regulation recreational fisheries activity was considered 
to be small. With experience it appeared that their importance was greater than foreseen and 
more pilot studies were asked to be conducted by the Member States (e.g. on cod in the North 
Sea). 

4/ The implementation of the Regulation confirmed the preponderance of the costs dedicated 
to surveys at sea within the overall budget of the data collection framework (see section 6 of 
the report). It should be kept in mind the high utility of these surveys, being the only way to 
obtain direct information from the fisheries (estimate of unbiased stocks abundance indices). 
Furthermore,  these  surveys  gave  information  on  the  fish  distribution  over  the  time  and 
changes  in  the  ecosystem  due  to  the  fishing  activities.  Finally,  they  are  used  to  sample 
biological material (gonads, otoliths, etc.) from the species caught. 

Data regarding economics on fleet segments are included in the Minimum Programme of the 
data  collection  Regulation  but  the  obligation  to  fully  meet  the  provisions  becomes  effective 
only  from  January  2004.  Most  Member  States  have,  however,  tried  to  implement  data 
collection  programmes  for  some  fleet  segments.  The  collection  of  the  data  concerning  the 
processing industry will become mandatory only in 2006. 

4. 

DATA MANAGEMENT 

The first set of data concerning inputs (fishing capacities and fishing efforts) is already being 
managed by the Commission through the control Regulation N°2807/8310 using FIDES 2 for 
communication purposes. For the second set of data (discards, recreational fisheries, catch per 
unit  of  effort,  surveys,  length  and  age  composition,  biological  parameters,  economic  data 
concerning  the  fleets  and  the  processing  industry)  it  was  decided  to  maintain  during  the 
implementation of the data collection Regulation N°1639/20014 the usual scientific networks 
to  transfer  these  data  to  the  traditional  end  users  (scientific  bodies,  regional  fisheries 
organisations). This procedure resulted in the reinforcement of these networks. 

In  order  to  improve  the  current  system,  to  facilitate  access  and  to  exchange  information 
among Member States, between Member States and the Commission, and between Member 
States  and  the  scientific  end  users  (Regional  Fisheries  Organisations,  Scientific  bodies),  an 
informatics’ platform needs to be developed. 

To  define  this  common  platform  for  the  transmission  of  data  under  the  data  collection 
framework,  a  joint  Working  Group  between  the  Commission,  STECF  members  and  invited 
experts  was  organised  in  April  2002.  The  Terms  of  Reference  addressed  the  issue  of  the 
definition  of  databases  and  related  systems  to  hold  the  required  information,  and  to  support 
access by the Commission and authorised representatives from other Member States. 

The Working Group proposed a first stage analysis in which the specification of the system 
requirements and a proposal for a technical solution would be provided. This task was carried 
out by an external consultant during 2003. These results should be operative before the end of 
2004. 

7 

 
 
  
 
Given  that  the  communication  system  covers  a  wide  range  of  data  types  and  geographical 
areas, and in order to ensure that experience from these different fields is taken into account, a 
Support Group was established by the Commission. The main objective of this Support Group 
is to advise on system requirements, including the communication protocol, the database and 
the aggregation software. 

Independently of the informatics’ platform implementation, controls will be carried out by the 
Commission in 2004 to check the existence of the data in the Member States databases. These 
controls could be simple (random checks of data) or more elaborate (systematic control of the 
databases  in  selected  Member  States,  or  requests  for  data  to  assess  the  status  of  particular 
stocks or fisheries). 

5. 

STUDIES AND PILOT PROJECTS 

In order to bridge the period between the adoption of Council Regulation N°1543/20002 and 
the Commission implementation Regulation N°1639/20014, the Commission organised a call 
for  proposals,  pursuant  to  Article  5  of  the  Council  Decision  N°439/20003.  This  possibility 
allowed Member States to continue the data series collected under the former system and, at 
the  same  time,  to  prepare  themselves  to  compile  a  thorough  national  programme  of  data 
gathering. 

In response to the last call for proposals in 2000, twenty-three studies were financed during 
2001.  Most  of  these  studies  dealt  with  survey  data,  recreational  fisheries,  by-catches,  and 
economic data. 

Furthermore, Article 9 of Council Decision N°439/20003 also provides for the possibility to 
finance  studies  covering  well  defined  research  needs.  A  total  of  seven  studies  have  been 
completed covering different areas: inter-annual limitations for endangered stocks, application 
of control and surveillance systems, environmental and by-catch analysis. 

Finally,  during  2001  a  total  of  30  studies  according  to  Articles  5  and  9  of  the  Council 
Decision N°439/2000 was carried out, for an amount of 11,3 M€. 

6. 

FINANCIAL ASPECTS 

In  accordance  with  Council  Decision  N°439/20003,  Community  financial  assistance  for  the 
period 2000 to 2005 shall be 132 million Euro.  

Member States submitted their national programmes for the first time during 2001, covering 
the  year  2002,  together  with  annual  expenditure  forecasts  for  the  period  January  2002  to 
December  2006.  They  had  overcome  severe  difficulties  in  order  to  prepare  and  present  the 
budgets.  This  was  the  result  of  lack  of  experience  when  presenting  such  integrated  data 
collection programmes and because costs both for a new specific task (discards or economic 
data for example) and for the global programme to collect data were unknown for most of the 
Member  States.  As  a  consequence,  the  national  programmes  were  mainly  based  on  their 
limited experience as a partner in previous study projects carried out to collect data. This gave 
rise to serious problems, as for example, at the end of the first exercise some Member States 
had not spent the fifty percent of their total budget for 2002 and one Member State was, due 
to delays in internal procedures, not able to transfer the data collection budget to the research 
institutes. 

8 

 
 
  
 
One  of  the  main  achievements  of  the  data  collection  programme  has  been  to  obtain  for  the 
first time an overall picture of the national programmes for all European Countries involved 
in the CFP with their associated costs (see tables 1 to 4). 

The analysis of expenditure on data collection programmes established by the Member States 
for 2002 shows that they are closely related to the size of the national fleets or landings (main 
budgets  are  for  UK,  France,  Spain  and  Italy).  Surveys  (about  45%  of  the  Minimum 
Programme and 75% of the Extended) and discards (about 15% of the Minimum Programme) 
represent the main part of the budget. Where a programme on economic data was presented 
by a Member State the corresponding budget was small. The comparison of budgets devoted 
to economic data was not possible as only few of the Member States presented a programme 
in this field (see tables 1 to 4). 

This  first  exercise  has  shown  that  the  data  collection  framework  is  an  excellent  means  of 
making data collection costs more transparent, so that all Member States and the Commission 
became aware of them. In the future, overlaps between national programmes could be reduced 
and  public  money  could  be  used  more  effectively  by  task  and  area.  Furthermore,  greater 
transparency and comparability of costs should lead to greater efficiency. 

7. 

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS 

Having  shown  the  relevance  and  necessity  of  the  data  collection  framework,  the  priority 
should be now to improve it. This could be achieved by implementing measures to reinforce 
the  existing  system  without  requiring  the  collection  of  any  new  data  or  changing  the 
Regulation  N°1639/20014  (see  section  7.1  below)  but  it  may  also  be  appropriate  to  include 
some  modifications  in  the  short  term  to  improve  the  system  and  take  into  account  the 
scientific recommendations made by the STECF during its mid-term review (see section 7.2 
below). In 2006, two events will occur at the same time: the budget revision for the six year 
period  2007-2012  (see  Article  4(1)  of  Council  Decision  N°439/20003)  and  based  on  the 
triennial report presented by the Commission, the possible amendments of Council Regulation 
N°1543/20002 and the Commission Regulation N°1639/20014. This opportunity could be used 
to  carry  out  more  far-reaching  modifications  to  the  current  data  collection  framework, 
concerning  the  overall  balance  of  the  budget  by  task  and  area  and  the  type  of  data  to  be 
collected, with the possibility of including new ones if necessary (see section 7.3 below). 

7.1. 

Reinforcement of the present Regulation (N°1639/20014) 

1/  Co-ordination  within  national  programmes  has  been  efficient  when  steering  committees 
have  been  created  to  co-ordinate  and  manage  them  as  in  Denmark  and  the  Netherlands  for 
example. Such a committee or group should be established by each Member State.  

2/ International co-operation should be improved. To achieve that, following the introduction 
of  Regional  Advisory  Council’s  (RAC’s),  the  regional  approach  would  be  the  most 
appropriate.  The  main  regions  to  be  considered  for  data  collection,  taking  into  account  the 
geography  as  well  as  to  the  distribution  of  RAC’s,  would  be  the  Baltic  Sea,  the  North  Sea, 
Western  Atlantic,  the  Mediterranean  waters  and  others  (which  include  the  overseas  areas). 
Regional  co-ordination  meetings  should  be  carried  out  at  least  once  a  year  with  the 
participation  of  Commission  officials  to  examine  the  implementation  of  the  National 
Programmes on a regional context and to co-ordinate these programmes among the Member 
States. 

9 

 
 
  
 
3/  Greater  transparency  of  methodologies  is  needed.  To  harmonize  sampling  strategies  and 
facilitate the analysis of the results, any process of data collection will have to be described by 
the Member States in such a way that it is transparent. The procedures for calculation of the 
estimates  extracted  from  the  data  will  also  have  to  be  described  by  the  Member  States 
(indicating,  for  instance,  how  extrapolations  are  conducted,  how,  if  necessary,  missing  data 
problems  are  solved  or  how  various  estimates  are  combined).  Data  obtained  at  the  lowest 
level of disaggregation (for example by fleet) should be stored and sent if required. 

When estimates are made, the elements which make it possible to appreciate the reliability of 
the estimates deducted from these  samples  will have to be provided (possible gaps between 
target  population  and  population  sampled,  possible  bias,  variances,  confidence  intervals  at 
5%, and other thresholds). Even if the precision level is required for a total or an average on a 
number of fleets, the precision level obtained by fleet will need to be evaluated (cf. discards 
composition of the landings). 

4/  The  need  to  develop  semi-aggregated  databases.  Previous  experience  on  the  use  of  the 
current  data  has  pointed  out  a  cut-off  between  the  basic  data  at  a  minimum  disaggregated 
level (which regularly poses confidentiality problems) and data so aggregated that they are of 
reduced  usefulness  for  the  scientists  (e.g.  total  catch  of  the  stock  by  a  Member  State).  The 
implementation of the Recovery Plans for some stocks has thus strengthened the difficulty of 
having, in due time, catch and effort data within a sufficiently accurate stratification. There is 
therefore  a  significant  demand  for  semi-aggregated  data  (for  example  synthesis  concerning 
effort  and  catches  by  fleet  and  species,  per  statistical  square  and  month).  These  semi-
aggregated data would reduce considerably the confidentiality problems. . This implementing 
process has to cover all the data (coming from the control Regulation and scientific surveys, 
even if the respective roles of the research structures and the administrations will have to be 
carefully defined). The aggregation levels will have to be fixed and the access rules will have 
to be defined after consultation with STECF. 

5/  Finally,  Workshops  devoted  to  training  in  the  basic  techniques  of  sampling  science  and 
statistical processing (cf. validation), and Workshops devoted to analysing the results of the 
implementation of the data collection framework (e.g. comparisons of the various methods to 
estimate discards, estimate of the landings in the small scale fisheries -less than 12/10 metres- 
and recreational fisheries, etc.) should be conducted regularly. 

Training courses  on  obtaining  basic  biological  parameters  such  as  age  reading  and  maturity 
staging should be convened on a routine basis to maintain the level of knowledge and practice 
also  as  to  train  scientists  in  charge  of  the  biologic  sampling.  Special  workshops  should  be 
devoted to the estimation of such parameters when introducing new species. 

7.2. 

Immediate improvements of the Regulation N°1639/2001 4 (2004) 

Based  on  the  STECF  recommendations  made  during  the  mid-term  review  of  the  data 
collection  framework  in  July  20035,  the  Commission  intends  to  propose  the  following 
modifications, to the current data collection Regulation N°1639/20014 in the early 2004: 

1/ Precision levels of parameters should be defined in terms of goals to be reached. This could 
be applied only if all necessary elements for the calculation of the precision of the estimates 
are  provided  (exhaustive  description  of  the  sampling  procedure  and  of  the  method  of 
calculation of the estimations). For the case where the contributions of several Member States 
have  to  be  added,  a  rule  which  distributes  the  charge  equitably  between  them  should  be 
defined  according,  in  particular,  to  the  level  of  their  catches.  In  some  cases,  if  it  appears 

10 

 
 
  
 
preferable to keep the sampling rate as goal to achieve, a clause which limits the risks of over 
sampling will have to be added to the data collection framework 

2/ Discards from fisheries concerning stocks that are assessed using discards data, should be 
collected annually rather than tri-annually. 

3/ Introduction of new species. Some deep-sea species, elasmobranch species and European 
eels  species  should  be  included  in  the  data  collection  Regulation  N°1639/20014.  ICES13 
recently advised that some stocks are considered to be currently outside safe biological limits 
and  in  some  cases  a  Recovery  Plan  has  been  recommended  to  be  developed  on  an  urgent 
basis. Moreover, Council Regulation N°2347/200214 stated the obligation to sample the deep-
sea species fished. 

4/  Introduction  of  new  surveys.  Surveys  devoted  to  deep-sea  species,  blue  whiting  and 
groundfish  should  be  included.  Unbiased  abundance  indices  (e.g.  disconnected  from 
commercial  fleet’s  information)  need  to  be  estimated  and  used  for  stocks  assessments 
purposes.  Furthermore  there  is  a  need  to  investigate  the  environmental  effects  of  fishing  on 
these deep-sea ecosystems which are known to be sensitive. 

5/ Consequences of the implementation of Recovery Plans. Where the target stock is under a 
Recovery  Plan  sampling  requirements  for  the  Extended  Programme  should  become 
mandatory  under  the  Minimum  Programme.  The  same  is  valid  for  surveys  and  recreational 
fisheries. These rules would only apply for the duration of the recovery plan.  

6/ Commercial catch per unit effort (cpue) series. The Minimum Programmes should contain 
only data series for catches and effort for fleets which have been used at any time from 1995 
onwards in stocks assessments, fisheries where there is no stock assessment but where cpue 
was the only way for the International Working Group to estimate trends in the abundance of 
stocks  at  any  time  from  1995  onwards,  and  fisheries  where  there  are  International 
Organisation  requirements  (Large  Pelagic  fisheries  of  ICCAT  for  example).  The  Extended 
Programmes should contain data series for catches and effort for fleets which have not been 
used  in  stock  assessments  but  where  stock  assessments  are  expected  to  be  conducted  in  the 
near  future  (e.  g.  Mediterranean  waters,  especially  for  demersal  fisheries  as  hake,  and  for 
deep-sea species), fleets where data collection started in recent years until these data series are 
used in stock assessments, and fleets whose data series are only used for biological purposes 
(length and age composition). 

Concerning the collection for biological parameters (maturity, growth, weight at age, etc.) it is 
considered that the limit of the scope of the data collection Regulation N°1639/20014 needed 
to be better clarified to avoid overlapping with studies and research projects. As the final goal 
of  the  data  collection  framework  is  direct  use  of  the  data  for  stock  assessments,  it  is 
considered that collecting biological data for methodological and technological developments 
should  not  be  included  and  funded.  The  STECF  will  be  asked  to  evaluate  whether  these 
proposals within national programmes (e.g. tagging, genetic analysis) should be eligible under 
the data collection Regulation N°1639/20014 or under a research programme. 

13 

14 

ICES, 2002. Report of the Working Group on biology and assessment of deep-sea fisheries, 
ICES CM 2002/ACFM : 16, 253 p. 
ICES, 2002. Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes, ICES CM 2002/G: 8, 123 p. 
ICES, 2003. Report of the ICES/EIFAC Working Group on Eels, ICES CM 2003/ACFM: 06, 87 p. 
Council Regulation (EC) No2347/2002 of 16 December 2002 establishing specific access requirements 
and associated conditions applicable to fishing deep-sea stocks - OJ L 351, 28.12.2002, p. 6. 

11 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
The data collection Regulation N°1639/20014 will be applicable to the future Member States 
after  enlargement.  Seven  new  Member  States  are  directly  concerned  by  this  Regulation, 
namely  Lithuania,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Poland,  Slovenia,  Malta  and  Cyprus.  Scientists  from  the 
acceding Baltic countries have already been participating in ICES Working Groups to assess 
stocks  and  the  ICES  Planning  Groups  on  Commercial  Catch,  Discards  and  Biological 
Sampling (PGCCDBS). They have been also involved in international projects for sampling 
catches in the Baltic Sea and estimating abundance indices from co-ordinated bottom surveys. 
For Mediterranean waters such international co-operation has just started (with the exception 
of the MEDITS project conducted since 1994). 

7.3. 

Preparation of the future developments (2006) 

Although  the  Commission  will  have  to  wait  until  the  results  of  the  next  few  years  of 
implementation  before  drawing  up  its  proposal,  there  are  a  number  of  issues  which  can 
already be identified as needing attention. 

Other sampling strategies than those currently used for the surveys or for samplings at the fish 
market  will  have  to  be  studied  (including  by  better  use  of  the  market  categories).  Beyond 
these  traditional  classic  studies  it  may  be  necessary  to  reconsider  the  overall  balance  of 
expenditure by large heading. 

1/  Without  aiming  to  standardise  everything,  limiting  the  disparity  of  methods  to  what  the 
characteristics  of  the  various  situations  really  impose,  will  be  the  next  step  of  the  data 
collection  Regulation  N°1639/20014.  For  that  purpose,  methodological  exchange  should  be 
carried  out  between  Member  States.  Workshops  devoted  to  training  in  sampling  science, 
statistical  processing  and  data  analysis  will  be  a  way  to  increase  the  harmonisation  of 
approach. 

2/ The disparity in the distribution of the sampling effort among areas and sections of the data 
collection  Regulation  N°1639/20014  should  be  limited.  It  will  be  necessary  to  carry  out 
comparative  advantage  analysis  of  the  various  sampling  strategies  used  to  obtain  the  same 
information  with  the  same  level  of  precision.  Cost/precision  relationships  would  be  then 
established. The benefits induced by the possible changes in the sampling strategies would be 
analysed and, if relevant, the balance among the strata (area/section) should be modified. This 
will lead to a reduction in the overall cost of the data collection framework and a change in 
the distribution of the cost among sections. 

3/ Furthermore, to avoid duplication of work, a clearer distribution of tasks between Member 
States  should  be  undertaken  (for  example  between  Member  States  of  the  flag  vessel  and 
Member States where the landings take place, or between Member States which have similar 
fleets). 

4/  In  the  ecosystem  approach,  analysis  of  the  interactions  between  fisheries  and  the 
environment is a priority. This should include the environmental effects of fishing but also the 
interactions  between  different  elements  of  the  marine  ecosystem  on  fisheries.  Impact  of 
fisheries on non target species such as benthic organisms and communities, marine mammals, 
seabirds  as  well  as  non  target  fishes  need  to  be  measured.  Impact  of  fisheries  on  habitats, 
interaction between marine mammals and fisheries, interactions between aquaculture and the 
environment  should  be  investigated.  Long  term  effects  on  the  marine  ecosystems  and 

12 

 
 
  
 
scenarios to restore the degraded marine habitats should also be analysed15. To achieve this, 
the data collection Regulation N°1639/2001  4 should include the record of the key variables 
necessary to be measured, when defined by the results of on going study projects. 

5/ Beyond all the uses of the data for traditional assessments a synthesis of all the uses of the 
data and of the materiel collected in the surveys should be made. 

8. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  results  from  the  2002  exercise  demonstrated  that  Member  States  have  invested 
considerable effort in the implementation of the data collection Regulation N°1639/20014 and 
devoted much time into the preparation of their national programmes. At the same time it is 
evident  that  these  programmes  are  highly  variable  in  quality  and  completeness.  For  some 
Member  States  a  significant  effort  is  still  needed  to  be  applied  in  order  to  fulfil  the  entire 
Regulation  requirements.  It  will  take  some  time  to  achieve  a  systematic  data  collection 
programme with a good control of its quality. 

National programmes are generally consistent with the arrangements and the aims of the data 
collection Regulation N°1639/20014 to obtain more accurate data. Most Member States have 
maintained the previously existing sampling intensities for those stocks and species that are 
important to their national fishing industries and have developed sampling designs for others. 
Furthermore, estimates of discards have been extended to new stocks and new fisheries. This 
has  ensured  that  most  relevant  fleets  and  fisheries  are  adequately  covered  for  landing  and 
discard  estimates.  Economic  data  concerning  the  fleet  activity  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  the 
processing industry, have been introduced for collection. 

The  implementation  of  the  data  collection  framework  has  been  welcomed  by  the  scientific 
community in general and international scientific bodies such as ICES. During 2003, the data 
collected  in  2002  have  been  used  by  the  scientific  working  groups  in  charge  of  the  stocks 
assessments, the usual scientific networks for the exchange of data having been maintained. 
The period covered by the first exercise was very short (in fact only one entire cycle has been 
carried  out),  so  it  is  not  yet  possible  for  the  Commission  and  the  scientists  to  measure  the 
impact  of  this  data  collection  framework  on  the  quality  of  the  stock  assessments  and  the 
scientific advice. 

It  can  be  concluded  that  Member  States  have  in  general  fulfilled  their  obligations  in 
establishing means to achieve the goals of the data collection framework. Therefore it can be 
considered that, with some exceptions, Member States have in general complied with Article 
9 of Commission Regulation N°1639/20014. 

Among these  Member States,  most of them did not always provided the information on the 
methodologies they have used to collect the data and only a few of them have explained the 
statistical  background  of  their  sampling  strategy  and  provided  estimates  of  the  level  of 
precision achieved, as required by Article 3 of the data collection Regulation N°1639/20014. 
Consequently,  it  has  not  been  possible  yet  to  measure  the  appropriateness  of  the  methods 
used. 

15 

In  reference  to  the  World  Summit  on  Sustainable  Development  (WSSD)  Resolutions:  Report  on 
the  World 
South  Africa 
(26  August  –  4  September  2002)  Paragraphs  29,  30,  31.  A/conf  199/20.  United  Nations. 
New York, 2002, 173 p. 

Sustainable  Development 

Johannesburg, 

Summit 

on 

13 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Nevertheless, considerable progress has been made in a short period by the Member States in 
general  and  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  data  collection  Regulation  N°1639/20014  has 
demonstrated  its  relevance  and  necessity.  The  scientific  community  welcomed  this  new 
initiative and fully support it. The data collection framework should therefore be continued. 

The  existing  data  collection  framework  system  could  be  reinforced  without  requiring  the 
collection of any new data, in particular by increasing the data quality control and the use of 
the  data  collected,  and  by  introducing  improved  co-ordination  at  national  and  international 
level.  To  take  into  account  the  recommendations  given  by  the  STECF  during  its  mid-term 
review meeting in July 20035, however, some modifications should be made in the short term 
(e. g. precision level as a goal, introduction of new species and surveys, consequences of the 
implementation of Recovery Plans and considerations on commercial catch per unit effort). 

It is appropriate to extend the range of data collected under this data collection Regulation to 
take  into  account  these  recommendations.  This  requires  amending  the  existing  Commission 
Regulation N° 1639/20014. 

This extension of scope and  the implementation of the international co-ordination will raise 
the  costs  of  the  national  Programmes.  Moreover,  the  accession  of  new  Member  States  will 
have  consequences  for  the  budget  necessary  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  data  collection 
framework. 

As a consequence, an increase of the budget of the data collection Regulation N°1639/20014 
for the year 2005 is required and will be subject of a proposal by the Commission. 

9. 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture 
Advisory Committee on Fishery Management 
Common Fisheries Policy 
European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission 
Fisheries Information data Exchange System  
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean 
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 

ACFA: 
ACFM: 
CFP: 
EIFAC: 
FIDES: 
GFCM: 
ICCAT: 
ICES: 
MEDITS:  Mediterranean International Trawl Survey 
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization 
NAFO: 
ICES Planning Group on Commercial Catch, Discards and Biological Sampling 
PGCCGS: 
Regional Advisory Council 
RAC: 
Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 
STECF: 
Vessel Monitoring System 
VMS: 

14 

 
 
  
 
TABLE 1 
Data Collection budget 2001-2003 (commitments) 

Number

2001
Amount

%

Number

Operational Budget B2-904 B
Sudies (calls for proposals)
Studies (calls for tenders)
National Programme Belgium (BE)
National Programme Denmark (DK)
National Programme Germany(GE)
National Programme Greece (EL)
National Programme Spain (ES)
National Programme France (FR)
National Programme Ireland (IRL)
National ProgrammeItaly (IT)
National Programme The Netherlands (NL)
National Programme Portugal (PT)
National Programme Finland (SU)
National Programme Sweden (SV)
National Programme United Kingdom (UK)
Total B2-904 B

*) studies planned, but not yet committed

23
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27

9.094.242 
2.200.926 

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

11.295.168 

80,51 %
19,49 %
0,00 %
0,00 %
0,00 %
0,00 %
0,00 %
0,00 %
0,00 %
0,00 %
0,00 %
0,00 %
0,00 %
0,00 %
0,00 %
100,00 %

 -
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16

2002
Amount

-
715.733 
381.550 
1.729.013 
1.246.071 
835.159 
2.617.769 
2.442.536 
798.186 
1.833.648 
1.233.469 
1.578.029 
502.060 
1.170.515 
4.014.971 
21.098.709 

%

Number

 -
3,39 %
1,81 %
8,19 %
5,91 %
3,96 %
12,41 %
11,58 %
3,78 %
8,69 %
5,85 %
7,48 %
2,38 %
5,55 %
19,03 %
100,00 %

 -
6*)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13

2003
Amount

-

1.211.900 
500.125 
1.788.572 
1.545.012 
918.233 
2.805.493 
2.940.445 
1.325.448 
2.464.241 
1.384.993 
1.602.422 
553.509 
1.015.498 
4.017.199 
24.073.090 

%

Number

 -
5,03 %
2,08 %
7,43 %
6,42 %
3,81 %
11,65 %
12,21 %
5,51 %
10,24 %
5,75 %
6,66 %
2,30 %
4,22 %
16,69 %
100,00 %

23
13
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
62

Total
Amount

9.094.242 
4.128.559 
881.675 
3.517.585 
2.791.083 
1.753.392 
5.423.262 
5.382.981 
2.123.634 
4.297.889 
2.618.462 
3.180.451 
1.055.569 
2.186.013 
8.032.170 
56.466.967 

%

16,11 %
7,31 %
1,56 %
6,23 %
4,94 %
3,11 %
9,60 %
9,53 %
3,76 %
7,61 %
4,64 %
5,63 %
1,87 %
3,87 %
14,22 %
100,00 %

15 

 
 
  
 
             
 
                    
 
                    
         
             
            
         
         
 
                       
            
            
            
 
                       
         
         
         
 
                       
         
         
         
 
                       
            
            
         
 
                       
         
         
         
 
                       
         
         
         
 
                       
            
         
         
 
                       
         
         
         
 
                       
         
         
         
 
                       
         
         
         
 
                       
            
            
         
 
                       
         
         
         
 
                       
         
         
         
           
       
       
       
 
TABLE 2 
Maximum EU contribution 2002-2003 by Member States and tasks 

Capacity & Effort

Catches, Landings, 
Discards, Recr. & CPUE

Surveys

Biological Sampling

Economic data

Co-ordination tasks

Total

2002

2003

2002

2003

2002

2003

2002

2003

2002

2003

2002

2003

2002

2003

MINIMUM PROGRAMME
BE

50.100 

DK

GE

GR

ES

FR

IRL

IT

NL

PT

FI

SE

UK
Total

9.511 

15.608 

122.823 

- 

- 

14.083 

291.145 

11.429 

233.558 

29.350 

6.715 

- 

15.750 

7.006 

5.122 

152.526 

- 

- 

19.989 

272.770 

8.613 

155.677 

30.569 

4.055 

- 

52.750 

237.475 

4.046 

297.197 

284.822 

306.710 

28.840 

190.716 

109.898 

149.504 

54.900 

2.015 

755.798 

56.018 

267.282 

86.561 

353.688 

537.725 

489.809 

4.367 

308.482 

119.541 

248.286 

78.640 

164.102 

702.952 

784.321 

672.075 

2.474.669 

3.417.450 

46.400 

812.169 

759.706 

180.729 

1.224.168 

1.103.784 

350.610 

490.000 

668.984 

221.873 

- 

545.566 

2.140.615 

8.544.603 

29.404 

853.189 

846.594 

195.656 

1.127.270 

1.347.121 

692.584 

540.467 

772.193 

284.015 

5.313 

465.407 

1.921.046 

9.080.256 

232.301 

446.276 

338.323 

102.715 

821.012 

611.955 

384.653 

352.104 

232.543 

633.756 

224.900 

444.820 

413.720 

248.954 

427.454 

489.190 

95.462 

914.466 

584.860 

575.423 

429.930 

228.019 

610.931 

238.462 

255.609 

512.946 

- 

163.585 

71.057 

15.360 

- 

15.540 

182.102 

43.467 

19.211 

51.425 

259.237 

310.829 

- 

- 

311.453 

313.137 

85.065 

78.821 

93.350 

48.084 

15.000 

89.318 

69.545 

99.850 

42.359 

15.000 

- 

134.461 

55.842 

57.331 

53.559 

287.768 

- 

20.000 

198.230 

2.878 

260.518 

10.100 

47.715 

169.947 

47.176 

74.078 

30.175 

174.608 

48.500 

33.085 

256.260 

17.894 

233.970 

24.477 

49.478 

121.845 

381.551 

1.724.857 

1.246.071 

772.381 

2.617.769 

2.281.686 

798.186 

1.833.648 

1.110.795 

1.578.029 

412.600 

1.094.914 

3.495.080 

500.125 

1.784.208 

1.545.012 

846.716 

2.805.493 

2.781.118 

1.325.448 

2.121.045 

1.235.577 

1.602.422 

477.309 

981.010 

3.273.788 

5.239.076 

5.611.703 

1.141.011 

1.251.781 

1.163.885 

1.246.005 

19.347.564 

21.279.270 

EXTENDED PROGRAMME
BE

DK

GE

GR

ES

FR

IRL

IT

NL

PT

FI

SE

4.156 

4.364 

62.778 

71.517 

130.862 

129.144 

29.988 

30.184 

5.676 

4.255 

89.658 

343.196 

118.067 

5.816 

4.493 

21.525 

22.601 

23.555 

27.820 

65.905 

67.186 

48.380 

26.302 

8.415 

8.187 

UK
Total
BE : Belgium   DK : Denmark   GE : Germany   GR : Greece   ES : Spain   FR : France   IRL : Irland   IT : Italy   NL : The Netherlands    PT : Portugal   FI : Finland   SE : Sweden   UK : United Kingdom

1.387.891 

803.189 

109.358 

519.891 

725.968 

168.895 

29.231 

13.999 

46.075 

35.152 

34.095 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

4.156 

- 

62.778 

- 

- 

4.364 

- 

71.517 

- 

160.850 

159.328 

- 

- 

122.674 

- 

89.460 

75.601 

519.891 

- 

343.196 

149.416 

- 

76.200 

34.488 

743.411 

1.035.411 

1.581.920 

3.444 

3.444 

16 

 
 
  
 
            
            
            
            
            
            
         
         
                      
            
                      
         
          
         
              
              
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
            
            
       
      
            
              
              
            
         
         
         
         
            
            
            
            
       
      
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
            
            
            
            
            
          
         
                      
                      
         
         
      
      
         
         
                      
            
         
         
       
      
                      
                      
         
         
      
      
         
         
         
         
                      
            
       
      
            
            
            
              
         
         
         
         
                      
                      
            
            
          
      
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
       
      
            
              
         
         
         
         
         
         
            
            
              
            
       
      
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
            
            
         
         
       
      
            
            
            
            
                      
              
         
         
            
            
            
            
          
         
              
              
              
         
         
         
         
         
            
            
            
            
       
         
                      
                      
         
         
      
      
         
         
            
            
         
         
       
      
         
         
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
     
    
                      
                      
              
              
              
              
                      
                      
            
            
            
            
                      
                      
         
         
            
            
          
         
                      
                      
         
                      
         
              
              
            
         
              
              
            
            
          
         
                      
                      
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
              
              
            
            
                      
            
         
         
                      
              
          
         
                      
                      
            
            
         
      
         
         
            
            
                      
              
       
      
 
Suspension of approval

MS / COM

Almost all technical reports needed further clarification before approval (except BE), therefore emails were sent to MS in July 03.

Jun 03

Aug 03

Jul 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

Transmission 

Last modification

Evaluation reports

National
Programme
2002

Financial Assistance Proposal

Negotioations until

Draft Commission Decision

Management Committee

Technical
Report
2002

Financial
Report
2002

National
Programme
2003

Internal Procedure

First instalment

Transmission 

Approval

First transmission (draft)

Financial report complete

Correspondence until

Approval

Second instalment

Transmission 

Last modification

Evaluation reports

Bilateral meetings

Negotioations until

Financial Assistance Proposal / 
Draft Commission Decision

Management Committee

Internal Procedure

First instalment

National
Programme
2004

Transmission 

Modification

Evaluation reports

TABLE 3 
Timetable on Data Collection Exercises 

BE

DK

GE

GR

ES

FR

IRL

IT

NL

PT

FI

SE

UK

MS

MS

After approval of the Commission Regulation on implementing rules, Member States submitted their final versions by September / Oktober 01

A first draft was received from all Member States by the end of May/June 01

SGRN/Consult.

The external evaluation was finished by September 2002 (Consultants) and November 2002 (SGRN)

COM

MS / COM

COM

COM / MS

COM

COM

MS

The financial assistence proposals were sent to Member States by official letter dated 12. April 02

 -

May 02

Apr 02

May 02

 Mar 02

May 02

Apr 02

The draft Commission decision was sent to Member States by official letter dated 24. June 02

During the management committee on 23. July 02 all Member States voted in favour, except Austria (non represented)

The written procedure was launched on 24. July 02 and finished by approval of the Decision on 19. August 02

Payments were made in September 02, except for FR, IT and UK due to missing bank account information (payment in Oct/Nov 02)

First drafts as well as some final versions were received from all Member States by May/Jun 03, except UK (early July 03)

COM

MS

MS

MS / COM

COM

COM

MS

MS

SGRN/Consult.

MS / COM

MS / COM

COM

COM / MS

COM

COM

MS

MS

Jun 03

Jun 03

 Oct 03

 Oct 03

 Oct 03

May 03

Jul 03

Jul 03

Jul 03

Jul 03

no cost 
claim for 
2002

 Nov 03

Jul 03

Jul 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

 Nov 03

 Sep 03

 Nov 03

May 03

ongoing

ongoing

Jun 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

 Oct 03

Jun 03

Jun 03

 Oct 03

 Oct 03

 Oct 03

Jun 03

Jun 03

Jun 03

Jul 03

Aug 03

 Nov 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

 Oct 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

 Oct 03

A first draft was received from all Member States by the end of May 02, except ES and UK (Jun 02)

 -

 -

 Nov 02

 Nov 02

 -

 Jan 03

 Nov 02

 -

 -

The evaluation of the national programmes by contracted external consultants and the SGRN was finished by December 01

 Jan 03

 Mar 03

Feb 03

 Mar 03

Feb 0

 Mar 03

Feb 03

Apr 03

Feb 03

Jul 03

 Jan 03

 Mar 03

Feb 03

 Mar 03

Feb 03

 Mar 03

 Jan 03

 Mar 03

Geb 03

Apr 03

 Mar 03

May 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

 Sep 03

Dec 02

 -

 -

 -

ongoing

 -

 Jan 03

Apr 03

 -

 -

The financial assistence proposals as well as the draft Commission decision were sent to Member States by official letter dated 15. April 03

During the management committee on 25. June 03, all Member States voted in favour, except France (abstention)

The written procedure was launched on 26. June 03 and finished by approval of the Decision on 23. July 03

Payments for all Member States were made in August 02

May 03

 Sep 03

May 03

Jun 03

Jul 03

Jul 03

May 03

Jun 03

May 03

Jun 03

 Sep 03

SGRN/Consult.

The external evaluation is planned for September 2003 (Consultants) and November 2003 (SGRN)

MS : Member State;  COM : Commission;  SGRN : Sug Group for Research Needs (STECF), Consult. : External Consultant

BE : Belgium   DK : Denmark   GE : Germany   GR : Greece   ES : Spain   FR : France   IRL : Irland   IT : Italy   NL : The Netherlands    PT : Portugal   FI : Finland   SE : Sweden   UK : United Kingdom

17 

 
 
  
 
 
TABLE 4 
Timetable on the submission of documents by Member States (until mid-January 2004) 

National Programmes

Annual Reports

Other Reports

2002

2003

2004

Technical 2002

Financial 2002

CPUE

Discards

Recreational Fisheries Economic process Ind.

Due by Submitted Due by Submitted Due by Submitted Due by Submitted Due by Submitted Due by Submitted Due by Submitted Due by Submitted Due by Submitted

BE

DK

GE

GR

ES

FR

IRL

IT

NL

PT

FI

SE

UK

1
0
0
2
.
5
0
.
1
3

30.05.01

12.06.01

14.06.01

06.06.01

01.06.01

08.06.01

31.05.01

29.05.01

15.06.01

01.06.01

31.05.01

06.06.01

13.06.01

2
0
0
2
.
5
0
.
1
3

31.05.02

31.05.02

31.05.02

10.07.02

31.05.02

12.06.02

01.06.02

30.05.02

30.05.02

30.05.02

05.06.02

01.06.02

07.06.02

3
0
0
2
.
5
0
.
1
3

28.05.03

30.05.03

28.05.03

11.09.03

30.05.03

03.06.03

02.07.03

30.05.03

30.05.03

09.06.03

30.05.03

05.06.03

30.09.03

3
0
0
2
.
5
0
.
1
3

28.05.03

16.06.03

28.05.03

26.06.03

30.05.03

03.06.03

23.06.03

30.05.03

31.05.03

09.06.03

30.05.03

18.06.03

02.07.03

3
0
0
2
.
5
0
.
1
3

01.09.03

24.06.03

28.05.03

02.07.03

 03.10.03

30.10.03

30.05.03

31.05.03

10.06.03

28.07.03

18.06.03

13.11.03

2
0
0
2
.
2
1
.
1
3

18.12.02

09.01.02

17.12.03

13.02.03

29.11.02

21.01.03

01.01.03

25.03.03

05.03.03

13.01.03

20.01.02

29.01.03

30.12.02

3
0
0
2
.
0
1
.
1
3

24.11.03

13.11.03

31.10.03

05.11.03

15.01.04

28.10.03

31.10.03

31.10.03

29.11.03

31.10.03

29.10.03

28.11.03

3
0
0
2
.
0
1
.
1
3

not required

13.11.03

31.10.03

13.11.03

15.01.04

28.10.03

31.10.03

not required

29.11.03

31.10.03

29.10.03

not required

3
0
0
2
.
0
1
.
1
3

29.10.03

31.10.03

not required

15.01.04

not required

31.10.03

31.10.03

04.12.03

31.10.03

29.10.03

13.11.03

BE : Belgium   DK : Denmark   GE : Germany   GR : Greece   ES : Spain   FR : France   IRL : Irland   IT : Italy   NL : The Netherlands    PT : Portugal   FI : Finland   SE : Sweden   UK : United Kingdom

report is missing

10.07.02  report submission far from the deadline (more than 2 months)

18