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)
Date: 2015-06-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, aquaculture, biodiversity, common fisheries policy, data collection, data transmission, fishery resources, fishing industry, management of resources, resources of the sea

EN 

   EN 

   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) 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

0. List of acronyms ..................................................................................................................... 5 

1. 

1.1. 

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 6 

Background .................................................................................................................. 6 

1.2.  What data do Member States collect, and what for? .................................................... 8 

1.3. 

How do Member States collect data? ......................................................................... 11 

1.4.  Who has access to data? ............................................................................................. 12 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

PREPARATORY WORK AND CONSULTATIONS FOR THE AMENDMENT OF 
THE DCF ................................................................................................................... 13 

Consultation of interested parties ............................................................................... 13 

Studies ........................................................................................................................ 15 

2.2.1. 

Impact Assessment (IA) carried out in the framework of the CFP reform ................ 15 

2.2.2. 

Interim evaluation on Council Regulation 861/2006 ................................................. 15 

2.2.3.  Ex-post evaluation of the Data Collection Framework .............................................. 16 

2.2.4.  Assessment of implementation of the DCF through field visits in Member States ... 17 

2.2.5.  STECF evaluations of Member States' Annual Reports ............................................ 19 

2.2.6. 

Interim evaluation of the European Marine Observation and Data Network ............ 19 

2.2.7.  Feasibility study on data storage and transmission .................................................... 19 

3. 

4. 

5. 

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
 .................................................................................................................................... 21 

THE BROADER CONTEXT .................................................................................... 22 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CURRENT LEGISLATION .................... 26 

5.1. 

The future data collection process .............................................................................. 26 

5.1.1.  End-user oriented data collection ............................................................................... 26 

5.1.2.  Strengthening regional and EU coordination ............................................................. 30 

5.2. 

The scope of the future DCF – what data should Member States collect and how to 
avoid overlaps ............................................................................................................ 35 

5.2.1.  Data on marine biological resources .......................................................................... 35 

5.2.2.  Data on fishing activity .............................................................................................. 44 

5.2.3.  Data on the aquaculture and processing sectors ......................................................... 47 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

5.6. 

5.7. 

6. 

How data should be collected .................................................................................... 52 

Ensuring adequate quality of the data ........................................................................ 55 

Improving availability of data .................................................................................... 57 

Data collection in external waters .............................................................................. 65 

Programming and reporting ....................................................................................... 66 

LEGAL ARCHITECTURE ....................................................................................... 69 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
7. 

ANNEXES ................................................................................................................. 70 

1. The revised DCF Regulation ................................................................................................ 85 

2. The EU Multiannual Programme ......................................................................................... 85 

3. Operational Programmes ...................................................................................................... 85 

4. National work plans ............................................................................................................. 86 

5. Regional work plans ............................................................................................................. 86 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
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  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
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  roadmap1  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)2, 
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 system3.  

1 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/planned_ia/roadmaps_2014_en.htm#MARE 
2  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  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 

3 European Parliament report (Policy Department B,  Structural and Cohesion Policies), 2008: New Opportunities 
Offered  by  the  Data  Collection  Regulation  in  the  Fields  of  Biology  and  Economy  (Council  regulation  N° 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2008/408935/IPOL-
199/2008/EC) 
PECH_NT(2008)408935_EN.pdf  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The legal set-up for the DCF can be summarised as follows (Figure 1).  

Figure 1: Legal set up for the Data Collection Framework 

                        Financial (up to 31.12.2013)   

Scientific 

Council Regulation 861/2006 

Council Regulation 199/2008 

Commission 
Regulation 
1078/2008 

Commission  Regulation  665/2008  (financial  &  scientific 
provisions) 

Commission  Decision  2010/93/EU  – 
EU Multiannual Programme 

Maximum  EU  financial  contribution 
to  National  Programmes  (adopted 
Commission 
through 
Decisions (annually)) 

several 

23  National  Programmes  adopted 
through 23 Commission Decisions 

The DCF consists of the following legal instruments: 

 

 

 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  199/2008  of  25  February  20084  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 20085 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 

4 OJ L60, 5.3.2008, p.1 
5 OJ L186, 15.7.2008, p.3 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
this decision has been extended by Commission Implementing Decision of 13.8.2013 
to the period 2014-2016 (C(2013)52436). 

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)7 
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 861/20068). As of 2014, such activities are eligible for EU co-financed under 
the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF)9,  which  is  the  financial  pillar  of 
the new CFP.  

The DCF is applied in the 23 coastal Member States10 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 

6 Commission implementing Decision C(2013)5243 of 13.8.2013 extending the multiannual Union programme 
for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013 to the period 
2014-2016 

7 The STECF may be consulted by the Commission on all problems connected with the provisions governing 
access to zones and resources of EU fisheries and the regulation of fisheries activities. The Members of the 
STECF are nominated by the Commission from highly qualified scientific experts having competence in these 
fields. 

8 Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the 

implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea OJ L160, 14.6.2006, p.1 
and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the 
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States 
for the collection and management of the basic fisheries data OJ L295, 4.11.2008, p.24 

9 Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 
861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 149, 20.5.2014, p. 1. 

10 Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United 
Kingdom. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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. 

Table 1: Overview of the data covered by the EU Multiannual Programme 

DCF 

Aquaculture & Processing 

Industry 

Fishing sector 

Biological 

data 

Fishing 

Research 

Aquaculture: 

Processing:  

activity 

surveys at 

Socio-

data  

sea 

economic  

Socio-

economic 

Metier-

related 

Stock-

related 

I , II , 

Marine 

Ecosystem 

IV , 

VII 

V , VIII 

IX 

X , XI 

XII 

II , XIII 

VII 

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  

Socio-

economic data 

Appendices of 

II , III , VI , 

EU MAP 

VIII 

Variables 
(examples) 

Enterprises 
Employment  
Income  
Expenditure  
Capital value 
Fuel costs 
Repair 
& 
maintenance 
Investments 
Subsidies  

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);  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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: 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
•With what:  
•scientific knowledge 
•data 

Input 

Scientific 
advice 

•By whom: 
•ICES 
•STECF 
•RFMOs  
(GFCM, ICCAT etc.) 

Output 

•For what:  
•stock assessment 
•management plans 
•socio-economics 
•aquaculture 

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-

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
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 
Regulation11 (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. 

11 Council regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for 

ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
Correspondents12  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  201413 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 

12 Every Member State designates a National Correspondent for data collection who serves as the focal point for 
exchange  of  information  between  the  Commission  and  Member  States  regarding  the  preparation  and 
implementation of national programmes and who is responsible for coordination of the different bodies involved 
in DCF implementation at national level (Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 665/2008). 

13 Stakeholder Meeting on the revision of the Data Collection Framework Regulation 16 January, Brussels 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/data_collection/doc/20140116-dcf-stakeholder-workshop-
minutes_en.pdf  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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  201214  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. 

Impact Assessment (IA) carried out in the framework of the CFP reform 

2.2.1. 
In  2011,  the  Impact  Assessment  (IA)  carried  out  in  the  framework  of  the  CFP  reform15 
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 quality16.  

Further  rationalisation  of  the  different  EU  rules  governing  collection  of  data 
should be strived for to reduce administrative burden. 

Interim evaluation on Council Regulation 861/2006 

2.2.2. 
In  2011,  an  interim  evaluation  on  Council  Regulation  861/200617  ("second  financial 
instrument")18 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.  

14    http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/marine-knowledge-2020/index_en.htm 
15  http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/impact_assessments_en.htm see in particular Phases I & 2. 
16  For  a  comparison  of  the  DCR  and  the  DCF,  see  also  the  European  Parliament  report  (Policy  Department  B,  
Structural  and  Cohesion  Policies),  2008:  New  Opportunities  Offered  by  the  Data  Collection  Regulation  in  the 
Fields 
199/2008/EC) 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2008/408935/IPOL-PECH_NT(2008)408935_EN.pdf  

regulation 

Economy 

(Council 

Biology 

and 

N° 

of 

17 Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 of 22 May 2006 establishing Community financial measures for the 

implementation of the common fisheries policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea 

18 Interim evaluation on establishing EU financial measures for the implementation of the Common Fisheries 

Policy and in the area of the Law of the Sea 2007-2013: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/cfp_evaluation/index_en.htm  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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 set19. 
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 CFP20, 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, 200021).  

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 

19 Evaluation of the Data Collection Framework (DCF):  

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/retrospective-and-prospective-evaluation-on-common-
fisheries-policy_en.pdf 

20 Council regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries 

and aquaculture 

21  Burke, D L (2000 ). Management infrastructure for rights based fishing. In, use of property Rights in Fisheries 

Management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 404/1. FAO, Rome. 58-65.   

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
policy  makers.  Flexibility  should  be  more  built  into  the  system  of  collection  and 
provision of data. 

 

 

Incentives for regional collaboration should be strengthened.  
"Metiers"22  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 report23 was prepared in 2014 by an external contractor summarizing the findings of field 
visits in 11 Member States24 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 
this  could  avoid  duplication  of 
involved  (enough)  despite 
collection/processing of certain data and improve data quality. 

the  fact 

that 

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 

22 A métier is defined as a fishing activity which is characterised by a certain gear, group of target species, 

operating in a given area during a given season, within which each boat’s effort exerts a similar exploitation 
pattern on a particular (group of) species or group of species. In other words, the species composition and size 
distribution in catches taken by any vessel working in a particular métier should be approximately the same. 
23 DevStat consortium (2004) “Analysis of cross-cutting issues based on field work carried out in 2011-2014”: 

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/data/documents/analysis-of-cross-cutting-issues-2014_en.pdf  

24 Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, France, Italy, Portugal, Romania, the United Kingdom, Lithuania 

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/data/index_en.htm 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 aquaculture25.  

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 

25 Regulation (EC) 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) 788/96  

      Regulation (EC) No 1921/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on the 

submission of statistical data on landings of fishery products in Member States and repealing Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 1382/91  

      Regulation (EC) No 216/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on the 
submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States fishing in certain areas other than those of the North 
Atlantic (recast) 

Regulation (EC) No 217/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on the 
submission of catch and activity statistics by Member States fishing in the north-west Atlantic (recast) 
Regulation (EC) No 218/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on the 

submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States fishing in the north-east Atlantic (recast) 

Regulation (EC) No 295/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council  of 11 March 2008 concerning 

structural business statistics (recast) 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
that  in  some  Member  States,  the  Structural  Business  Statistics  (SBS)26  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 
implementation rates of EU funding and weaker implementation of the DCF. 

in  some  Member  States  have 

resulted 

lower 

 

 

 

STECF evaluations of Member States' Annual Reports 

2.2.5. 
Successive STECF evaluations of Member States' Annual Reports27 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)28  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  study29  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 

26 Regulation (EC) No 295/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 concerning 

structural  business statistics 

27 http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/dcf-dcr  
28 SWD(2012) 250 final Commission Staff Working Document. Interim Evaluation of the European Marine 
Observation and Data Network. Accompanying the document Green Paper Marine Knowledge 2020: from 
seabed mapping to ocean forecasting 

29 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/scientific-data-storage/index_en.htm 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
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: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Primary30  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 

30 The current DCF regulation defines 'primary data' as data associated with individual vessels, natural or legal 

persons or individual samples; and 'detailed data' as data based on primary data in a form which does not allow 
natural persons or legal entities to be identified directly or indirectly.; 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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)31 (see Chapter 4).  

31 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a 

framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056  

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 

 

 

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.  

in 

terms  of  reporting  and  data 

Complexity:  The  DCF  is  considered  by  all  as  too  complex,  both  the  legal 
framework,  and 
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  Regulation32  and  EU  statistical  regulations33. 
Another  area  is  to  increase  synergies  with  the  objectives  of  other  EU  legislation. 
This  is  primarily  the  case  for  the  MSFD34:  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.  

32  Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for 

ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) 
No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 
388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 
and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 

33  Regulation (EC) 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) 788/96  
   Regulation (EC) No 1921/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on the 

submission of statistical data on landings of fishery products in Member States and repealing Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 1382/91  

   Regulation (EC) No 216/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on the 

submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States fishing in certain areas other than those of the North 
Atlantic (recast) 
Regulation (EC) No 217/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on the 
submission of catch and activity statistics by Member States fishing in the north-west Atlantic (recast) 
Regulation (EC) No 218/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on the 
submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States fishing in the north-east Atlantic (recast) 
Regulation (EC) No 295/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council  of 11 March 2008 concerning 
structural business statistics (recast) 

34 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056  

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Institutional  changes  –  the  Lisbon  Treaty:  The  DCF  is  no  longer  aligned  with  the 
provisions  foreseen  under  Lisbon  Treaty35,  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  1078/200836.  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 information37, 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  202038,  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 Communication39.  
Following on the Green Paper, the Commission's Communication on innovation in the Blue 
Economy40 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.41 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.  

35  Consolidated version of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (C) No 326/47 
36 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 of 3 November 2008 laying down detailed rules for the 

implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 as regards the expenditure incurred by Member States 
for the collection and management of the basic fisheries data 

37 http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/era-communication-towards-better-

access-to-scientific-information_en.pdf  

38 http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/publications/documents/marine-knowledge-2020-green-

paper_en.pdf  

39   European Parliament report on Marine Knowledge 2020: improving seabed mapping for fisheries purposes 

(2013/2101(INI)) Committee on Fisheries (Rapporteur Maria do Céu Patrão Neves)  

40 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=COM:2014:254:REV1&from=EN  
41 Commission Staff Working Document Marine Knowledge 2020: roadmap http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2014:149:FIN  

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 2020'42 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  Directive43:  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. 

42   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity 
strategy to 2020 {SEC(2011) 540 final}{SEC(2011) 541 final}  

43 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056  

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 2: Interactions between the DCF and other EU policies and legislation   

Arrows indicate the direction of data flows.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
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  Programme44)  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 programmes45 but no provisions are included regarding modifications of 

44 Commission Decision 2010/93/EU of 18 December 2009 adopting a multiannual Community programme for 
the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013 C(2009) 10121), as 
extended by Commission Implementing Decision of 13.8.2013 extending the multiannual Union programme for 
the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013 to the period 2014-
2016 (C(2013)5243 

45 with an exception for the first multiannual programme that covered only two years 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
these three year programmes, or how the needs of end-users should be taken into account to 
draw them up or modify them. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
Table 2: Need the DCF should address: Provide a flexible, end-user driven data collection 
system 

Problems identified  Objectives  of 

revision 

Options 
problem 

for 

addressing 

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 
end-user 
an 
need. 

1.  Include  criteria  in  the  DCF 
Regulation  to  determine  what 
data 
included, 
including  the  end-user  need 
for the data.  

should  be 

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. 

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 
these 
end-users  decide  on 
directly  with  Member  States 
in  Regional  Coordination 
Groups. 

The  DCF 
is  not  
flexible  enough  to 
evolving 
address 
needs  of  end-users 
over time 

system 
allow 

The 
should 
for 
modifications 
data 
to 
the 
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.  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 
the 
on 
provisions 
amendment of the EUMAP. 

should 

collected 

1.  Provisions  on  what  should 
be 
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 
Groups46. 

aspects 
2.  Methodological 
should  no  longer  be  specified 
in 
but 
the  EU  MAP 
coordinated by Member States 
in  Regional  Coordination 
EU 
the 
Groups 
Coordination Group47. 

or 

4. The DCF Regulation should 
contain  provisions  on 
the 
amendment of the EUMAP. 

46 See section 5.1.2 for more details on Regional Coordination Groups. 
47 See section 5.1.2 for more details on the EU Coordination Groups. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

end-user input (advice) in determining what should or should no longer be collected;  

end-user  involvement  in  designing  the  sampling  programmes  that  Member  States 
must carry out to collect those data that end-users will use; 

end-user access to DCF data; 

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: 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
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 STECF48 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  Declaration49  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. 

48 Member States Experts (11-15 March 2013, Ispra, Italy) Dedicated STECF EWG meeting 13-02 on the new 
DC MAP. Report available: Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Review of 
the DC MAP – Part 1 (STECF-13-06)  

49  http://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10213/488770/9th+Liaison+Meeting+-+FINAL+REPORT.pdf 

(see Annex 2) 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  3:  Needs  the  DCF  should  address:  Build  on  the  improved  regional  coordination 
achieved over the last 10 years by strengthening the role of regions in planning, implementing 
and evaluating data collection. 

Problems identified 

Objectives of revision 

Options  for  addressing 
problem 

Proposed solution 

is 

EU  framework  for  data 
collection 
very 
complex  and  does  not 
take 
into 
sufficiently 
account 
regional 
specificities 

in 

Allow  certain  aspects  of 
data  collection 
to  be 
coordinated  by  Member 
States 
Regional 
Coordination  Groups  (for 
biological  data)  or  to  the 
EU  Coordination  Group 
economic 
for 
(mainly 
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 
by 
how) 
coordinated 
States 
Member 
in 
Coordination 
Regional 
Groups 
the  EU 
Coordination Group. 

or 

to 
National  approaches 
sampling  may  result  in 
and 
oversampling 
inefficient 
of 
resources 

use 

cost-efficiency 
Increase 
of  sampling  planning  and 
collection 

1.  Continue  business  as 
usual  –  plan  sampling  at 
then 
national 
coordinate 
regional 
level.  

level 
at 

may 

2.  Regional  Coordination 
Groups 
plan 
sampling at regional level 
task 
and 
allocation 
between 
Member States.  

agree 

on 

Keep key aspects of what 
collected 
should 
be 
level, 
specified  at  EU 
(what  species,  variables, 
coverage,  periodicity  and 
level)  but 
aggregation 
leave 
methodological 
aspects  to  be  coordinated 
by  Member  States 
in 
Coordination 
Regional 
Groups 
the  EU 
Coordination Group. 

and 

For  additional  areas  of 
data  collection,  Regional 
Coordination  Groups  to 
agree  on  all  aspects  of 
data  collection  (including 
what & how)  

EU  MAP  specifies  basic 
rules  on  which  Member 
States 
sample 
should 
which species/variables.  

this,  Regional 
Beyond 
Coordination Groups may 
coordinate 
further 
sampling at regional level 
task 
and 
allocation 
between 
Member States.  

agree 

on 

DCF  no  longer  in  line 
with  spirit  of    new  CFP 
regarding regionalisation 

Align with regionalisation 
of  new  CFP  conservation 
measures/target-made 
data 
policies. 

basin 

sea 

for 

Strengthened 
Regional 
Coordination  Meeting 
structures (no legal entity) 
for 
Regional 
Coordination  Meetings, 
with  broadened  scope  of 
areas they may work on.  

1.  Establish  Regional 
Coordination  Groups  as 
legal 
(like 
entities 
Advisory Councils). 

2.  Strengthened  Regional 
Coordination  Meeting 
structures (no legal entity) 
for 
Regional 
Coordination  Meetings, 
with  broadened  scope  of 
areas they may work on. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
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  level50:  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.  

50 Planning and implementing of sampling at a regional level is not relevant for socio-economic data, for which 
data collection makes most sense at national level, and hence the EUCG would not be involved in this task. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 
Meeting51").  

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. 

51 The Commission organizes annually a DCF Liaison Meeting A Liaison Meeting between the chairs of STECF 
DCF  Expert  Working  Groups,  the  chairs  of  the  different  RCMs,  the  chair(s)  of  other  DCF-related 
meetings/groups and key end-users such as GFCM and ICES in order to ensure overall coordination between the 
RCMs.  

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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.  

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
Regarding recreational fisheries52, 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 Baltic53.  

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. 

Table 4: Needs the DCF should address: Provide reliable data on fish stocks for the needs of 
the new CFP, notably to enable ecosystem-based management. 

Problems identified 

Objectives of revision 

Options  for  addressing 
problem 

Proposed solution 

Overly 
prescriptive 
provisions  at  EU  level 
data 
regarding 
should 
collected, 
leading  to  very  complex 
and inflexible legislation  

how 

be 

Specify  only  what  data 
should be collected in the 
let 
EU  MAP, 
Member  States  in  RCGs 
coordinate  on  how  this 
should be done. 

and 

the 

Simplify 
EU 
legislation  and  broaden 
the  scope  of  tasks  for 
States 
Member 
in 
Coordination 
Regional 
Groups 
regarding  data 
collection.  

Specify  what  data  should 
be collected and how they 
should be collected in the 
EU MAP 

and 

Specify  only  what  data 
should be collected in the 
let 
EU  MAP, 
Member  States  in  RCGs 
or  the  EUCG  coordinate 
on  how  this  should  be 
done. 

No 
data 
specific 
requirements  in  the  EU 
MAP,  but 
let  Member 
States  in  RCGs  agree  on 
should  be 
what  data 
collected  and  how 
it 
should be collected. 

52 Defined in the DCF Regulation as non-commercial fishing activities exploiting living aquatic resources for 

recreation or sport 

53 RCM Baltic 2012 report http://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10213/da72f76b-8b58-4670-9135-

f7741074de73  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
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);  

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
(2)  

(3)  

(4)  

(5) 

(6) 

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);  

the  impacts  on  unwanted  specimens  of  commercial  species  (e.g.  juveniles  or 
undersized fish) which may be caught, and discarded, in considerable volumes; 

there are also unwanted catches of non-commercial, "protected" species (e.g. birds, 
marine mammals, turtles) which tend to be caught incidentally and infrequently;  

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.  

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  Directive54, 
Cetacean Regulation55, Habitats Directive56), 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 

  54  Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the 

conservation of wild birds. 

  55  Council Regulation (EC) No 812/2004 of 26.4.2004 laying down measures concerning incidental catches of 

cetaceans in fisheries and amending Regulation (EC) No 88/98. 

  56  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and 

flora. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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)57.  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)58. The Commission's 
proposal for a deep sea access regime59 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 
impacts  of 
ecosystems 
EU  fisheries 
to  enable 
ecosystem assessments 

Ensure  DCF  provides 
more  data  on  ecosystem 
impacts  of  EU  fisheries, 
namely:  

- 

- 

57 And the current EU MAP requires Member States to calculate the extent of sea bed area not impacted by fishing 

gear, as one of the environmental indicators in Appendix XIII. 

58 http://archive.nafo.int/open/fc/2013/fcdoc13-01.pdf 
59 Proposal for a Regulation  of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing specific conditions 
to fishing for deep-sea stocks in the North-East Atlantic and provisions for fishing in international waters of the 
North-East Atlantic and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 (COM(2012) 371 final of 19.7.2012). 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Problems identified 

Objectives of revision 

Options for addressing 
problem 

Proposed solution 

Data on by-catch of non-
target species  

Include  explicit  reference 
to  this  new  area  of  data 
the  DCF 
in 
collection 
regulation. 

Include  explicit  reference 
to  this  new  area  of  data 
the  DCF 
in 
collection 
regulation. 

In addition, 

In addition, 

RCGs  to  agree  on  the 
appropriate 
most 
sampling  approach  for 
their region. 

Include 

1. 
detailed 
requirements  in  the  EU 
regarding  what 
MAP 
species 
variables 
and 
should  be  sampled  and 
how this should be done. 

Include 

2. 
detailed 
requirements  in  the  EU 
MAP 
regarding  what 
variables 
and 
species 
should be sampled but let 
RCGs determine how this 
should be done. 

3. RCGs to determine 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 
the  DCF 
in 
Regulation. 

Include  explicit  reference 
to  this  new  area  of  data 
collection 
the  DCF 
in 
Regulation. 

In addition, 

In addition, 

Member  States  to  collect 
data on stomach content 
routine 
as  part 
of 
sampling  on 
selected 
species  listed  in  the  EU 
MAP. 

data 

1.  Collect 
on 
stomach  content  as  part 
of 
sampling 
(species  to  be  determined 
by RCGs).  

routine 

data 

on 
2.  Collect 
stomach  content  as  part 
of 
sampling 
(species to be listed in the 
EU-MAP).  

routine 

3.  Data  collection  on 
stomach  content  through 
dedicated projects. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
Problems identified 

Objectives of revision 

Options for addressing 
problem 

Proposed solution 

Data  on 
fisheries on habitats 

impacts  of 

Include  explicit  reference 
to  this  new  area  of  data 
the  DCF 
in 
collection 
Regulation. 

Include  explicit  reference 
to  this  new  area  of  data 
the  DCF 
in 
collection 
Regulation. 

In addition, 

In addition, 

1. Regular data collection 
on fishing pressure (VMS 
&  gear  type)  included  in 
EU MAP 

Data collection on fishing 
pressure  (VMS  &  gear 
type) 
in  EU 
MAP 

included 

research 
2.  Dedicated 
projects 
specific 
on 
impacts  on  fisheries  on 
different seabed types and 
organisms  (under  EMFF 
or other instruments) 

research 
2.  Dedicated 
projects 
specific 
on 
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). 

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. 

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 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
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.  

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
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 consumption60, 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).  

60 the CFP Regulation, for species subject to the landing obligation, the use of catches of species below the 

minimum conservation reference size shall be restricted to purposes other than direct human consumption, 
including fish meal, fish oil, pet food, food additives, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics (Article 15Under ) 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
Table 6: Overview of EU legislations containing provisions on fishing activity data 

Legislation 
Control Regulation61 

Commission  Fleet  Register 
Regulation62 

Fishing 
Regulation63 

Authorisations 

Statistical  Regulations  on 
and 
catch 
on 
landings 
fisheries 
products64  

statistics 
of 

Data 

Tools/Data sources 

Fishing  effort  &  catches  of 
EU  vessels  in  EU  waters. 
Landings  of  EU  vessels  in 
EU & external waters.  

Logbooks, 
landing 
declarations,  sales  notes  and 
VMS. 

Capacity of EU vessels  

EU fleet register 

Fishing  effort  &  catches  of 
EU 
external 
waters.  

vessels 

in 

Catches of non-EU vessels in 
EU waters. 

Landing and catches  

EU 
fishing 
information system 

authorisation 

Data  are  assembled  and 
reported 
these 
legislations, and disseminated 
by Eurostat. 

under 

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 

61  Council Regulation (EU) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for 

ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) 
No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 
388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 
and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 

62 Commission Regulation (EC) No 26/2004 of 30 December 2003 on the Community fishing fleet register 
63 Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008, concerning authorisations for fishing activities 
of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community 
waters,  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2847/93  and  (EC)  No  1627/94  and  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No 
3317/94 

64 Regulation (EC) No 1921/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on the 

submission of statistical data on landings of fishery products in Member States and repealing Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 1382/91  
Regulation (EC) No 216/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on the 
submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States fishing in certain areas other than those of the North 
Atlantic (recast) 
Regulation (EC) No 217/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on the 
submission of catch and activity statistics by Member States fishing in the north-west Atlantic (recast) 
Regulation (EC) No 218/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on the 

submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States fishing in the north-east Atlantic (recast) 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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  for  the  rest  of  the  catches,  due  to  the 
complication of accessing the information in these various data sources (electronic and paper 
logbooks and sales notes), some Member States have set up sampling programmes under the 
DCF to collect data on the smaller segments (this is particularly the case in the Mediterranean 
where  there  are  many  small-scale  vessels,  not  covered  by  the  logbook  obligations).  In 
addition, for scientific purposes, some catch data are needed at a lower aggregation level (e.g. 
on a haul  by haul  basis)  compared  to  what is  required under the Control  Regulation, where 
catch  and  discards  by  geographical  area  must  be  recorded  (at  least)  once  a  day  but  not  by 
haul. 

Apart  from  discrepancies  between  different  processes  of  data  collection,  there  is  also 
duplication  of  storage  and  transmission.  In  response  to  annual  data  calls  made  by 
Commission services under the DCF65, Member States are required to send catch data to the 
Commission (JRC) for scientific purposes, while they are required to send to the Commission 
(DG MARE) the same data on a monthly or bimonthly basis for control purposes and to the 
Commission (Eurostat) their catch data for statistical purposes. While for the purposes of the 
Control Regulation, data on fishing activity stored in an EU-wide database are only accessible 
to  Member  States  control  authorities,  some  of  the  data  on  fishing  activity  for  scientific 
purposes  are  also  stored  in  DCF  regional  data  bases,  in  a  JRC  database  and  for  statistical 
purposes some data are stored in Eurostat databases. 

Changes to the DCF  

Several updates of the legislative framework and to the current data management procedures 
are  required  to  reduce  discrepancies  and  ensure  alignment  of  legal  requirements  and  data 
collection and transmission processes, with a view to increase transparency and reliability of 
data, and to reduce administrative burden on Member States. 

Specifically, regarding the relation between Control and DCF Regulation, until the Control 
Regulation provides the full data sets that are required by scientific end-users, additional data 
to  that  collected  under  the  Control  Regulation  may  need  to  continue  to  be  collected  on  the 
basis of the DCF. The DCF Regulation would, however, specify that Member States should 
only collect fishing activity data under the DCF where this is not already provided for under 
existing EU legislation i.e. under the Control Regulation.  

Adjustments could be made in the provisions of the Control Regulation regarding what should 
be recorded in the logbooks, in order to fill the above data gaps, but this may require slight 
modification of the Control Regulation or its implementing provisions.  

Adjustments may also need to be made to ensure the alignment of the DCF Regulation and 
the Fishing Authorisations Regulation. 

The  EU  MAP  would  specify  the  fishing  activity  data  to  be  collected  in  addition  to  those 
collected under the Control, Statistical, Fishing Authorisations or Fleet Register regulations.  

Beyond the legislative changes, the Commission is exploring ways of streamlining the data 
transmission  and  storage  for  fishing  activity  data.  This  would  be  achieved,  in  part,  through 

65 These data calls concern the economic performance of the fisheries, aquaculture and processing sector, fishing 

effort, and biological data on Mediterranean and Black Sea stocks. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
alignment first  between  provisions  on  catch  reporting  stemming  from  the  Control  and 
statistical  regulations.  Solutions  lie  at  several  levels  and  can  be  implemented  in  several 
steps. First, the aim is to align the definitions and the IT systems in use for the exchange of 
information  between the Commission services and Member States for control and statistical 
purposes.  Then,  dissemination  of  statistics  by  Eurostat  will  be  based  on  the  data  collected 
under the Control Regulation. This would require an amendment of the statistical regulation 
on catches. Once this alignment is achieved, the same data could also be used for the purpose 
of scientific advice (ensuring that personal data protection issues are addressed - see Chapter 
5.5) and there would no longer be a need for the Member States to make these data available 
to end-users through a separate, DCF channel.  

5.2.3.  Data on the aquaculture and processing sectors 

The current DCF contains provisions requiring Member States to collect and transmit to end-
users socio-economic data on the aquaculture and processing sectors (Article 3). The aim of 
this particular data collection is to gather data explaining price formation and other data which 
may facilitate an assessment of the economic situation of the aquaculture and the processing 
industry, and of employment trends in these sectors. The current EU MAP specifies the exact 
socio-economic  data  that  all  Member  States  must  collect  on  these  two  sectors.  The  current 
DCF  does  not  cover  data  on  the  environmental  impact,  or  sustainability,  of  the  aquaculture 
sector. 

5.2.3.1.  Socio-economic data on aquaculture and data on the sustainability of the sector 

Background and legal provisions of the DCF 

For  aquaculture,  the  current  DCF  covers  only  marine  species,  including  eels  and  salmon, 
farmed within the Member States and EU waters.  The collection of socio-economic data on 
aquaculture  of  freshwater  species  is  therefore  not  mandatory.  Nevertheless,  given  the 
usefulness  of  such  data,  a  third  of  the  Member  States  collect  socio-economic  data  on  their 
whole  aquaculture  sector,  that  is,  including  for  freshwater  species66.  The  CFP  puts  a  strong 
emphasis on developing and investing in EU aquaculture, yet the absence of EU-wide data on 
freshwater aquaculture hinders an EU-wide assessment of this sector, from an economic and a 
social point of view, as well as comprehensive national analysis of the sector.  

The CFP Regulation stresses the importance of the sustainable development of aquaculture in 
Europe, and the EMFF will provide EU funding for aquaculture. Regarding the three pillars of 
sustainability  (economic,  environmental  and  social),  some  economic  and  social  data  are 
already  covered  by  the  DCF  but  additional  data  may  need  to  be  collected  regarding  its 
environmental aspects. Indeed, regarding the environmental impacts of aquaculture, no data 
are currently included in the DCF and no EU-wide information on the environmental impacts 
of aquaculture is readily available to the EU and Member States. Such data is needed in order 
to better identify where environmental impacts are higher or lower, and therefore better assess 
what  should  be  the  most  relevant  policy  decisions  to  support  a  sustainable  development  of 
aquaculture.  

For example, the following types of data are currently not available at EU level: 

 

What goes in to the aquaculture system: feed, nutrients, medicine 

66  http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/622206/2013-12_STECF+13-29+-

+Aquaculture+economics_JRC86671.pdf 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 

 

 

 

What comes out of the system: Nitrates, phosphates 

Losses: mortality, escapement of fish/organisms 

Food safety: number of incidents reported in the rapid alert system for food and feed 
(RASFF) 

Food quality: Production of organic aquaculture; production under other food quality 
labels. 

Information  about these impacts of  aquaculture can  be obtained in  a variety  of ways:  either 
the data on the impacts can be collected (e.g. by measuring the phosphates emitted by every 
aquaculture facility)  or  the impacts can  be estimated (e.g. by taking  a value for the average 
level  of  phosphate  coming  out  of  an  aquaculture  plant,  and  extrapolating  it  to  the  whole 
sector). Currently, European Performance Indicators for Aquaculture67 indicators exist at EU 
level,  based  on  data  taken  from  the  literature  rather  than  a  comprehensive  data  collection 
exercise. 

Several  of  the  variables  listed  above  (medicines  used,  mortalities  and  losses),  are  already 
recorded  by  aquaculture  facilities  under  two  EU  Directives:  Directive  2011/82/EC68  and 
Directive  2006/88/EC69.  However,  these  Directives  contain  no  obligation  regarding 
transmission of these data to the authorities or to any user and they are therefore not currently 
accessible for Member State or EU-wide analysis. 

67 http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/111111111/27600. 
68 Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the 

Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products.  

69 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 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Textbox 3 - Resource implications for collection of socio-economic data on 
freshwater aquaculture 

In addition to data collection under the statistical regulation70, the DCF socio-economic 
data  on  freshwater  aquaculture  are  already  collected  fully  or  partly  by  9  Member 
States71 whilst in 4 Member States the freshwater aquaculture sector is (close to) non-
existent72.  For  others,  however,  it  would  come  as  an  addition  to  the  current  data 
collection under Statistical legislation. The situation would be twofold: 

  For  coastal  Member  States:  as  they  already  have  a  DCF  data  collection 
established, covering freshwater aquaculture would require a simple extension 
of  their  existing  programme,  once  they  have  identified  the  freshwater 
aquaculture companies.  

  For  land-locked  Member  States:  in  so  far  they  only  collected  data  under 
Statistical  legislation,  this  may  require  a  preparatory  phase  to  design  and 
prepare  the  study,  questionnaires,  interviews  etc.  needed  to  collect  the 
additional "DCF" (i.e.  socio-economic) data.  

The cost of this data collection depends primarily on the number of enterprises to be 
surveyed.  This  varies  hugely  between  Member  States,  from  under  10  to  over  800. 
Additional  staff  time  will  be  required  for  setting  up  or  expanding  the  existing 
aquaculture  DCF  programme  to  include  the  freshwater  sector,  as  well  as  for  the 
additional data collection, processing, and analysis. 

Using the individual Member States' average staff rates for scientists73, if one presumes 
that  all  MS  would  require:  i)  10  days  for  the  preparatory  phase,  setting  up  the 
programme  (only  in  the  first  year),  ii)  1.5  days  per  freshwater  company  per  year  for 
data  collection  and  processing,  and  iii)  between  5  and  15  days  per  year  for  data 
analysis depending on the size of the sector, it can be theoretically estimated that the 
cost  of  a  one-off  setting  up  would  be,  as  a  maximum,  between  350€  and  5000  € 
depending  on  the  Member  State  (equivalent  to  around  65  000  €  at  EU  level).  This 
would  mean  annual  costs  of  between  1500  €  and  380  000  €  per  Member  State 
(equivalent to around 1 300 000 € at EU level).  

However,  this  is  an  overestimation  given  that  in  half  the  Member  States,  freshwater 
data collection is either already carried out, or the sector is (virtually) non-existent. The 
estimate above is also based on exhaustive sampling of the sector (i.e. a census of all 
enterprises)  whereas  in  fact  Member  States  may  sample  only  a  sub-section  of  their 
sector, which would substantially reduce the costs.  

80% of these costs can be covered by EU co-financing under the EMFF. 

Changes to the DCF 

In light of the new needs of the CFP regarding data on the whole aquaculture sector, the scope 
of  DCF  Regulation  should  be  revised  so  that  obligations  to  collect  socio-economic  data 
cover also freshwater aquaculture. The relevant provisions of the DCF Regulation should 
also  be  further  specified  to  establish  that  information  should  be  gathered  to  enable  the 
assessment of the environmental impacts of aquaculture.  

70 See section 5.2.3.2. 
71 Denmark, Finland, France (partly), Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain (partly) and Sweden. 

http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/622206/2013-12_STECF+13-29+-
+Aquaculture+economics_JRC86671.pdf  

72 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, Luxemburg http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/622206/2013-

12_STECF+13-29+-+Aquaculture+economics_JRC86671.pdf  

73 Based on average staff costs in the EU Member States' financial forms for their 2011 data collection 

programmes  

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member States would only be obliged to collect data on environmental impacts of aquaculture 
data on the basis of the DCF where there is no existing obligation to collect such data under 
other EU legislation (such as the EU Directives on veterinary medicinal products and on an 
animal health, mentioned above). Such additional data would be included in the EU MAP. 

The DCF provisions on availability of data, though, would apply to all data, whether collected 
(or recorded) under the DCF or other EU legislation. In the case of data on the environmental 
impacts  of  aquaculture,  this  would  enable  the  data  on  medicines  used,  or  mortalities  and 
losses, currently recorded under existing EU legislation, to be made available at EU level for 
analysis. If the estimated costs of this expansion of the EU MAP are considered too high (see 
Textbox  3),  the  revised  EU  MAP  may  include  thresholds  below  which  socio-economic  or 
environmental  impact  data  need  not  be  collected  e.g.  on  aquaculture  plants  with  a  small 
production  or  income,  or  for  Member  States  where  aquaculture  is  negligible  in  economic 
term. In addition, the EU MAP could distinguish between mandatory data to be collected and 
optional data, and also between data to be collected annually and those that can be collected 
less frequently, as in some cases, there is little inter-annual changes in some socio-economic 
data (e.g. gender balance in employment).  

5.2.3.2.  Overlaps  with  EU  legislation  on  Statistical  Data  on  aquaculture  and  the  processing 

sector  

A key objective of the revision of the DCF is to eliminate redundancies between regulatory 
frameworks  following  the  principle  "one  collection  point,  several  uses",  in  order  to  avoid 
multiple  reporting,  achieve  synergies  and  reduce  administrative  burdens  in  the  future.  This 
applies  both  for  socio-economic  data  on  aquaculture,  as  well  as  data  on  the  environmental 
impacts of aquaculture.  
The  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  DCF74  identified  some  major  duplications  and  overlaps 
between  the  DCF  on  the  one  hand  (that  covers  socio-economic  data  collection  on  the 
aquaculture  and  processing  sectors)  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  EU  statistical  legislation  on 
aquaculture75  and  EU  legislation  on  the  Structural  Business  Statistics76  which  cover  the 
processing sector (see Annex III).  

In  the  case  of  aquaculture,  in  some  cases  there  are  wide  discrepancies  among  the  Member 
States  in  the  way  they  collect  and  process  the  data  under  these  different  legal  frameworks. 
These  discrepancies  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  two  legal  frameworks  cover 
different populations and the data are used for different purposes. Under Statistical legislation, 
data  are  collected  with  the  aim  of  estimating  primary  production  entering  the  market  for 
human  consumption,  comparable  with  agricultural  statistics.  Under  the  DCF,  data  are 
collected  to  enable  analysis  of  the  economic  performance  of  the  companies  involved  in 
aquaculture (see Annex XI for further details and also the report of the STECF77). 

74 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/retrospective-and-prospective-evaluation-on-common-

fisheries-policy_en.pdf. 

75 Regulation (EC) 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) 788/96  

76 Regulation (EC) No 295/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 concerning 

structural business statistics 

77 Report of the STECF EWG14-24  Preparations for future DCF 

http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/854928/2014-12_STECF+14-
24+Preparations+for+future+DC_JRC93103.pdf  

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
In a report by the European Court of Auditors78, this apparent duplication of data collection in 
aquaculture  was  criticised,  in  particular  because  of  the  differences  in  the  resulting  figures 
and  statistics.  In  response  to  this  report,  the  Commission  has  committed  to  improve  the 
comparability,  accuracy  and  completeness  of  both  datasets  in  the  period  2015-2020  starting 
with the revision of the DCF Regulation.  

Concerning  the  fish  processing  industry,  the  Structural  Business  Statistics  cover  industry, 
construction, trade and service all EU Member States and describe the structure, conduct and 
performance of businesses across the EU. Under this Regulation, Member States must collect 
socio-economic  data  on,  amongst  other,  the  processing  sector.  There  is  substantial  overlap 
between these data and the socio-economic data that Member States must provide under the 
DCF  (as  detailed  in  Appendix  XII  of  the  EU  MAP):  the  DCF  requires  the  collection  of  17 
indicators,  of  which  11  are  identical  or  closely  related  to  those  covered  by  the  Structural 
Business Statistics (see also Annex III). 

The socio-economic data on the processing sector covered by the DCF can currently not be 
linked to the fisheries or aquaculture sector or to any region due to the absence of data on the 
origin of the raw material used in the processing sector. STECF has noted that without being 
able to analyse the linkages between the catching and processing sector,  the value added  of 
the  data  collection  in  the  DCF  is  questionable  compared  to  those  collected  under  the 
Structural Business Statistics. 

All in all, this situation leads to a very sub-optimal use of public resources. 

Table  7:  Needs  the  DCF  should  address:  To  ensure  single  collection  but  multiple  use  of 
reliable data on aquaculture and processing. 

Problems identified 

Objectives of revision 

Overlaps and duplications 
in data collection between 
statistical  legislation  and 
concerning 
DCF 
aquaculture 
and 
processing industry 

to 

Move 
single  data 
collection  and  multiple 
use of data 

Options for addressing 
problem 

Proposed solution 

1.  Statistical  regulations 
continue  to  set  out  basic 
collection 
data 
for 
obligations 
aquaculture 
and 
processing  industry,  DCF 
EU  MAP  only  requires 
additional data  

Statistical 
regulations 
continue  to  set  out  basic 
collection 
data 
for 
obligations 
aquaculture 
and 
processing  industry,  DCF 
only  requires  additional 
data  

2.  DCF  continues  to  set 
collection 
out 
data 
for 
obligations 
and 
aquaculture 
processing, 
statistical 
regulations  are  amended 
and/or  repealed  to  delete 
collection 
data 
any 
on 
requirements 
aquaculture 
and 
processing 

Close  coordination  on 
data  quality  and  detailed 
description  of  the  data 
sources  and  procedures 
are carried out.  

of 

Amendment 
the 
Statistical  regulations  if 
is 
further 
necessary 
the 
purposes of the CFP. 

alignment 
for 

78 European Court of Auditors (2014) Special Report No 10/2014 "The effectiveness of EFF support for 

aquaculture" http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR14_10/QJAB14010ENC.pdf  

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Changes to the DCF  

The  statistical  legislative  framework  would  serve  as  the  primary  basis  for  collection  and 
management  of  basic  data  on  aquaculture  and  processing  industry.  Similarly  to  the  general 
principle  set  out  in  section  5.2.2.,  the  DCF  Regulation  should  specify  that  the  EU  MAP 
would  contain  only  those  data  on  the  aquaculture  and  processing  sectors  that  are  not 
already covered by the EU statistical legislation on aquaculture79 and the EU legislation on 
the Structural Business Statistics80 (for the processing sector).  

The Statistical regulation on aquaculture may be revised if this is necessary to enable the 
data  collected  under  that  framework  to  serve  both  the  purposes  of  producing  EU-wide 
statistics on aquaculture production, and for the purposes of the CFP. This alignment should 
be done with the intention to guarantee at least the same level of quality of the data as the one 
currently collected and disseminated by Eurostat. 

At this stage it does not seem necessary to revise the Structural Business Statistics, as this 
legislation is very detailed, and the provisions on variables and formats apply to all the sectors 
covered by this legislation (of which processing is only one, very small sector).   

Any additional data would be included in the EU MAP based on the general criteria outlined 
in  the  DCF  Regulation  (end-user  need,  feasibility,  cost  etc  –  see  section  5.1),  including  the 
periodicity  of  collection  (one-off  pilot  study;  annual  bi-  or  triennial  collection),  aggregation 
levels  and  for  which  variables  collection  is  mandatory  vs  optional.  The  EU  Coordination 
Group  would  recommend  the  methodological  aspects  that  Member  States  should  follow 
regarding how these data should be collected (e.g. sampling strategies, precision levels). The 
EU  Coordination  Group  should  involve  National  Statistical  Institutes  and  should  take  into 
account the European Statistics Code of Practice and the Quality Assurance Framework of the 
European Statistical System where relevant. 

In  addition,  close  coordination  between  Commission  services  on  data  quality  and  detailed 
description  of  the  data  sources  and  procedures  will  be  carried  out,  and  the  same  increased 
coordination within Member States between statistical offices and bodies involved in the DCF 
programme will be fostered.  

5.3. 

How data should be collected 

5.3.1.1.  Provisions on methodological issues  

Background and legal provisions of the DCF 

DCF data are obtained in a variety of ways81: i) at sea though observers on board commercial 
vessels  (fisheries  dependent  data)  or  on  research  surveys  (fisheries  independent  data)  ii) 

79 Regulation (EC) 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) 788/96  

80 Regulation (EC) No 295/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 concerning 

structural business statistics 

81  For  a  more  detailed  overview  of  methods  used  to  collect  biological  data  and  how  they  are  used  in  stock 
assessments,  see  section  1.2  of  the  2013  report  Data  deficient  Fisheries  in  EU  waters  of  the  European 
B  
Parliament's 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/495865/IPOL-PECH_ET(2013)495865_EN.pdf  

Department 

Directorate 

Policies, 

General 

Internal 

Policy 

for 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
through  sampling  in  harbours,  iii)  through  questionnaires  or  interviews  (mainly  for  socio-
economic data); or iv) by re-using data collected under other legislations (Articles 9, 11, 12 
and 15).  

When  sampling  commercial  fisheries,  Member  States  must  do  this  concurrently,  which 
means  that  all  species  covered  by  the  DCF  must  be  sampled  simultaneously  in  a  vessel's 
catches or landings. The sampling unit is the  metier82 and a threshold is defined to exclude 
the  smaller  metiers  from  the  sampling  requirements  of  the  DCF  (only  top  90%  should  be 
sampled).  It  is  the  Member  State  on  whose  territory  the  first  sale  takes  place  who  is 
responsible for ensuring the biological sampling takes place.  

As  described  in  the  Introduction,  as  well  as  specifying  what  should  be  sampled 
(species/stocks,  variables)  and  how  often  (frequency),  the  current  EU  MAP  (in  Chapters  II, 
III,  IV  and  V  and  Appendix  VI,  VII,  X,  XII  &  XIII)  contains  detailed  and  very  complex 
provisions  regarding  how  the  sampling  should  be  performed  (precision  levels,  sampling 
intensities,  sampling  strategy,  schemes  for  concurrent  sampling,  disaggregation  level, 
guidelines to be followed, thresholds and exemption rules). 

Specifying such detailed aspects of data collection at EU level results in both a very complex 
EU  MAP,  and  an  insufficiently  flexible  system,  as  every  time  a  change  is  required,  this 
requires amendment of the EU MAP. 

Changes to the DCF 

One  of  the  key  changes  that  should  take  place  through  the  revision  of  the  DCF  is  that 
methodological aspects should no longer be specified in EU legislation, whether the DCF 
Regulation  or  the  EU  MAP,  as  is  currently  the  case,  but  should  be  left  to  coordination 
between  Member  States  in  Regional  Coordination  Groups  or  through  the  EU  Coordination 
Group  for  socio-economic,  or  other  EU-wide  issues.  The  most  important  methodological 
aspects  (source  of  the  data,  the  procedures  and  methods  to  collect  and  process  data,  quality 
assurance and control frameworks) will then be endorsed by the Commission as part of each 
Member State's Work plan or as part of regionally agreed work plans. Indeed, this stems from 
the  fact  that  sampling  strategies, intensities,  precision  levels  to  be  reached  may  evolve  over 
time with scientific knowledge or know how and setting these at EU level does not allow for 
sufficient flexibility.   

As a result, the provisions of the current DCF Regulation (Article 9) that concern sampling 
strategies  would  not  be  included  in  the  revised  DCF,  and  all  the  detailed  methodological 
requirements  established  in  the  current  EU  MAP  would  not  be  included  in  the  future  EU 
MAP.  

Regarding the metier approach, used to sample biological data, it has emerged very clearly 
from consultations that this is not the appropriate unit for establishing sampling plans, even 
though it may be a useful way in which to present data after collection to allow allocation to 
metiers based on the defined target assemblage and fishing gear characteristics to ensure the 
continuation of time series data for fisheries based management models (e.g. to allow linking 
of  biological  and  economic  data  on  the  fishing  fleet).  Therefore,  under  the  future  system, 
where RCGs will be tasked with methodological aspects, Member States would no longer be 

82 The metier is defined in the EU MAP (Chapter I) as a group of fishing operations targeting a similar 

(assemblage of) species, using similar gear, during the same period of the year and/or within the same area and 
which are characterised by a similar exploitation pattern; 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
required to set up their sampling programmes using metiers, but could choose to do so on the 
basis of stocks.  

5.3.1.2.  The particular case of research surveys at sea 

Background and legal provisions of the DCF 

One manner of collecting biological, fisheries independent data is through research surveys at 
sea. Research surveys provide fisheries independent data which is essential for certain type of 
fisheries  assessments.  Research  surveys  account  for  50%  of  the  budgets  spent  on  data 
collection at EU level, and even more in certain Member States83.  

Currently,  the  DCF  Regulation  imposes  an  obligation  on  Member  States  to  'carry  out 
research surveys at sea to evaluate the abundance and distribution of stocks, independently of 
the data provided by commercial fisheries, and to assess the impact of the fishing activity on 
the  environment'  (Article  12),  specifying  that  such  a  list  of  mandatory  surveys  will  be 
established in the EU MAP but only in terms of eligibility for funding of the surveys included 
in that list, not in terms of Member States' obligations to cover the listed surveys. Such a list, 
which contains 43 research surveys, is included in Appendix IX of the EU MAP. Should the 
Commission wish to amend this list, or to authorize Member States to make modifications in 
the  design  of  the  surveys,  the  Commission  is  required  to  first  seek  advice  from  the  STECF 
(Article 7 of Commission Reg. (EC) No. 665/2008).  

Prior to 2014, under direct management, this list constituted not only a list of obligations on 
Member States but also a list of research surveys at sea eligible for the EU co-financing under 
the DCF. 

The  EU  MAP  also  requires  Member  States  to  guarantee  within  their  National  Programmes 
continuity with previous survey designs.  

Many of the surveys listed in the EU MAP are internationally-coordinated surveys (e.g. under 
ICES)  that  are  carried  out  by  several  Member  States  and/or  third  countries.  There  are, 
however,  no  EU  provisions  specifying  which  Member  States  should  contribute  to  which 
survey, or how effort should be split between Member States for each survey. This contrasts 
with  provisions  on  biological  data  collection  for  which  the  EU  MAP  specifies  rules  for 
deciding when a Member State must collect such data.  

Experience in implementing the DCF and consultations have revealed that the absence of EU 
rules on allocation of Member States' tasks with regard to international surveys has resulted in 
a  lack  of  clarity  on  who  should  contribute.  Some  Member  States  feel  that  others  are  taking 
advantage  of  the  lack  of  clear  obligations  in  the  DCF  to  not  'pull  their  weight'  in  terms  of 
contribution  to  survey  efforts.  There  is  broad  agreement  that  Member  States  that  fish  a 
particular  stock  (above  a  minimum  level)  should  contribute  to  international  surveys  that 
provide data for assessment of those stocks.   

Changes to the DCF 

Given  the  crucial  importance  of  fisheries-independent  data  (i.e.  collected  during  research 
surveys)  and  the  importance  of  having  long-standing  time  series  with  such  data  to  enable  a 
full  assessment  of  fish  stocks,  the  list  of  research  surveys  that  should  be  carried  out  by 
Member States should continue to be determined at the level of the EU. The emphasis of the 
current  DCF  regarding  research  surveys  was  both  on  the  obligatory  nature  of  the  surveys 
included in the current EU MAP, but also on the fact that (only) these were eligible for EU 

83 Based on actual amounts spent by Member States in 2013, taken from costs claims submitted to the European 

Commission. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
co-financing under the DCF's former financial mechanism. As eligibility is now governed by 
the rules of the EMFF, the provisions on research surveys in the DCF Regulation should only 
relate  to  the  obligation  to  carry  these  out.  The  DCF  Regulation  would  contain  criteria  on 
which  basis  the  list  of  obligatory  surveys  in  the  EU  MAP  would  be  established  by  the 
Commission. Such criteria, based on those developed by STECF84, could be:  

(1) needs according to internationally agreed coordination and harmonisation;  
(2) feedback on management plans, including the monitoring of ecosystem variables;  
(3) needs of  the scientific community;  
(4) needs to obtain sufficient coverage of stock area;  
(5) avoidance of duplication between surveys; and  
(6) avoid disruption of history of the survey data.   

The DCF Regulation would also contain a provision regarding the  principle to apply  task 
sharing  between  Member  States.  The  EU  MAP  may  detail  this  provision  further  as 
necessary, including thresholds of fishing activities for Member States below which they do 
not have to participate in surveys. 

5.4. 

Ensuring adequate quality of the data 

Background and legal provisions of the DCF 

Data quality has improved since the DCR (2000) and then the DCF (2008) were established, 
but  it  could  further  improve.  The  current  DCF  Regulation  contains  provisions  whereby 
Member  States  must  explain  their  procedures  and  methods  in  their  National  Programmes 
(Article  4.3),  which  are  evaluated  by  the  STECF.  Member  States  must  also  report  on  the 
quality of the data collected in their Annual Reports (Article 7(2)), which are also evaluated 
by  the  STECF.  Furthermore,  Member  States  are  to  standardize  their  methodologies  within 
regions,  to  follow  international  quality  standards  and  to  estimate  accuracy  and  precision  of 
their data as far as possible (Article 9(3) and 9(4)). Member States are responsible for the 
quality and completeness of the primary data collected under their National Programmes and 
for the detailed and aggregated data derived therefrom and provided to end-users (Article 14).  

The  EU  MAP  currently  contains  quality  targets  in  the  form  of  a  measure  of  precision 
(Coefficients of Variations (CVs)) that needs to be met by Member States and on which they 
should report in their Annual Reports. Compliance of Member States with the DCF provisions 
on quality are assessed by the STECF through the examination of Annual Reports, based on 
whether  target  CV  values  are  achieved  by  Member  States,  and  through  feedback  from  end-
users. 

Experience with implementing the DCF has revealed that CV values on their own are not a 
particularly  good  measure  of  quality  and  that  the  CV  targets  specified  in  the  DCF  are 
unrealistic and in practice, often not achieved by Member States. STECF85 has recommended 
that  the  EU  rules  no  longer  include  pre-defined  quality  targets  but  instead  should  contain 
minimum sampling targets (i.e. number of samples to  be collected) and that Member States 
include  quality  indicators  in  their  Annual  Reports  so  that  these  can  be  evaluated  by  the 
relevant scientific bodies or data users.  

Two other aspects are to be considered if one is to improve quality of DCF data.  

84 STECF report SGRN10-03: http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/44904/10-10_SG-RN+10-03+-

+Surveys_JRC61965.pdf   

85 STECF 13-01 report http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/435014/2013-01_STECF+13-01+-

+Review+of+proposed+DCF+2014-2020_JRC79209.pdf  

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Firstly,  quality  assurance  of  the  data  collection  and  processing  is  essential  and  should  be 
provided along with the data themselves.  
Consultations,  including  of  the  STECF86,  and  experience  have  revealed  that  the  present 
system  of  reporting  data  quality  in  DCF  programmes  is  inappropriate.  The  main  reason  for 
this is that the present system only covers part of the data quality aspects, with a strong focus 
on precision but few requirements to assure representativeness of collected data and to reduce 
(the risk of) bias. Quality assurance needs to be assured for all components (including design 
and  implementation  of  data  collection  schemes,  data  archiving  as  well  as  methodologies  to 
derive final estimates).  

Furthermore,  STECF  recommends  that  the  quality  evaluation  should  be  through  a  well-
structured peer-review process supported by clear documentation of all components of the 
sampling programmes and the sampling outcomes. Quality of a sampling survey programme 
should be evaluated in relation to two aspects of sampling: i) the ability of the programme to 
(in principle) deliver data that are fit for purpose, by reviewing the design of the programme 
against guidelines and standards for best practice; and ii) evaluation of the quality of the data 
following  implementation  of  the  sampling  survey,  covering  each  of  the  two  components  of 
accuracy, bias and precision. 

Secondly,  in  the  case  of  biological  data,  when  it  comes  to  shared  stocks,  information  on 
quality  of  national  data  sets  is  of  little  use  to  data  users.  Instead,  they  need  to  know  the 
quality  of  the  data  at  stock  level,  which,  for  shared  stocks,  means  aggregating  data  from 
several Member States and assessing quality of that aggregated data set. 

Changes to the DCF 

The provisions in the DCF regarding data quality could be strengthened by 1) improving the 
design  of  the  sampling  programmes  based  on  end-user  needs,  such  that  the  intrinsic  quality 
will improve, and 2) requiring greater transparency on the methods used by Member States. 
By contrast, detailed provisions on quality targets should no longer be prescribed at EU level, 
whether  in  the  DCF  Regulation  or  in  the  EU  MAP.  From  output  led,  the  EU  rules  should 
focus on setting up more efficient processes for quality checks in Member States and across 
Member States. 

Specifically, the DCF Regulation would continue to require Member States to set up a quality 
assurance and quality control framework at national level, to ensure quality of the data. The 
concrete  set  up  of  this  process  should  be  explained  in  the  national  work  plan,  thereby 
improving the transparency on the methods and procedures used in each Member States.  

As  methodologies  evolve  over  time,  the  methodologies  themselves  should  not  be  set  in  the 
regulatory  framework.  Instead,  the  DCF  Regulation  would  require  that  Member  States 
coordinate with other Member States when developing their national work plans (which cover 
also  methodologies)  and  that  Member  States  ensure  their  work  plans  comply  with  any  joint 
recommendations by RCGs, where these exist and have been approved by the Commission.  
(see section 5.1.2).  

Member States would be required in the guidance on Annual Reports issued by Commission 
services  to  provide  quality  indicators  (e.g.  agreed  at  a  regional  level,  depending  on  the 
regional  sampling  programme)  in  their  Annual  Reports,  to  inform  data  users  on  the  data 

86 STECF 14-02 report http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/658649/2014-02_STECF+14-02+-

+Revision+of+DCF_JRC89196.pdf  

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
quality and so that RCGs and the EUCG can assess these quality indicators and recommend 
remedial action if they are considered insufficient. 

Beyond these legislative provisions, the future IT systems/databases for DCF data provision 
to  data  users  should  include  automated  quality  checking  procedures,  building  on  those 
already  being  piloted  by  Member  States  or  in  existing  supra-national  databases  such  as  the 
JRC, Eurostat or DCF regional databases.  

5.5. 

Improving availability of data   

Background and legal provisions of the DCF 

Under  the  current  DCF  Regulation,  each  Member  State  is  required  to  upload  the  data 
collected  under  the  DCF  into  a  national  database  (Article  13).  Data  are  owned  by  and 
exclusively accessible to that Member State, with one exception: the Commission may consult 
information about what data are stored in the database (metadata) (Article 16).   

A distinction is made between several types of data: with a view to personal or commercial 
data protection, simple access to the raw data in national databases by any third party is not 
provided for in the current DCF, and raw data (called primary data, and defined in Article 2) 
are  transformed  by  Member  States  into  detailed  and  aggregated  data  before  they  are 
transmitted  to  end-users  (Articles  17,  18,  19).  Detailed  data  is  defined  (Article  2)  as  data 
based on primary data in a form which does not allow natural persons or legal entities to  be 
identified directly or indirectly. In some cases, e.g. for small segments of the fleet, this is not 
possible, and consequently, data are kept confidential for an entire category of data.  

Whilst it is recognised that the DCF represents a major progress in the availability of data on 
fisheries  at  Member  States  and  EU  level,  improvements  on  the  following  four  points  are 
needed in order to increase the availability of data both for scientific end-users and for other 
interested parties(see Table 8). 

A first issue is the complexity and cost of the storage and provision of data. Data currently 
find their way to end-users through data transmission or "data calls" (Articles 18-20). Many 
scientific  bodies,  such  as  ICES,  issue  several  data  calls  every  year  (see  Figure  3).  The 
Commission may also launch data calls, and does so regularly on behalf of the STECF e.g. for 
the  purpose  of  drawing  up  annual  economic  reports  on  the  fisheries,  aquaculture  and 
processing sectors.   

The number of data calls per Member State varies hugely depending on the size of their sector 
(number of stocks fished, for example), from half a dozen, to around 50 data calls per year87. 
A study on DCF data storage and transmission88 estimated, on the basis of a consultation with 
Member  States,  that  responding  to  DCF  data  calls  requires  at  national  level  between  10  to 
1000 person-days annually, and around 4,000 person-days (or 20-25 person-years) annually at 
EU level.  

87 Based on information reported by Member States in their DCF Annual Reports 
88 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/scientific-data-storage/index_en.htm  

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 3: Data transmission to end-users via "data calls"89 

Source: the DCF Database Feasibility Study90  

Member States are obliged to respond to these data calls by sending the requested data in the 
specified format within a deadline (1-3 months depending on the purpose of the data request) 
to  the  end-user  (Article  20).  Member  States'  insufficient  or  lack  of  response  to  data  calls  is 
one of the two major criteria for reduction of EU co-financing (Article 8 (5) (c)). 

The  current  set  up  leads  to  many  parallel  data  calls  for  the  same  or  similar  data,  where 
Member  States  have  to  convert  data  to  the  specific  requirements  of  end-users,  or  have  to 
respond  to  data  calls  at  different  times  of  the  year  and  thus  having  to  regularly  update  the 
results and applying different quality assurance procedures etc. A study on DCF data storage 
and transmission (see part 2.2.7)91  concluded that collecting data or doing separate data calls 
for  all  various  different  purposes  is  wasteful  in  terms  of  resources  and  puts  an  unnecessary 
burden on Member States. The study pointed out that this burden could be reduced if Member 
States  had  to  process  data  only  once  in  a  common  internationally  accepted  data  format, 
ensuring the (updated) data are made available to end-users at an agreed annual cut-off date  
and leaving the further processing and formatting of data to end-users. 

A recent step toward better access to and management of data is the creation of DCF regional 
databases (RDBs), in some marine regions, containing detailed biological stock-related data 
and aggregated fishing activity data collected by the Member States as well as data processing 

89 MBS = Mediterranean & Black Sea. CR = Control Regulation.  RDB = regional Database. NS&EA = North Sea 

& Eastern Arctic. WG = Working groups. FAO = Food & Agriculture Organization  

90 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/scientific-data-storage/index_en.htm  
91 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/scientific-data-storage/index_en.htm  

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
and analysis tools to extrapolate these data to the total catches by all fisheries types (metiers). 
RDBs have been created to facilitate and harmonise data management for the Member States 
when  responding  to  data  calls  of  regional  end-users  such  as  the  Regional  Coordination 
Meeting. Each Member State keeps access to and ownership of its own data and it can restrict 
the  access  rules  and  even  withdraw  the  data.  However,  experience  with  these  RDBs  has 
revealed that some Member States are reluctant to take part in the absence of a clearly defined 
legal framework regarding the status and use of the data in these supra-national databases. 

The process is further complicated by the internal complexity within Member States. All 
Member  States  store  primary  data  (biological,  socio-economic  and  fishing  activity  data)  in 
various  separate  databases,  each  of  high  quality,  but  managed  by  different  institutions  or 
Ministries  not  always  entitled  to  provide  data  to  each  other  or  to  a  central  database  for 
confidentiality  reasons92.  Despite  the  requirement  to  establish  a  network  of  databases  at 
national level (Art. 8.1 of the Commission Regulation 665/2008), none of the Member States 
have linked all national partners’ databases, and only four Member States have developed a 
central database, which effectively addresses the obligation above. Having data spread out in 
several places at national level, and managed by different bodies, adds complexity, cost and 
delay for Member States to analyse data nationally, and to provide data to supra-national data 
users. 

Several  Member  States  are  working  to  improve  that  situation,  however,  no  rules  currently 
exist at EU level to harmonize or guide this process, and the national initiatives are therefore 
being  done  in  parallel,  using  different  IT  solutions.  Again,  a  more  harmonized  approach 
would reduce costs and increase ease of access at supra-national level by having compatible 
formats.  

The  second  issue  is  compliance  by  Member  States  with  their  obligation  to  provide  data  to 
end-users.  The  way  the  Commission  currently  checks  this  obligation  is  by  requesting  feed-
back  from  end-users  on  data  received  in  data  calls.  This  ex-post  evaluation  has  worked 
imperfectly.  Assessment  of  Member  States'  performance  is  dependent  on  feedback  and 
goodwill  of  the  end-user.  However,  end-users  have  no  legal  obligation  to  help  the 
Commission, and often lack the resources to reply to Commission's requests..  

Also,  there  is  a  lack  of  possibilities  to  enforce  correct  and  timely  responsiveness  to  data 
provision, which leads to delays for end-users to obtain the data, which are often not in the 
right format and not provided via the right channel, resulting in an important extra workload 
for end-users to process the data, and in an inefficient system of evaluating the performance 
of Member States in providing data. 

A  third  issue  is  restrictions  on  the  use  of  data  collected  under  other  frameworks.    Whilst 
access to, or provision of data collected under the DCF is satisfactory (essentially biological 
and  socio-economic  data),  end-users  have  encountered  difficulties  to  use  data  on  fishing 
activity (e.g. on landings, effort, VMS specified by area and type of fisheries) obtained under 
the Control Regulation. As these data are collected at the level of single vessels' activity, this 
regulation is subject to rules on protection of personal data and stipulates that data may only 
be used for the purpose for which they were obtained, i.e. control and enforcement. The use of 
fishing  activity  data  for  scientific  purposes  is  not  excluded,  but  the  Control  Regulation 
requires that the authorities providing the data give their express consent for the use for other 
purposes  than  control, and  that  in  such  case,  data  should  be  anonymised  or,  if  not  possible, 
encrypted (Article 116 (5)).  

92 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/data/documents/analysis-of-cross-cutting-issues-

2014_en.pdf  

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In most Member States, arrangements on data access have been made between the national 
fisheries control  authorities  and the scientific institutes designated  for carrying out the DCF 
work, such as setting up several levels of restrictions on data availability. Therefore, by and 
large,  access  to  fishing  activity  data  by  scientists  is  generally  ensured,  at  least  at  national 
level.  However,  experience  shows  that  personal  data  protection  may  be  used  to  justify 
national rules preventing access to the data by “non-control” people, or by scientific experts 
who  are  non-nationals  of  the  concerned  Member  States,  preventing  therefore  end-users  to 
perform fully their tasks. 

The  current  state  of  play  is  unsatisfactory  because  scientific  advisors  need  data  on  fishing 
activities to extrapolate biological data on individual fish samples to the total catch and thus 
the state of the fish stocks, an essential step e.g. for estimating Total Allowable Catches and 
Quotas. These data are also needed for evaluating the introduction and impact of the discard 
ban, for the economic evaluation of the fisheries sector, for environmental impacts of fishing 
e.g.  on  habitats  etc.    There  is  therefore  a  need  for  EU-wide  clear  and  harmonised  rules  on 
access to fishing activity data if one is to progress towards exchange of data between Member 
States and facilitate access to fisheries data. 

The fourth issue is that DCF data are under-utilized beyond the "traditional" end-users i.e. 
scientific  bodies  involved  in  fisheries  management.  This  is  due  to  the  current  difficulties  in 
accessing DCF data, due to the system of data calls, and the fact the data are currently stored 
in many different places, as detailed above. This represents a huge wasted potential. Collected 
data are only sent upon requests from end-users who are aware of the existence of the data, 
while these and similar data are needed by several other interested parties, who do not know 
about the existence of the data, while data collectors are not aware of the potential data users. 
These users may use data from other sources that do not match their needs or they may collect 
the same data in parallel. Thus, resources are wasted and opportunities are missed to optimize 
policies. E.g. it would be in the interest of both the fisheries and the energy sector to use the 
most accurate information available in an early stage in the planning of wind farms.   

It is therefore important to allow for the availability of data to a wider public in order to save 
resources  and  profit  from  the  synergies  created  by  cross-cutting  interdisciplinary  links 
between different fields. In the Commission Staff Working Document on Marine Knowledge 
2020:  roadmap93,  many  more  groups  of  data  users  were  identified  who  could  profit  from 
fisheries data such as users involved in marine policy planning, operators carrying out socio-
economic impact assessments for marine projects. Currently, these users are not even aware 
of the existence of these data or do not know exactly what type of data are available resulting 
in  duplication  of  data  collection.  E.g.  according  to  a  study  cited  in  this  Commission  Staff 
Working  Document,  for  offshore  wind  farms  impact  assessments  more  than  8  million  €  is 
spent on fisheries data.  

The  Commission,  supported  by  Council  and  European  Parliament,  announced  in  its 
Communication  on  Blue  Innovation94  the  intention  to  replace  the  "present  fragmented, 
inaccessible  and  inhomogeneous  repositories  of  marine  data  in  the  EU  by  a  sustainable 
process  whereby  data  is  easily  accessible,  interoperable  and  free  of  restrictions  on  its  use". 
The Commission considers that this can  be done by improving EMODnet and integrating it 
with  other  EU  initiatives  such  as  the  Copernicus  Marine  Service,  the  DCF  and  the  Water 

93 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014SC0149&from=EN  
94 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=COM:2014:254:REV1&from=EN  

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Information System for Europe95, using common European standards. There are also further 
possibilities for the greater involvement of the private sector and for using funding for IMP 
under  the  EMFF.  Horizon  202096,  the  new  programme  for  Research  and  Innovation,  might 
also  contribute  to  ease  access  to  data  and  foster  interoperability  through  its  funding 
instruments. 

Table  8:  Needs  the  DCF  should  address:  Ensure  broad  availability  of  DCF  data  to  data 
users in a timely manner. 

Problems identified 

Objectives of revision 

1.  Data  calls  system  is 
for 
burdensome 
too 
and 
States 
Member 
inefficient  for  end-users 
as  data  only  available  to 
individual end-users upon 
request and not to others.  

Supra-national  data  bases 
still  at  an  early  stage  and 
lacking 
the  appropriate 
legal frameworks  

Reduce 
the  burden  of 
aggregation  on  Member 
States  by  moving  from  a 
push to a pull system.  

Involve  end-users  in  the 
process early on. 

Clarify  the  legal  status  of 
supranational  data  bases 
and data uploaded thereof 

Harmonization  of  basic 
rules for interoperability  

Options for addressing 
problem 

Four  scenarios  for  data 
availability 
supra-
at 
national level97: 

i) one supra-regional data 
base 

ii) several regional nodes  

iii) one European network  

iv) one fisheries data hub  

Proposed solution 

Allow  for 
the  gradual 
move  from  data  push  to 
pull system to ensure data 
availability (still allowing 
for  the  data  call  system 
initially).  

DCF 
in 
Define 
Regulation the basic rules 
and  principles  for  data 
availability, 
including 
rules  on  personal  data 
protection.  

Develop an IT system for 
DCF data availability that 
builds on database 
feasibility study and 
ensuing 
consultations/further 
feasibility analysis. 

DCF Regulation to 
include generic rules on 
this and Commission to 
set out details further, 
upon results of further 
feasibility analysis. 

95  The  Water  Information  System  for  Europe  (WISE),  a  gateway  to  information  on  European  water  issues, 

including marine waters, for the general public and stakeholders: http://water.europa.eu/info.  

96 Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 
establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) 
97 For further detail see Section 2.2.7. or http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/scientific-data-

storage/index_en.htm 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  MS 
2.  Checks 
with 
compliance 
obligation 
to  provide 
data  to  end-users  is  too 
burdensome and slow  

burden 
quality 

and 
Reduce 
of 
improve 
compliance checks for all 
actors  involved  allowing 
also 
the 
to  speed  up 
process. 

scientific 

Ensure 
end-
users  at  national  and 
supra-national  level  have 
to 
the  required  access 
fishing 
data 
needed  for  the  purposes 
of the DCF. 

activity 

3.  

Accessibility  to  fishing 
activity  data  by  end-
users  is  too  limited,  in 
some Member States, and 
at 
to 
supra-national, 
enable 
adequate 
application of CFP.  

This is due to restrictions 
on multi-purposes use of 
of 
certain 
data 
fishing 
stemming 
the 
Control Regulation.  

categories 
activity 
from 

Move  to  system  where 
between  
comparison 
requirements  and  results 
(i.e.  what  data  MS  made 
available) 
largely 
automatized in IT system, 
automatic 
including 
quality, 
timeliness  and 
completeness check. 

are 

 Maintain  guarantees  for 
respect  of  ownership  of 
data in national databases 
or RDBs. 

Fishing activity data to be 
made  available  to  end-
users  at  a  supra-national 
level  subject  to  agreed 
procedure  and  conditions  
e.g.  restricting some data 
by  giving 
conditional 
access  but  not  entirely 
prohibiting their use.  

basing 
Continue 
of  MS 
assessment 
compliance  on  feedback 
from  end-users  but  try  to 
the  process 
accelerate 
improved 
through 
cooperation  with  end-
users  and  investment  of 
increased resources. 

Move  to  system  where 
comparison 
between 
requirements  and  results 
(i.e.  what  data  MS  made 
available) 
largely 
automatized in IT system, 
including 
automatic 
quality, 
timeliness  and 
completeness check. 

are 

Continue  with  current 
restrictive access 

Maintain  guarantees  for 
respect  of  ownership  of 
data in national databases 
or 
supra-national 
databases.  

Fishing activity data to be 
made  available  to  end-
users  at  a  supra-national 
level  subject  to  agreed 
procedure  and  conditions  
e.g.  restricting some data 
by  giving 
conditional 
access  but  not  entirely 
prohibiting their use.  

Consult  European  Data 
Supervisor 
Protection 
(EDPS) in case of doubt. 

Possible 
limited 
modification  of  Control 
Regulation. 

Consult  European  Data 
Protection 
Supervisor 
(EDPS) in case of doubt.  

Possible 
limited 
modification  of  Control 
Regulation.  

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
4.  DCF  data  are  under-
beyond 
utilized 
traditional end-users 

Allow  for  Multi-purpose 
and  reuse  of  data  while 
respecting  the  rules  on 
personal  data  protection 
by  balancing  the  interests 
data 
personal 
of 
protection 
the 
interest  of  public  or 
partially  restricted  data 
availability  

against 

single 

Develop 
entry 
point  for  accessing  DCF 
data.  

single 

Develop 
entry 
point  for  accessing  DCF 
data.  

the 

public 

Make DCF data available 
to 
at 
aggregation levels that do 
not  compromise  personal 
data protection rules.  

the 

public 

Make DCF data available 
to 
at 
aggregation levels that do 
not  compromise  personal 
data protection rules.  

system 

Develop  the  move  to  a 
in 
'pull' 
consistency  with  other 
initiatives 
Commission 
and  policies 
such  as 
EMODnet & INSPIRE. 

system 

Develop  the  move  to  a 
in 
'pull' 
consistency  with  other 
initiatives 
Commission 
and  policies 
such  as 
EMODnet & INSPIRE. 

Changes to the DCF  

The  data  requests  have  increased  over  time  and  will  continue  to  do  so  as  the  impacts  of 
fisheries  and  aquaculture  on  the  marine  ecosystems  need  to  be  increasingly  well  described, 
and  the  effects  of  human  activity  on  the  marine  environment  need  more  and  more  to  be 
monitored.  The  revision  of  the  DCF  is  an  opportunity  to,  on  the  one  hand,  ensure  better 
availability  of  fisheries  data  to  a  wider  set  of  interested  parties,  and  on  the  other  hand,  to 
reduce  the  burden  of  data  requests  on  Member  States  by  using  recent  technological 
developments.  

This  new  approach  should  fulfil  the  mandate  set  in  the  new  CFP  Regulation  (Article  25), 
whereby  the  availability  of  data  to  scientists  and  to  any  interested  parties  must  be  ensured, 
save in circumstances where protection and confidentiality are required under applicable EU 
law. This is further corroborated by the EP green paper on Marine Knowledge 202098 and the 
Commission  Communication  on  innovation  in  the  blue  economy  and  the  accompanying 
roadmap  on  marine  knowledge99,  in  which  a  cost  benefit  analysis  is  made  showing  the 
advantages of lifting restrictions on access to information by making data multi-purpose and 
reusable, provided that rules on personal data protection are respected. 

To  achieve  these  objectives,  two  main  changes  are  necessary,  which  would  enable  the  four 
challenges identified above to be addressed. Firstly, the  DCF Regulation would clarify the 
legal framework by making the DCF the main legal instrument by which Member States are 
to provide any data necessary to data users, whatever the source of the legal obligation under 
which  data  are  collected  (DCF  or  any  other  EU  legislation),  unless  other  legal  instruments 
already provide for the availability of the data (e.g. most statistical Regulations).  

Regarding the Control Regulation specifically, the DCF would thus only create data collection 
obligations  insofar  as  they  are  not  already  covered  by  the  Control  Regulation,  whilst  the 
Control  regulation  would  continue  to  provide  the  core  data  on  fishing  activity  (landings, 

98 http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/marine_knowledge_2020/index_en.htm.  
99  Commission Staff Working Document Marine Knowledge 2020: roadmap Accompanying the document 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Innovation in the Blue Economy realising the potential of 
our seas and oceans for jobs and growth (SWD/2014/0149 final) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=SWD:2014:149:FIN  

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
catches and effort). Following this alignment, necessary amendments may need to be made to 
the Control regulation should the need arise to improve availability of data. 

It is important that no generic measures are taken to restrict a priori the  access to data, 
whether  from  end-users  or  from  other  interested  parties.  In  case  the  protection  of  personal 
data is at stake, it must be ensured that the EU rules on data protection are applied. To that 
purpose, all steps in the gradual shift to data availability would be done in close consultation 
with  the  European  Data  Protection  Supervisor  (EDPS).  As  a  principle,  the  interests  of 
personal data protection should be balanced against the public interest of data availability and 
in case of conflict, rather than simply withholding or deleting data, alternatives should be 
developed  to  ensure  the  interests  of  scientific  research  and  stock  assessment  advice. 
Specifically, the DCF Regulation would require the Commission, Member States, as well as 
scientific advisory bodies and any relevant end-users involved in developing compatible data 
storage and exchange systems, to ensure appropriate safeguards (for example a higher level of 
aggregation/clustering or anonymisation of data) should they include information relating to 
identified  or identifiable natural persons. In  doing so, Member  States would  be assured that 
the  institution/body  receiving  the  data  produce  aggregated  figures  while  not  disclosing  the 
underlying detailed data. 

Secondly, use should be made of technical developments, in particular the development of 
IT  systems,  building  on  existing  experiences  of  data  pooling  at  regional  level,  to  greatly 
simplify  data  provision  to  end-users  and  to  the  broader  public  by  providing  a  single  access 
point  to  DCF  data.  Ensuring  data  availability  through  better  interconnection  of  IT  systems 
would  reduce  workload  and  costs  for  Member  States,  while  offering  data  users  the 
opportunity to use data in the format, at the timing and at the aggregation level they need. The 
exact  approach  to  this  would  be  based  on  the  options  proposed  by  the  DCF  database 
feasibility  study100,  and  ensuing  consultations,  aiming  to  put  forward  a  simpler,  more  cost-
effective  and  efficient  system  for  providing  DCF  data  to  end-users,  and  helping  Member 
States in  simplifying their IT setup using IT tools  in  a more systematic  manner. The use  of 
such IT tools for storing, processing, exchanging access to data should be in conformity with 
the INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC101.   

Such IT developments  would also enable automation  to  a  large extent of the verification of 
Member  State  compliance  with  their  obligations  to  collect  and  make  available  DCF  data, 
through automatic comparisons of data provided by Member States via the future IT system, 
with  their  obligations  under  their  national  work  plans.  This  may  include  automatic  checks 
regarding  quality  of  data,  timeliness  of  data  submission  and  coverage  which  would  greatly 
simplify and speed up the whole compliance process for all stakeholders involved, as well as 
improving quality by eliminating any human-errors. 

The DCF Regulation should therefore contain provisions allowing for a gradual shift from "a 
push" to "a pull system", i.e. to move from a system of data calls initiated by end-users, to a 
system  of  data  availability  ensured  by  the  data  providers.  Such  a  system  should  answer  the 
needs  of  the  traditional  end-users  under  the  CFP:  data  to  underpin  scientific  advice  on  fish 
stock management, to evaluate (and mitigate) the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem 
and to evaluate support measures for fisheries and aquaculture. Use of the same data should 

100 For further detail see Section 2.2.7. or http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/scientific-data-

storage/index_en.htm 
101 Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 
establishing  an  Infrastructure  for  Spatial  Information  in  the  European  Community  (INSPIRE).  OJ  L108, 

25.4.2007, p.1 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
                                                 
also serve other purposes and therefore extend to other interested stakeholders: fundamental 
and  applied  scientific  research  with  potential  spinoff  to  the  sector,  planning  in  maritime 
policy, etc. Specifying rules at EU level regarding a future supra-national IT system for data 
availability  would  also  serve  to  reassure  Member  States  regarding  the  status  and  use  of  the 
data in such a system. 

As this evolution requires time to be effective, and consultations are still ongoing on the best 
design,  the  revised  DCF  Regulation  should  only  include  general  provisions  reflecting  this 
shift,  by  requiring  Member  States  to  cooperate  with  other  Member  States,  the  Commission, 
scientific advisory bodies and any relevant end-users to develop compatible data storage and 
exchange systems, which may also facilitate dissemination of information to other interested 
parties. More detailed provisions would be developed at a later stage and may be specified by 
the  Commission,  once  a  consensus  has  been  found  between  Member  States  on  the  most 
appropriate  solutions.  To  this  effect,  the  Commission  intends  to  commission  a  second 
feasibility study to further identify the most effective ways forward. 

5.6. 

Data collection in external waters 

Background and legal provisions of the DCF 

As  a  general  rule,  the  rules,  principles  and  methods  of  the  DCF  are  applied  equally  in 
external waters as within the EU, in accordance with the reformed CFP. Indeed, the current 
DCF  Regulation  provides  for  the  collection  and  provision  of  data  concerning  commercial 
fisheries carried out by EU fishing vessels outside EU waters (Article 3.1).  

Similarly,  the  current  DCF  contains  adequate  provisions  requiring  Member  States  to 
coordinate  their  National  Programmes  with  each  other  and,  as  far  as  possible,  with  third 
countries in the same marine region, which therefore also applies to fisheries taking place in 
external waters.  

The  Regional  Coordination  Meeting  for  long-distance  fisheries  (i.e.  in  external  waters)  has 
been  meeting  annually  since  2010  and  key  third  countries  are  invited  to  participate  in  all 
RCMs. 

The current EU MAP lists certain biological data that must be collected in external waters. In 
addition, the current DCF requires that methods used for the establishment of national 
sampling  programmes  be  in  accordance  with  the  quality  standards  established  by  the 
appropriate  RFMOs  (Article  9.3).  Masters  of  EU  fishing  vessels  are  required  to  accept  on 
board  scientific  observers  designated  by  the  body  in  charge  of  the  implementation  of  the 
National Programme (Article 11.3), including in external waters. Member States must ensure 
that relevant detailed and aggregated data are provided on a timely basis to RFMOs to which 
the  EU  is  a  contracting  party  or  observer  (Article  20.1)  and  that  their  national  experts 
participate  in  relevant  meetings  of  RFMOs  to  which  the  EU  is  a  contracting  party  or 
observer (Article 23). 

However, some problems have been identified. 

The list of biological data to be collected is not fully aligned with international data collection 
obligations stemming from RFMOs, which has resulted in incomplete compliance of the EU 
and the Member States with their data transmission obligations under RFMOs. 

There  is  also  some  lack  of  clarity  regarding  the  geographic  scope  of  application  of  the 
DCF: although the current DCF Regulation refers to data collection on commercial fisheries 
within and outside EU waters, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 665/2008 limits the scope of 
the  DCF  to  RFMO-managed  external  waters.  This  leads  to  two  limitations.  First,  this 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
provision means that the DCF does not cover waters of third countries with which the EU has 
a  Sustainable  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreement  (SFPA),  unless  these  countries  are  also 
members of an RFMO. Currently all SFPAs are concluded with third countries whose waters 
are part of an RFMO, but should the EU sign an SFPA with a country whose waters are not 
part  of  an  RFMO,  then  Member  States  would  have  no  data  collection  obligation  for  those 
fisheries.  Secondly,  the  reference  to  RFMOs  excludes  other  Regional  Fisheries  Bodies102 
(RFBs)  such  as  the  Fisheries  Committee  for  the  Eastern  Central  Atlantic  (CECAF)  and  the 
Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC). Even if in practice, in the case of 
CECAF, the concerned body has been treated as an RFMO and Member States have sampled 
the fisheries taking place in that area, such gap may result, in other circumstances, in Member 
States  having  no  data  collection  obligations  and  the  EU  not  providing  the  required 
information  to  enable  fisheries  management,  for  example  to  joint  scientific  committees 
established under SFPAs. 

Changes to the DCF 

It is important to continue to ensure that DCF covers data collection in all external waters 
where  EU  vessels  are  operating.  No  change  is  required  to  the  DCF  Regulation,  which 
would  continue  to  provide  the  basis  for  data  collection  on  commercial  fisheries  within  and 
outside EU waters.  

The  current  lack  of  clarity  regarding  the  geographic  scope,  which  is  due  not  to  the  DCF 
Regulation  but  to  the  limitations  introduced  in  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No.  665/2008, 
will be clarified through the future Commission regulations.  

The  EU  MAP,  however,  should  include  any  data  collection  obligation  stemming  from 
international law, including a list of the exact stocks and variables to be collected per stock (as 
is  currently  the  case).  Having  all  data  collection  obligations  stemming  from  different 
international  obligations  compiled 
in  one  place  (the  EU  MAP)  would  facilitate 
implementation  and  compliance  by  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  of  their  international 
obligations, as well as streamlining and reducing costs of implementation where possible. 

In  addition,  further  non-legislative  measures  would  benefit  implementation  of  the  DCF  in 
external waters. The EU and its Member States should promote the DCF methodology with 
third  countries.  This  is  already  being  done  in  some  cases,  such  as  through  FAO  regional 
projects in the Mediterranean where methodologies for research surveys at sea are inspired by 
the EU MEDITS and MEDIAS models. This could be more systematically extended to other 
partner countries.  

5.7. 

Programming and reporting 

The current DCF Regulation provides for the establishment of a triennial EU MAP (Article 
3)  but  does not  contain any provision regarding amendment  of this programme. In  practice, 
this  has  resulted  in  a  situation  where  the  EU  MAP  is  not  modified  despite  emerging  needs 

102 Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) are a mechanism through which States or organizations that are parties to an 
international fishery agreement or arrangement work together towards the conservation, management and/or 
development of fisheries. Some RFBs have an advisory mandate, and provide advice, decisions or coordinating 
mechanisms that are not binding on their members. Some RFBs have a management mandate – these are called 
Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). They adopt fisheries conservation and management 
measures that are binding on their members.  

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
from end-users regarding new data sets (e.g. regarding biological data on boarfish, due to the 
development of a fishery for this species)103. 

In line with this, Member States are required to submit triennial National Programmes (NP) 
which includes their national obligations under the DCF (Article 4) – essentially the sub-set of 
the  EU  MAP  that  applies  to  them.  Member  States  could  amend  their  NP  annually.  NPs 
were  adopted,  following  an  evaluation  by  the  STECF  (Article  6),  through  an  individual 
Commission  Decision  for  each  Member  State.  For  2011-2013,  22  NPs  were  adopted.  For 
2012,  the  Commission  adopted  11  amended  NPs,  whilst  for  2013,  two  amended  NPs  were 
adopted (plus Croatia's 2013 NP was adopted), giving a total of 36 Commission Decisions for 
adoption of NPs in three years.  

Member  States  were  also  required,  until  and  including  2013  (under  direct  management),  to 
separately  submit  a  triennial  budget  forecast,  but  also  to  submit,  as  formal  request  for 
financing,  an  annual  update.  On  this  basis,  the  Commission  set  the  maximum  co-financing 
amount  (50%  of  a  Member  States'  approved  budget)  and  approved  it  through  an  annual 
financing decision. This has meant 9 financing decisions for the period 2011-2013, in addition 
to the above decisions approving the NPs. 

Member States are required to report annually on scientific and financial implementation of 
their NP (Article 7). These reports are approved by the Commission following an evaluation 
by the STECF, and made public via the DCF website. The approval of the reports leads often 
to long exchanges between Member States and Commission as a result of comments made by 
the STECF and Commission services' scrutiny (see also section 5.4 on data quality).  

As  demonstrated  by  the  number  of  Decisions  adopted  each  year,  this  system  is 
administratively very heavy and, due to the detailed technical nature of NPs, and their size, 
procedures  for  adoption  were  time-consuming  and  lengthy.  In  practice  NPs  and  their 
amendments,  as  well  as  financing  decisions,  were  adopted  during  the  year  to  which  they 
referred.  This  resulted  in  an  uncertainty  for  Member  States  every  year  regarding  the 
programme  to  be  implemented  and  the  EU  co-financing  they  would  be  receiving.  The  split 
between  financing  decisions  and  Decisions  adopting  the  data  collection  programme  also 
resulted both in  an increased  number of procedures as  well as  a greater disconnect between 
the programme and its financing. Even if certain Member States did not need to amend their 
NP during the three year period, they did require having a new budget adopted every year.  

Changes to the DCF 

The  new  DCF  Regulation  should  provide  for  the  establishment  of  an  EU  MAP  without  a 
time  limit.  It  would  also  contain  provisions  regarding  the  amendment  of  the  EU  MAP  to 
ensure  that  it  can  be  updated  when  required,  and  following  a  clearly  established  procedure, 
including consultations to be carried out by the Commission, criteria to be followed to decide 
on inclusion of (new) data (see also section 5.1.1).  

As of 2014, programming of data collection activities will take place on the basis of the rules 
established in the EMFF. Member States shall submit an EMFF Operational Programme 
(OP) including a section on data collection (Article 18(1)p of the EMFF). This should contain 
a description of the activities of data collection, of the data storage methods, data management 
and data use and a description of the capability to achieve sound financial and administrative 
management  of  the  data  collected.  The  OP  section  on  data  collection  will  contain  more 
generic  information  on  the  aforementioned  topics,  and  will be  less  detailed  than the  current 

103 As a transition measure, the EU MAP 2011-2013 was rolled-over as is, to cover the period 2014-2016103. 

National Programmes for 2011-2013 were also rolled over to cover the period 2014-2016 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
                                                 
NPs. This will be adopted by the Commission and will constitute the basis for Member States' 
obligations, as well as for the EU co-financing of these activities. In other words, instead of 
two  successive,  detailed  triennial  decisions  on  the  NP,  coupled  with  annual  financing 
decisions, the programming of data collection activities will require only one single, strategic 
Commission decision for seven years. 

The EMFF OP will be complemented by a national work plan, containing greater detail on 
activities  to  be  carried  out,  to  be  submitted  annually  unless  the  national  work  plan  of  the 
previous year still applies (Article 21 of the EMFF). This work plan will be adopted by the 
Commission  through  simplified  procedures.  When  setting  up  implementing  rules  on  the 
submission  of  the  national  work  plan,  the  Commission  would  draw  lessons  from  past 
experience  and  simplify  the  process  of  submission,  approval  and  reporting  on  these  work 
plans, so as to maximise the benefits of the simplification brought by the new set up.  

Article 25 of the CFP maintains the obligation for Member States to report annually on the 
execution  of  their  national  data  collection  programmes.  Consequently,  the  new  DCF  should 
maintain  provisions  on  annual  reporting,  and  evaluation  by  the  STECF.  The  format, 
however, would be greatly simplified and its submission would be largely automatized. As 
far  as  possible,  the  format  of  the  Annual  Report  should  be  compatible  with  other  related 
reporting exercises such as that under the MSFD.  

This Annual Report is a different report to the Annual Implementing Report under the EMFF, 
which  will  primarily  contain  financial  information  on  data  collection,  and  not  on 
implementation of the scientific obligations. This reporting will be much less detailed than the 
previous DCF financial reporting and verifications procedures and templates. 

Figure 4 presents the key changes from the previous (current DCF, direct management) to the 
future  system  (new  DCF,  shared  management  under  the  EMFF),  both  in  terms  of  scientific 
and financial programming and reporting obligations. 

Figure  4:  Changes  in  programming  and  reporting  between  previous  and  future  system. 
Improvements (simplification or increased duration of a measure) highlighted in italics. 

Before 

After 

EU level 

DCF Regulation 
Multiannual 
Programme 

National level 

Scientific 
programming 

No time limit 
3 years 

3  years  (1-3  Decisions  per 
Member  State  per  3  year 
period) 

Financial 
programming 

Annual  (+/-  3  Decisions 
per year in total) 

Scientific reporting 
Financial reporting 

Annual 
Annual 

No time limit 
(but 
No 
provisions for amendment) 

limit 

time 

7 years (EMFF OP).  
+ National work plan (max. 
1  Decision  per  Member 
State per year) 
7 years (EMFF OP) 
No  separate  Decision  – 
included in above. 
Annual (but lighter) 
Annual  under  EMFF  (but 
lighter) 

The main advantages of the new set-up are that financial and scientific programming will take 
place over a longer time span, giving more predictability and security to Member States. This 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
change  will  also  result  in  a  lighter  administrative  burden,  through  a  need  for  fewer 
Commission  Decisions  and  faster  procedures,  thanks  in  part  to  simplified  formats  for 
programming  and  reporting.  A  single  decision  will  also  link  the  scientific  and  financial 
programming, under the EMFF, ensuring greater alignment.  

6. 

 LEGAL ARCHITECTURE  

The legal set-up for the future DCF is described in Figure 5 and an overview of the contents 
of the future DCF Regulation and future implementing acts is included in Annex VII. 

Figure 5: Legal set up for the future Data Collection Framework 

                        Financial  

Scientific 

European Parliament and Council 
Regulation 508/2014 (EMFF) 

European 
Council Regulation (DCF) 

Parliament 

and 

EU 
Multiannual 
Programme  

RCG 
joint 
recommendations  

Allows 
funding of  

EMFF 

28 
MS 
Operational 
(adopted 
Programmes 
through 
28 
Implementing  Acts)  for 
2014-2020 

28  MS  national  work  plans  (adopted  through  1 
Implementing Act per MS)  

Maximum 
financial 
contribution 
each MS under 

EU 

for 

(Implementing 
Act) 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. 

ANNEXES  

Annex I 

Meetings 

Consultations on the revision of the Data Collection Framework 

Member States Experts (1 December 2011, Brussels, Belgium): 

As part of the STECF EWG11-19 meeting.  Outcomes available from EWG report: Scientific, 
Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  -  Review  of  the  Revised  2012 
National Programmes and on the Future of the DCF (STECF-12-02) 

Member States National Correspondents (12 December 2011, Brussels, Belgium): 

Consulted on the basis of a non-paper (Issues paper). Meeting minutes: hyperlink 

Advisory Councils (21 February 2012, Brussels, Belgium): 

RACs were informed of the process of the update of the DCF during a meeting organized by 
DG MARE.  

Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (13 March 2012, Brussels, Belgium): 

RFMOs  informed  of  the  state  of  play  on  DCF  revision  during  a  meeting  organized  by  DG 
MARE. 

Member States Experts (12-16 March 2012, Ispra Italy): 

Dedicated  STECF  EWG  meeting  12-01  on  the  new  DC  MAP.  Overview  of  discussions 
available  in  EWG  report:  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries 
(STECF) Review of Proposed DCF 2014-2020 Part 1 (STECF-12-07) 

Member States National Correspondents (19 March 2012, Brussels Belgium): 

Consulted on the basis of a non-paper (Issues Paper). Meeting minutes available: hyperlink 

NGOs (8 June 2012, Brussels, Belgium): 

Mare consulted NGOs on their views for the revision of the DCF. 

Member States and European Parliament (22 June 2012, Brussels Belgium): 

Consulted on the basis of a non-paper (Issues & Options).  

Commission Services (ENV, ESTAT, JRC) (17 July 2012, Brussels, Belgium): 

Consulted on the basis of a non-paper (Issues & Options).  

Member States National Correspondents (17 July 2012, CCAB): 

Consulted  on  the  basis  of  a  non-paper  (Issues  &  Options).    Meeting  minutes  available: 
hyperlink 

Member States Experts (1-5 October 2012, Brussels, Belgium): 

Dedicated  STECF  EWG  meeting  12-15  on  the  new  DC  MAP.  Report  available:  Scientific, 
Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) REVIEW OF PROPOSED DCF 
2014-2020 PART 2 (STECF-13-01) 

Member States and European Parliament (1 February 2013, Brussels Belgium): 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
Consulted on the basis of a non-paper (Outline of DC-MAP). 

Member States National Correspondents (12 February 2013, CCAB): 

Consulted  on  the  basis  of  a  non-paper  (Outline  of  DC-MAP).    Meeting  minutes  available: 
hyperlink 

Member States Experts (11-15 March 2013, Ispra, Italy): 

Dedicated STECF EWG meeting 13-02 on the new DC MAP. Report available: hyperlink 

EU scientists participating in RFMOs (9 April 2013, Brussels, Belgium) 

Meeting participants consulted on the final draft of the External evaluation of the DCF.  

Member States Experts (10-14 June 2013, Varese, Italy) 

Dedicated  STECF  EWG  meeting  13-05  on  the  new  DC  MAP.  Report  available:  Scientific, 
Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  -  Review  of  DC-MAP  –  Part  2 
(STECF-13-12) 

Member States National Correspondents (7 June 2013, CCAB): 

Consulted on the basis of a first draft of the DC-MAP.  Meeting minutes: hyperlink 

DG ENV (23 Sept 2013, MARE): 

DG ENV consulted on revision of DCF. 

NGOs (25 Sept 2013, MARE): 

NGOs consulted on revision of DCF. 

Member States Experts (25-28 November 2013, Brussels, Belgium): 

Dedicated STECF EWG meeting 13-18 on the revision of the DCF and the future EU MAP. 
Report  available:  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF) 
REVISION OF DCF (STECF-14-02) 

All  stakeholders  (Permanent  Representations,  MEPs,  Member  States,  the  scientific 
community, end-users, NGOs, RACs) (16 January 2014, Brussels, Belgium): 

Consulted  on  the  basis  of  a  non-paper  on  key  changes  proposed  to  the  DCF  Regulation. 
Minutes available:  

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/data_collection/doc/20140116-dcf-stakeholder-
workshop-minutes_en.pdf 

Member States Experts (24-28 February 2014, Hamburg, Germany): 

Dedicated STECF EWG meeting 14-02 on the revision of the DCF and the future EU MAP. 
Report  available:  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  - 
DCF Revision - part 4 (STECF-14-07) 

EFARO meeting (11 February 2014):  

Meeting on the revision of the Data Collection Framework (DCF), focusing on issues related 
to regional coordination. 

Member States Experts (20-24 October 2014, Hamburg, Germany): 

Dedicated  STECF  EWG  meeting  14-17  on  preparations  for  future  data  collection  under  the 
revised DCF. Report available: Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 
(STECF) - website 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
Member States Experts (25-28 November 2014, Brussels, Belgium): 

Dedicated STECF EWG meeting 14-18 on Review of DCF National Programme amendments 
for  2015  &  development  of  the  revised  DCF  Multiannual  Programme.    Report  available: 
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) - website 

Written consultations 
A public consultation via a green paper took place on Marine knowledge in 2012104. 

ICES was consulted in writing on 26 March 2013.  

GFCM was consulted in writing in July 2013.  

EU scientists taking part in RFMOs were consulted in writing in March 2014. 

Fisheries Directors of the 28 EU Member States were consulted in writing in March 2014. 

The 28 EU member States, the DCF Regional Coordination Meetings, key end-users of DCF 
data  (GFCM,  ICCAT,  ICES,  STECF)  were  consulted  in  writing  in  October  2014  regarding 
DCF data storage, transmission and dissemination. 

104 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/marine-knowledge-2020/index_en.htm 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex II 
Feasibility study on data storage and transmission105 – details on the four possible future 
scenarios and main conclusions on the current set up. 

The  four  possible  future  scenarios  considered  under  the  above-mentioned  study  can  be 
summarized as follows: 

 

 

 

 

Supra-regional  database.  This  scenario  envisages  the  creation  of  one  database 
containing detailed biological, economic and fisheries data. 

Regional nodes. This scenario would be based on five regional databases (RDBs) for 
the Baltic Sea, North Sea and NE Atlantic, North Atlantic, Mediterranean and Black 
Sea and ’Distant waters’, containing biological, economic and fisheries data.  

Network. In this scenario, the primary biological, economic and fisheries data would 
be stored only in the national databases, and these databases would be linked through 
a web-based interface (central platform). 

Fisheries  data  hub.  This  scenario  would  combine  three  thematically  specialized 
databases  (biological  data,  fleet  economic  data  and  fisheries data),  which  would  be 
linked, so that biological and economic data can be aggregated. 

Regarding the current set up: 

 

 

 

 

 

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 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) 

Regarding data storage and transmission, overlaps concern fishing activity data 
(catches,  landings  and  effort).  These  data  are  mainly  collected  under  the  Control 
Regulation,  and  are  then  provided  to  the  various  Commission  services,  ICES  and 
other  bodies  often  at  different  aggregation  levels.  The  study  identified  the  lowest 
common denominator in terms of aggregation levels (by fleet segments) from which 
the different data users could aggregate the data to meet their respective needs. 

The  organization  of  biological  data  varies  between  fishing  areas,  with  data  for the 
Atlantic  stored  in  three  databases  (the  RCM's  regional  databases  and  two  ICES 
databases), for the Mediterranean & Black Sea stored at the European Commission 
(JRC)  and  for  large  pelagics  in  external  waters  stored  at  the  French  Institut  de 
Recherche pour le Développement. 

Regarding  economic  data,  the  situation  differs  by  sector.  Fleet  economic  data 
(earnings and costs) is stored only at the JRC. Economic data on performance of the 
aquaculture sector (earnings and costs) and on production (volume and value) is also 
stored  at  JRC.  Eurostat  stores  data  on  aquaculture  production  but  not  on  economic 
performance. Duplication in data transmission from Member States to both the JRC 
and  Eurostat  therefore  occurs  for  aquaculture  production.  Regarding  the  fish 
processing sector, both the JRC and Eurostat (under the Structural Business Survey - 

105 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/scientific-data-storage/index_en.htm 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
                                                 
SBS) store data on performance of the sector (costs and earnings). Some elements of 
this data collection overlap, while some are unique to each system. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
ANNEX III 

Overlaps and duplications of data collection and/or reporting   

Data 

Data source 

(Regulation)  

Collected 
by 

Reported by 

Disseminated/p
ublished by 

Made 
available to 

Aquaculture sector 

Aquaculture 
production 
data 
(volume & value) 

Economic 
per 
production 
(R762/2008) 

surveys 
(major) 
unit 

National 
economic 
authorities 

National 
statistical 
correspondents 

Commission 
(EUROSTAT) 

General  public 
(low 
aggregation 
level, 
parameters) 

few 

Commission  
(high 
aggregation 
level, 
parameters)  

more 

General  public 
(low 
aggregation 
level, 
parameters) 

few 

Commission 
(high 
aggregation 
level, 
parameters) 

more 

Commission 

End-users  DCF 
(raw or detailed 
data) 

RFMOs 

Fisheries  surveys  per 
enterprise  (including 
minor) (R199/2008) 

National 
fisheries 
authorities 

National 
Correspondents 
for  Fisheries  Data 
Collection 

Commission 
(DG 
MARE/JRC) 

Fish processing sector 

Economic surveys 
per 
enterprise  
(R295/2008)  

National 
economic 
authorities 

National 
statistical 
correspondents 

Commission 
(EUROSTAT) 

Economic 
per 
(including 
(R199/2008) 

surveys 
enterprise 
minor) 

National 
fisheries 
authorities 

National 
Correspondents 
for  Fisheries  Data 
Collection    

Commission 
(DG 
MARE/JRC) 

Fishing activity 

Fisheries 
control 
authorities, 

National 
authorities 

control 

Commission 
(DG 
MARE/JRC) 

Aquaculture 
economic 
data 
(costs  &earnings) 
& production data 
(volume & value) 

Processing 
industry 
data 
(only  those  from 
Structural 
Business 
Statistics) 

Processing 
industry 
(more data) 

data 

Data  on  fishing 
effort 
capacity, 
and landings 

Data  fishing  on 
capacity, 
effort 
and landings 

Logbooks,  

landing  declaration, 
notes, 
sales 
inspections, 
VMS 
(R1224/2009; 
R199/2008) 

Ad hoc catch & effort 
surveys, 
Control 
Regulation: logbooks, 
landings  declaration, 
notes, 
sales 
inspections, 
VMS 
(R1224/2009; 
R1921/2006,  
218/2009,  217/2009, 
216/2009) 

Commission 
(EUROSTAT) 

General  public 
(aggregated)  or 
RFMOs  

Statistical 
offices, 

Control 
authorities 

National 
Correspondents 
for  Fisheries  Data 
Collection    

National 
statistical 
correspondents 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV 

SWOT Analysis of the DCF 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
STRENGTHS 

WEAKNESSES 

Established since 2002 – time series available. 
Common EU framework, harmonisation in data collection. Introduced standards. 

DCF data is instrumental to policy making and DCF has improved availability and 
quality of data for scientific advice. Most data collected are relevant and useful to 
end-users. 

Generally relatively good data quality. Improvement over previous period. 

Key source of socio-economic data on fisheries. Allows bio- economic analysis. 

Research surveys and observer programmes well coordinated and biological data 
collection well organized in most Member States. 

No longer fully aligned with needs of new CFP eg new emphasis on sustainable 
aquaculture, assessment of policy impacts, landing obligation. Insufficient availability 
of ecosystem data for ecosystem-based management. 

Insufficient flexibility to respond to changing end-user data needs. 

Redundancies and overlaps with other EU legislation. 

Dialogue with Data End-users not sufficient.  

Metier approach not the most appropriate for collecting data – very resource 
intensive and can result in excessive sampling to reach quality targets. Metier data not 
used by RFMO.  

Metier approach useful way of providing data to some end-users and to link 
biological and economic data. 

Recreational fisheries difficult/resource intensive sector to cover and hard to get 
reliable data. 

Some re-use of data already occurs eg economic data on processing often taken 
from SBS106. 

Small-scale fleet can be difficult to sample, including for data on capacity, effort and 
landings. 

Regional co-ordination and co-operation has increased. Great strength of DCF. 
Regional databases have simplified regional data analysis and transmission. 

Practical difficulties to carry out observer at sea programmes, widespread problems of 
access to vessels. Can result in biases in data. 

Compliance variable between Member States but generally good. 

Quality targets unrealistic and inappropriate. Level of quality control and methods 
vary greatly between Member States. 

Financial support available. 

OPPORTUNITIES 

Not enough follow-up of recommendations made by RCMs and STECF. 

Alignment with needs of new CFP – freshwater aquaculture, sustainability of 
aquaculture, ecosystem data. 

Reducing overlaps with other EU legislation and increasing reuse of data for 
different purposes eg  DCF data on ecosystem to address some of the needs of the 
MSFD107. 

Simplification through developing a single overarching framework for availability 
of CFP fisheries data. Increasing and simplifying availability of data, to also 
facilitate multi-purpose use of data and to reduce cost of data transmission through 
data calls. 

Administrative burden (programming, reporting). 
Insufficient administrative capacity and/or national financing in some Member 
States to implement the DCF properly. 

Data transmission procedures (data calls) very resource intensive for Member States 
and for end-users, formats of data calls vary over time and between end-users. 
Problems of timeliness of data delivery and with data formats. 

Wide divergence in data storage and transmission systems across Member States 
and the incompatibility of IT systems among and within Member States 

Possibility to improve confidence in fisheries advice by allowing validation of 
results by wider community of scientists 

Insufficient access to data for users outside the fisheries community, particularly for 
determining impact on ecosystem  

Simplifying EU legislation by allowing Member States and regions to determine 
some of the detail regarding the data to be collected 

Reliance on opinion for fisheries advice from limited group of scientists having access 
to data 

Increase co-operation with end-users in determining data to be covered by DCF 

Complexity of legislation 

Increase synergies between Member States to share best practice and increase 
efficiency. 
Build on and strengthen existing regional co-operation, provide more incentives for 
this.  

Compliance mechanism not sufficiently dissuasive 

Some time series could be lost if reduced EU-level obligations 

THREATS 

Increase possibilities of geographic analysis of socio-economic impacts of policies. 

Difficulties in dealing with cases of non-compliance if requirements are decided at 
regional level rather than enshrined in EU legislation. 

Expand and improve data collection on aquaculture and recreational fisheries 
(basic socio-economic data and ecosystem data). 

Reduce administration burden by simplifying and automatizing reporting. 

Improve data quality further, through increasing quality control and transparency of 
methods used. 

Additional financial resources are available (EMFF). 

Key EU instruments - DCF, CFP and EMFF - will be aligned. 

Opportunity  to  better  link  processes  such  as  Marine  Knowledge  2020,  EMODnet, 
CISE108 etc. 

Regional coordination groups not (all) able to deal with increase in tasks. Time may 
be required before RCGs can deal with these new tasks. Some Member States may not 
want to increase regional cooperation or may not agree with decisions of RCGs. 

Reduced quality due to transition to new system (e.g. new methodologies) 

Costs and time needed for IT developments to move to a more efficient system of data 
availability. 

Duplication of quality assessment – at national level for compliance purposes and at 
regional level to inform end-users on quality. 

Administrative capacity (in the form of human expertise, or organizational 
arrangements) takes time to develop and may not be sufficient in some Member States 
at time of adoption of amended DCF to fully implement it. 

Interests of some public bodies to remain as monopoly providers of fisheries data 

106 Structural Business Statistics of Eurostat 
107 Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX V  

Overview  Table  of  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  Descriptors,  Criteria  and 
Indicators109. Key: S=State, I = Impact, P = Pressure. 

Descriptors 

Criteria 

Type 

Indicators 

Type 

1.1 

Species distribution 

1.2 

Population size 

1.3 

Population condition 

1.4 

Habitat distribution 

1.5 

Habitat extent 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

:
1
r
o
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
D

y
t
i
s
r
e
v
i
d

l

a
c
i
g
o
o
B

i

l

1.6 

Habitat condition 

S 

1.6.2 

:
2
r
o
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
D

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

s
u
o
n
e
g
i
d
n
i
-
n
o
N

:
3
r
o
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
D

h
s
i
f

l

a
i
c
r
e
m
m
o
C

h
s
i
f
l
l

e
h
s
d
n
a

2.1 

2.2 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

1.7 

Ecosystem structure 

S 

P 

I 

P 

Abundance and state 
characterisation of non-
indigenous species, in 
particular invasive species 

Environmental impact of 
invasive non-indigenous 
species 

Level of pressure of the 
fishing activity 

Reproductive capacity of the 
stock 

Population age and size 
distribution 

S/I 

S/I 

1.1.1 

Species distributional range 

1.1.2 
1.1.3 

Species distributional pattern 
Species area covered 

1.2.1 

Population abundance/biomass 

1.3.1 

1.3.2 

Population demographic 
characteristics 
Population genetic structure 

1.4.1 

Habitat distributional range 

1.4.2 
1.5.1 
1.5.2 

1.6.1 

1.6.3 

1.7.1 

Habitat distributional pattern 
Habitat area 
Habitat volume 
Habitat condition of typical spp. 
& communities 
Habitat relative spp. 
abundance/biomass 
Habitat physical, hydrological & 
chemical condition 
Ecosystem composition & 
proportions  

S 

S 
S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

S 
S 
S 

S 

S 

S 

S 

2.1.1 

Trends in abundance of NIS 

P 

2.2.1 

Ratio between invasive NIS & 
native spp. 

2.2.2 

Impact of NIS 

3.1.1 
3.1.2 
3.2.1 
3.2.2 

3.3.1 

Fishing mortality 
Ratio between catch & biomass 
Spawning stock biomass 
Biomass indices 
Proportion of large fish at 
sexual maturation 

I  

I 

P 
P 
S/I 
S/I 

S/I 

108 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/cise/index_en.htm  
109 Criteria and indicators are currently under review that will possibly lead to their revision 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Descriptors 

Criteria 

Type 

Indicators 

Type 

s
b
e
w
d
o
o
F
:
4
r
o
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
D

:
5
r
o
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
D

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
h
p
o
r
t
u
E

:
6
r
o
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
D

y
t
i
r
g
e
t
n

i

r
o
o
l
f
-
a
e
S

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

Productivity (production per 
unit biomass) of key species 
or trophic groups 

Proportion of selected 
species at the top of food 
webs 

Abundance/distribution of 
key trophic groups/species 

5.1 

Nutrient levels 

5.2 

Direct effects of nutrient 
enrichment 

5.3 

6.1 

Indirect effects of nutrient 
enrichment 

Physical damage, having 
regard to substrate 
characteristics 

S 

S 

S 

P 

I 

I 

P 

6.2 

Condition of benthic 
community 

S/I 

3.3.2 

3.3.3 

3.3.4 

4.1.1 

Mean max. length of all spp. 
found in surveys  
95% percentile fish length 
distribution in surveys 
Size at first sexual maturation 

Performance of key predator 
spp. 

4.2.1 

Proportion of large fish 

4.3.1 

5.1.1 
5.1.2 
5.2.1 

5.2.2 

5.2.3 

5.2.4 

5.3.1 

5.3.2 

6.1.1 

6.1.2 

6.2.1 

6.2.2 

6.2.3 

6.2.4 

Abundance trends of selected 
groups/spp. 

Nutrient concentration 
Nutrient ratios 
Chlorophyll concentration 
Water transparency related to 
algae 
Abundance of opportunistic 
macroalgae 
Species shift in floristic 
composition 
Abundance of perennial 
seaweed 
Dissolved oxygen 

Type, abundance, extent of 
biogenic substrate 

Extent of seabed affected by 
human activities 
Presence of sensitive and/or 
tolerant spp. 
Multi-metric indexes for 
benthic communities 
Proportion of 
biomass/numbers in the 
macrobenthos 
Benthic community size 
parameters 

:
7
r
o
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
D

l

a
c
i
h
p
a
r
g
o
r
d
y
H

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

7.1 

7.2 

Spatial characterisation of 
permanent alterations 

P 

7.1.1 

Extent of area affected 

Impact of permanent 
hydrographical changes 

I 

7.2.1 

Extent of habitats affected 

7.2.2 

Changes in habitats, in 
particular functions provided 

S/I 

S/I 

S/I 

S 

S 

S 

P 
P 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

S/I 

S/I 

S/I 

S/I 

P 

I 

I 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Descriptors 

Criteria 

Type 

Indicators 

Type 

:
8
r
o
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
c
s
e
D

i

s
t
n
a
n
m
a
t
n
o
C

:
9
r
o
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
D

n

i

i

s
t
n
a
n
m
a
t
n
o
C

d
o
o
f
a
e
s

:
0
1
r
o
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
D

r
e
t
t
i
L

:
1
1
r
o
t
p
i
r
c
s
e
D

i

g
n
d
u
l
c
n

i

,
y
g
r
e
n
E

e
s
i
o
n
r
e
t
a
w
r
e
d
n
u

8.1 

Concentration of 
contaminants 

P 

8.1.1 

Concentration of contaminants 

8.2 

Effects of contaminants 

I 

9.1 

Levels, number and 
frequency of contaminants 

10.1 

10.2 

11.1 

11.2 

Characteristics of litter in 
the marine and coastal 
environment 

Impacts of litter on marine 
life 

Distribution in time and 
place of loud, low and mid 
frequency impulsive sounds 

Continuous low frequency 
sound 

P 

P 

I 

P 

P 

8.2.1 

Level of pollution effects 

8.2.2 

9.1.1 

9.1.2 

10.1.1 

10.1.2 

10.1.3 

Occurrence, origin & extent of 
acute pollution and impact on 
biota 

Levels of contaminants, 
number exceeding regulatory 
levels 

Frequency of exceeding 
regulatory levels 

Trends in litter on shores 
Trends in litter in water column 
& on sea-floor 
Trends in micro-particles 

10.2.1 

Trends in litter ingested 

11.1.1 

Anthropogenic sound levels 
that entail significant impact 

11.2.1 

Ambient noise levels 

P 

I 

P/I 

P/I 

P/I 

P 

P 

P 

I 

P 

P 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VI 

End-user involvement in data collection. 

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 (see also Figure 6): 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

end-user input (advice) in determining what should or should no longer be collected  

end-user  involvement  in  designing  the  sampling  programme  for  data  collection  for 
those data they will use; 

end-user access to DCF data; 

end-user feedback on the data they have accessed. 

Figure 6: Key areas of the data collection process in which end-users of DCF data should 
be involved 

Express their changing needs 
(variables to add & to remove from 
EU MAP, changes to sampling e.g. 
frequency) 

Work within RCGs 
on designing 
sampling 

MS collect 
data 

Access to 
DCF data 

Feedback on DCF data 
quality to RCGs (to 
improve design) and to 
COM (for compliance 
assessment) 

Of the four areas above, the first is detailed below.  

i.  End-user  input  (advice)  in  determining  what  should  or  should  no  longer  be 

collected  

Despite  the  undoubted  advantage  of  involving  end-users  more  in  defining  the  data  to  be 
included  in  the  EU  MAP,  this  comes  with  risks.  In  responding  to  the  need  for  end-user 
involvement, the challenge is to find a proper balance between flexibility and continuity. 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. 

There  is  a  widespread  concern  amongst  Member  States  that  giving  more  say  to  end-users 
could result in a ratchet effect whereby end-users request ever more data, thereby increasing 
the costs for Member States. In addition, every time there is a change in the EU MAP, this 
will require Member States' to amend their work plans.  

Therefore, although this could be considered as a faster process, it does not seem appropriate 
to allow end-user 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  regarding  what  should  or  should  not  be  collected,  would  take 
place in two ways: 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
1. Regarding data to be collected under EU MAP, end-users would be able to express their 
changing  needs  to  the  Commission,  along  the  process  presented  in  Textbox  4,  which  may 
result in modification of the EU MAP and then of the Member States' work plans. 

2. For additional data (beyond those collected under the EU MAP), end-users could express 
their needs directly to Member States in RCGs. If these changes are agreed in those fora, 
then  they  should  be  published  e.g.  on  a  website,  for  the  sake  of  transparency,  and  then 
Member States would amend their work plans accordingly, without the need for modification 
of the EU MAP (see Figure 7).  

As the aim is to increase the responsiveness of the DCF to end-users needs, a clear process 
should  particularly  be  established  to  determine  how  the  EU  MAP  could  be  amended,  i.e.  
who can request new variables to be collected; how these requests should be made, filtered, 
and  prioritized;  how  a  final  list  of  new  variables  to  be  collected  is  decided  by  the 
Commission;    and  when  this  is  inputted  into  the  sampling  process  for  Member  States'  to 
produce new sampling plans covering these new needs.  

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
 
 
Figure 7: Process to amend data collection requirements under the DCF  

As the current DCF does not include provisions on gathering end-users' input in defining what 
data should be collected, or in designing sampling programmes, the following changes should 
be made to the DCF Regulation:  

i)  Providing  for  the  consultation  of  Regional  Coordination  Groups  (which  include 
relevant end-users) and of the STECF by the Commission 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 variable from the EU MAP. The criteria, based in large part on 
advice for the STECF110 would be the following:  

110 Member States Experts (11-15 March 2013, Ispra, Italy) Dedicated STECF EWG meeting 13-02 on the new 
DC MAP. Report available: Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Review of 
the DC MAP – Part 1 (STECF-13-06)  

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
1)  the  need  and  relevance  of  data  for  decisions  on  fisheries  management  and 
protection of the ecosystem including vulnerable species,  

2) the need to support impact assessments of policy measures,  

3) the needs of the scientific community,  

4) the resource implications,  

5) existing time-series,  

6) the need to avoid duplication of data collection, 

7) regional specificities,  

8) and the international obligations of the Union and its Member States. 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX VII 

Details on the legal architecture of the future Data Collection Framework 

1. The future DCF Regulation  

The  future  DCF  Regulation  should  maintain  the  basic  provisions  that  constitute  the 
architecture  of  the  European  system  of  data  collection  on  fisheries,  as  they  have 
demonstrated  their  robustness.  It  would  retain  key  aspects  of  the  current  system, 
including: the establishment of EU multiannual programme; contents of work plans to be 
implemented  by  Member  States;  key  obligations  upon  Member  States  in  relation  to 
collection, storage, protection and provisions of data; provisions on rights of obligations of 
users of data; and provisions on cooperation within and between Member States, as well 
as with and between scientific and management bodies.  

2. The EU Multiannual Programme  

The  future  DCF  Regulation  should  contain  provisions  whereby  the  Commission  should 
adopt,  and  may  modify,  through  an  implementing  act,  an  EU  MAP  for  the  collection, 
management and use of data on the fisheries sector. The EU MAP would contain: 

1)  provisions  on  the  data  that  should  be  collected  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  DCF 
(biological  data,  ecosystem  data,  socio-economic  data  on  fisheries,  aquaculture  and 
processing,  data  on  fishing  activity  of  EU  fisheries  and  data  on  sustainability  of 
aquaculture). 

2) A list of mandatory research surveys that must be carried out and criteria for selecting 
these research surveys.  

3)  Thresholds  below  which  Member  States  do  not  need  to  collect  data  or  carry  out 
research surveys.   

In  practice,  compared  to  the  current  EU  MAP,  the  future  EU  MAP  would  be  lighter, 
containing  only  obligations  relating  to  what  Member  States  should  collect  and  make 
available  to    data  users  under  the  DCF,  including  list  of  species  and  variables  and 
frequency  of  collection  as  well  as  minimum  provisions  on  level  of  (dis-)aggregation  at 
which data must be made available to ensure harmonization and multiple uses of data. The 
EU MAP would, however, no longer contain the current presriptive provisions relating 
to methodology, sampling strategy or guidelines to be followed, or the precision levels to 
be achieved. 

3. Operational Programmes 

Member  States'  Operational  Programmes  under  the  EMFF  describe  the  Member  States' 
data  collection  activities  on  a  multiannual  basis.  These  stem  from  two  sources:  EU 
obligations  stemming  from  the  EU  MAP  (including  any  international  fisheries  data 
collection obligations) and outcomes of agreements in RCGs or the EUCG (see Figure 5). 
Under  the  future  system,  National  Programmes  will  be  outlined  in  the  section  of  the 
Member  States'  EMFF  Operational  Programmes  (OP),  providing  the  key  principles  and 
basic  information  on  the  national  set-up  for  implementation  of  the  DCF,  as  well  as  a 
summary  of  the  main  activities  that  will  be  carried  out  by  the  Member  States.  Such 
programmes will be less detailed than the current DCF National Programmes and should 
require less frequent revisions compared to the current set-up. 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
4. National work plans 

National  work  plans  under  the  EMFF  supplement  the  operational  programmes,  by 
providing  more  detail  on,  amongst  other,  the  methods  that  will  be  followed,  on  quality 
assurance, on specific data collection that may take place punctually, or in addition to the 
obligations  stemming  from  the  EU  Multiannual  programme,  including  additional  data 
collection agreed in RCGs. Their degree of detail should also be such as not to necessarily 
require change every year, if appropriate. 

5. Regional work plans 

As described in section 5.1.2, RCGs may prepare joint recommendations in the form of a 
regional work plan  regarding procedures, methods, quality assurance  and quality control 
for collecting and processing of data as well as a regionally-coordinated sampling strategy 
in  order  to  achieve  an  adequate  division  of  tasks  among  the  Member  States.  The 
Commission  would  verify  whether  the  joint  recommendations  are  compatible  with  the 
provisions of the DCF Regulation and with the EU MAP and, if so, approve or refuse to 
approve the regional work plan. Member States should ensure compliance of their national 
work  plans  with  the  applicable  regional  work  plan  (if  there  is  one,  and  it  has  been 
approved by the Commission) in the form of a regional work plan. In addition, if adopted 
by  the  Commission,  such  a  regional  work  plan  may  replace  parts  of  individual  national 
work  plans  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  on  Member  States.  For  the  sake  of 
transparency, regional work plan should be made publically available, e.g.on a website. 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VIII 

Tasks of Regional Coordination Groups (RCGs)  

The  RCGs  would  essentially  have  four  main  tasks,  relating  to  regional  cooperation  (see 
Figure 8):   

A.  Data to be collected: 

i) Advising the Commission, when establishing the EU Multiannual Programme and 
amendments  thereof,  regarding  what  data  should  be  collected  under  the  EU 
Multiannual Programme.  

ii)  Agreeing  on  additional  data  (beyond  those  detailed  in  the  EU  MAP)  to  be 
collected at regional level  

B.  For all data to be collected (whether detailed in the EU MAP or agreed in RCG), agreeing 
on  methodological  aspects  of  data  collection  such  as  identifying  procedures  and 
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). RCGs would be tasked 
with methodological aspects relating to biological and ecosystem data. In addition, some 
data may also be left for RCGs to decide based on the regional specificities, for example 
which species or fisheries to sample regarding by-catch of protected species.   

C.  Planning  and  coordinating  the  sampling  at  regional level111.  For  e.g.  biological  data 
on  shared  stocks,  or  on  by-catch  of  protected  species,  the  manner  of  planning  and 
coordinating  sampling  at  regional  level  would  move  to  regionally-based  sampling  as 
opposed  to  a  previously  national  approach.  Concretely,  RCGs  would  coordinate  the 
preparation  of  national  work  plans  by  establishing  regional  sampling  plans  and  then 
allocating shares of sampling to Member States.  

Given  the  resource  implications  of  allocating  shares  of  regional  sampling  between 
Member States, it seems advisable to establish 'fallback' rules for this process, in case 
Member States cannot reach an agreement on a regional sampling plan. This could be the 
Member  States'  share  of  a  TAC,  or  for  non-TAC  species,  their  share  of  catches  (e.g. 
averaged over the last 2 years). In case no agreement is reached about this in the RCG by 
a  certain  deadline,  the  Commission  would  act  by  introducing  allocation  rules  in  an 
implementing act. 

D.  Contributing  to  the  quality  assurance  and  quality  control  of  data.  RCGs  would  be 
tasked  with  establishing  guidelines  for  quality  assurance  and  identifying  best  practices 
and methodologies that Member States should follow. RCGs will also assess the quality 
of the combined biological data at regional or stock level (or at any other level relevant 
to the end-users), in order to advise end-users on this, and also to identify improvements 
that may be necessary in terms of methodologies or best practice.  

111 Planning and implementing of sampling at a regional level is not relevant for socio-economic data, for which 

data makes most sense at national level. 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 8:  Tasks of RCGs 

Data to be collected 

Advisory role regarding data covered 
by EU MAP 

Coordination role regarding additional 
data to be collected at regional level 

Implementation 

Agreeing on methodological aspects of data collection for all data sets 

Developing regional sampling plans 

Evaluating quality of data collected at regional level and advise on how to improve 
quality 

Evaluation 

Beyond  these  tasks,  the  DCF  would  define  the  membership  of  the  RCGs  and  EUCG  in 
general terms. Both RCG and the EUCG membership would consist of Member States experts 
and the relevant end-users. Third countries sharing fisheries with EU Member States in each 
marine region could also be invited as observers to RCGs (as is already the case today).  

In terms of governance structure, one option would be to establish RCGs and the EUCG as 
legal entities (such as an Advisory Council). 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 coordination within RCGs and the EUCG increases over time, there is a risk of widening 
differences,  or  even  divergences,  that  may  result  in  a  reduced  homogeneity  at  EU  level. 
Therefore, provisions to stimulate coordination between groups should also be included in 
the  DCF.  Namely,  coordination  between  regions  should  also  be  ensured,  by  including  a 
provision  in  the  DCF  requiring  RCGs  to  cooperate  on  issues  affecting  several  regions  (e.g. 
stocks  like  eels  found  in  several  regions)  to  ensure  that  data  from  different  regions  can  be 
aggregated to stock level to provide meaningful input to data users. 

Similarly,  past  implementation  of  the  DCF  shows  that  there  is  added-  value  in  closer 
integration of developments and decision on biological data with those for economic data, for 
example  to  facilitate  scientific  analysis  of  conservation  policies.  To  ensure  this,  the  DCF 
should include provisions whereby RCGs, the EUCG and the Commission should coordinate 
regularly  on  the  work  achieved  in  RCGs  and  EUCG.  To  this  end,  the  Commission  would 
organize meetings with chairs of the RCGs and EUCG plus any other relevant stakeholders. 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX IX 

Details on data to covered by the current EU MAP regarding commercial fisheries, and 
possible data collection under the future EU MAP. 

A.  Regarding  commercial  fisheries,  the  following  data  must  be  collected  according  to  the 
current DCF EU Multiannual Programme:  

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

For  all  stocks  caught  by  EU  vessels  (in  EU  waters  or  outside  them):  basic  data  on 
discards (volume and length distribution112). 

For  stocks  in  Appendix  VII  of  the  EU  Multiannual  Programme  (over  425):  data  on 
quarterly length distribution of retained catch are required in addition to 1) above. 

For  a  sub-set  of  the  stocks  in  Appendix  VII  of  the  EU  Multiannual  Programme: 
biological variables should be collected in addition to 1) and 2) above. This concerns 
age  (including  number  of  measurements  per  1000  t),  weight,  sex,  maturity  and 
fecundity as well as the frequency of collection of these parameters (either every year 
or every 3 years). 

The data included in the current EU MAP consisted essentially of a compilation of needs for 
individual  stocks  without  an  overall  strategy  or  prioritization  regarding  resource 
allocations. For some stocks, very detailed data requirements were included in the EU MAP 
and  for  others  much  less.  The  availability  of  data  largely  determined  the  choice  of  stock 
assessment  (i.e.  where  more  data  are  available,  more  robust/precise  assessments  can  be 
made). This has resulted in a mismatch between the amount and extent of data collected for 
some  stocks  and  the  needs  of  data  users  such  as  fisheries  managers,  which  means  that  the 
resources available for data collection may not be used in the most optimal way. 

B. Regarding the contents of the future EU MAP for commercial fisheries, a two-step might 
along the following lines could be envisage: 

i.  A minimum data set to be collected on all stocks caught by commercial EU fisheries 
(in  EU  waters  or  outside  them)  to  ensure  that  sufficient  information  is  available  to 
monitor all fisheries, including those which, should they develop, may require greater 
management  measures.  The  minimum  data  could  consist,  for  example,  of  catch 
composition (i.e. the share of each species in the catches and the length composition 
per species.  

ii.  Additional  specific  biological  data  (age,  sex,  maturity,  fecundity,  weight,  stomach 
content) to be collected for a sub-set of stocks that are important for policy needs 
i.e. those for which the EU or Member States have international obligations or stocks 
managed or protected by EU legislation.  

A  new  approach  to  determine  what  needs  to  be  collected  should  be  followed:  The  current 
relationship between data availability and stock assessment should be reversed. There are over 
400  stocks  covered  by  the  current  DCF,  and  not  all  require  the  most  robust  type  of  stock 
assessment and thus will not require the most extensive and frequent data collection. In future, 
the fisheries  managers should  prioritize the stocks for which  more robust  stock assessments 

112 Quarterly estimates of length distribution of discards are only required when they represent (on an annual 
basis), either more than 10 % of the total catches by weight or more than 15 % of the catches in numbers. 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
are  required,  and  those  for  which  less  robust  (and  less  data  demanding)  assessments  are 
sufficient. On this basis, the data needed to enable the different types of assessment would be 
included in the EU MAP. This approach would enable a more efficient use of resources for 
data  collection.  It  is  also  in  line  with  recommendations  made  in  a  European  Parliament-
commissioned study on Data Deficient Fisheries in the EU113, as well as with the policies in 
other  important  fishing  nations  such  as  the  United  States114  who  strive  to  provide  at  least 
baseline  monitoring  for  all  managed  stocks,  full  assessments  for  important  stocks,  and 
assessments that extend to ecosystem linkages where needed and feasible. 

113  European  Parliament 

in  EU  waters 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/495865/IPOL-PECH_ET(2013)495865_EN.pdf 

(2013)  Data-deficient 

commissioned 

fisheries 

study 

114 http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/stock-assessment/stock-assessment-prioritization  

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX X 

Additional details on some ecosystem impacts of fisheries 

Regarding  the  impacts  of  fisheries  on  habitats  (impact  6  in  section  5.2.1.2),  and  in 
particular on the sea bed: These impacts depend essentially on three factors: the physical and 
biological  characteristics  of  the  sea  bed,  the  type  of  fishing  gear  that  interacts  with  the  sea 
bed,  and  the  intensity  of  this  interaction.  An  EU-led  process  is  underway  supported  by  the 
European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund to  deliver  open-access  seabed  mapping  of  all 
European  waters  by  2020.  Maps  of  physical  habitats  using  an  agreed  classification  and 
building on earlier efforts are already available115 and will be progressively refined. EU-wide 
projects on seabed mapping have produced maps of the physical characteristics of the seabed 
for  a  large  part  of  European  waters.  Several  initiatives  to  map  the  biological  features  and 
communities are also ongoing116. 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)117. 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). To 
further  quantify  the  exact  impacts  that  particular  type  of  fishing  operation  is  having  on  a 
particular  type  of  seabed  habitat,  dedicated  research  projects  are  required,  such  as  the 
BENTHIS project118.  

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.  The  Northwest  Atlantic  Fisheries  Organization 
(NAFO),  for  example,  considers  certain  deep-sea  seabed  organisms  such  as  corals  as 
indicators of vulnerable marine ecosystems, and fishing vessel encounters with them must be 
recorded  and  may  lead  to  management  measures  being  taken  (closures  of  fishing  areas)119. 
The  Commission's  proposal  for  a  deep  sea  access  regime120  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. 

115   Such as the Mapping European Seabed Habitats project http://www.searchmesh.net/ that mapped the North-

Western European waters, funded by the EU. 

116   Such as the Benthic Ecosystem Fisheries Impact Study http://www.benthis.eu/en/benthis.htm  funded by the 

EU under the FP7 framework. 

117 And the current EU MAP requires Member States to calculate the extent of sea bed area not impacted by 

fishing gear, as one of the environmental indicators in Appendix XIII. 

118 http://www.benthis.eu/en/benthis.htm 
119  http://archive.nafo.int/open/fc/2013/fcdoc13-01.pdf  
120  Proposal for a Regulation  of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing specific conditions 
to fishing for deep-sea stocks in the North-East Atlantic and provisions for fishing in international waters of the 
North-East Atlantic and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002. COM(2012) 371 final of 19.7.2012  

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Regarding  proposed  changes  to  the  DCF  and  possible  contents  of  the  future  EU 
Multiannual Programme: 

Collecting data on by-catch of non-target species would contribute to identifying fisheries, 
areas and seasons with a high incidental by-catch which may not be sustainable for the species 
involved;  to  estimate  the  number  of  specimens  taken  in  a  certain  area;  and  to  evaluate 
mitigation measures.  

Collecting data on by-catch of protected species should be feasible since the great majority of 
these  species  are  not  commonly  encountered  during  fisheries  trips.  Concretely,  data  on  by-
catch  of  protected  species  could  be  collected  by  scientific  observers  during  their  routine 
"fisheries"  sampling  programmes  (of  which  the  primary  purpose  is  monitoring  fish). 
However,  ICES  has  advised  that,  although  useful,  this  would  not  be  sufficient  as  fisheries 
selected  to  monitor  commercial  fish  are  not  necessarily  the  ones  that  should  be  sampled  to 
monitor  by-catches  of  e.g.  seabirds.  Dedicated  sampling  programmes  for  non-target  species 
may be required in addition to collecting data via existing fisheries sampling programmes, to 
ensure the relevant fisheries are covered121 (see Textbox 5).  

Given the differences between sea basins regarding the occurrence of these protected species 
and their interactions with fisheries, the EU MAP would specify that RCGs, in consultation 
with  end-users,  are  to  specify  the  species,  the  variables  and  the  way  in  which  the  sampling 
should be carried out, as recommended also by STECF122. The species and variables selected 
by RCGs would be published e.g. on a website, for the sake of clarity and transparency. 

Textbox 5 - Resource implications for collection of data on incidental catches of protected species 

Collecting data on by-catches by commercial fisheries of protected species as part of routine "fisheries" sampling 
programmes that already exist under the DCF does not require sending additional scientific observers to carry 
out  research  surveys  at  sea,  but  rather  involves  training  the  "fisheries"  observers  and  equipping  them  with 
identification manuals or other tools so that they can identify the protected species when it is encountered.  

This will require additional staff time on board for some of this identification work, as well as time to process 
and  analyse  these  additional  data.  Time  for  training  the observers  or  compiling/developing  identification  tools 
will  also  be  required.  Estimating  that  annually  3  days  will  be  necessary  for  training,  plus  10  days  for  data 
analysis and processing and identification work, and using the individual Member States' average staff rates for 
scientists  and  technicians123,  this  results  in  annual  costs  of  between  400  €  and  6200  €per  Member  State,  and 
around 60 000 € at EU-level. 

If  additional  dedicated  sampling  is  carried  out,  based  on  RCG  recommendations,  additional  costs  will  be 
required to cover the staff time of an observer at sea as well as for data management. Taking as example 20 days 
per Member State for collection of these data at sea and for data management, this would result in an additional 
cost of between 600 € and 8000 € per Member State, and around 70 000 € at EU-level. 

80%  of these costs can be covered by EU co-financing under the EMFF. 

Furthermore, the EU MAP should require Member States to sample all their catches, whether 
these are targeted or not, retained on board or not, of commercial species or not. 

Regarding  impacts  on  foodwebs,  stomach  content  data  are  collected  through  research 
surveys  at  sea  and  require  dedicated  time  on  board  to  collect  specimens,  as  well  as  in  the 
laboratory to analyse the stomach content and model the food webs and population dynamics 

121 ICES (2013). ICES Advice on the Special Request from the EU concerning monitoring of bycatch of  cetaceans 

and other protected species. ICES Advice April 2013, Book 1, section 1.5.1, 4 pp. 
122 http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=8b0accc5-cad9-4f11-85a2-5c315f4b068e&groupId=43805  
123 Based on average staff costs in the EU Member States' financial forms for their 2011 data collection 

programmes  

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(see Error! Reference source not found.). Such data are essential to understand the effect of 
predator-prey interactions, which is at the core of  multispecies management advice. It can 
also contribute to understanding the impacts of fisheries on seabed communities124. Collecting 
stomachs on board research vessels is already done routinely by some Member States, but for 
others, it would come as an addition to the current work occurring on research cruises.  

The  DCF  Regulation  would  include  a  provision  requiring  Member  States  to  collect  data  on 
impacts of fisheries on food webs, to enable ecosystem-based fisheries management. The EU 
MAP would specify the species for which stomach content data should be collected, to enable 
such as assessment of fisheries impacts on food webs. These species will be those for which 
the  fisheries  managers  would  like  to  carry  out  ecosystem-based  management.  Because  this 
decision lies with the fisheries managers, it is more appropriate to include the species list in 
the EU MAP than to let RCG decide on the species for which stomach content data collection 
should be carried out. However, given the potential for task sharing and resource efficiency in 
developing  stomach  content  sampling  programmes,  the  EU  MAP  would  specify  that  RCGs 
should develop regional sampling plans including the methodologies that should be followed. 

Textbox 6 - Resource implications for collection of data on foodwebs 

During research surveys at sea, scientists collect stomachs on board, then either analyse 
their contents during the research cruise, and/or preserve the stomachs and analyse their 
contents back in the laboratory. Analysing the species contained in a stomach in formalin 
or alcohol is a lengthy process. In order to have a general overview of the trophic status 
of the system and interactions, the data then need to be analysed and incorporated into 
foodweb models.  

A more generalised approach to collecting stomach content data may require additional 
staff  on  board  the  research  vessel  to  carry  out  the  tasks  of  stomach  collection  and 
analysis. Additional staff time will also be required for analysis of the stomach contents 
in the lab and for the data analysis and modelling. Using the individual Member States' 
average  staff  rates  for  scientists  and  technicians125,  and  presuming  that  annually  all 
Member States would require: i) 2 additional staff for 10 days of research survey at sea, 
ii)  120  days  for  stomach  content  analysis  in  the  lab,  iii)    110  days  for  analysis  and 
modelling, , annual additional costs would amount  between 9000 € and 110 000 € per 
Member State, and around 1 100 000 € at EU level. 

80% of these costs can be covered by EU co-financing under the EMFF. 

Regarding  the  impact  of  fisheries  on  habitats,  in  addition  to  the  data  on  the  pressure  of 
fishing activity on seabed  habitats, which can  be derived from fishing  activity data already 
collected under the  current  DCF, additional quantitative data on the specific impacts should 
be collected. The DCF Regulation would contain requirements for Member States to collect 
data  on  impacts  of  fishing  gears  on  marine  habitats  to  enable  assessment  of  the  effect  of 
fisheries  on  the  marine  ecosystem.  The  EU  MAP  would  contain  provisions  regarding  the 
exact  seabed  organisms  on  which  data  should  be  collected,  and  these  would  at  a  minimum 
reflect the current obligations under international law (e.g. NAFO) or EU law (e.g. the deep-
sea access regime Regulation once it is adopted).  

Finally,  the  EU  MAP  should  no  longer  contain  a  list  of  environmental  indicators,  as  is 
currently  the  case,  because  on  the  one  hand  these  are  now  out  of  date  in  light  of  MSFD 

124  For  example,  see  http://oceanbites.org/bottom-trawling-changes-bodies-the-new-seafloor-diet/comment-page-

1/#comment-83850  

125  Based  on  average  staff  costs  in  the  EU  Member  States'  financial  forms  for  their  2011  data  collection 

programmes  

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
                                                 
developments, and on the other hand, a regulation on data collection and provision is not the 
appropriate instrument to include indicators, which constitute a use of the data. 

Beyond the changes in the legal framework, the Commission will encourage Member States 
to make better use of existing, or modified research surveys to ensure the most cost-effective 
data collection for both fisheries and environmental purposes. Possibilities for integration of 
DCF  monitoring  with  monitoring  for  other  MSFD  descriptors  have  been  investigated  and 
reported  in  the  Technical  guidance  on  monitoring  for  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 

Directive Work126.  

126  JRC  Scientific  and  Policy  reports  (2014).  Technical  guidance  on  monitoring  for  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework  Directive  (section  5.3.4)  http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC88073/lb-na-
26499-en-n.pdf.pdf  

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX XI 

Overview of the main differences between the data on aquaculture covered by the DCF 
and the statistical legislation on aquaculture 

All EU Member States collect data on the  volume and value of primary production (first 
sale  for  human  consumption)  by  aquaculture  production  unit  on  their  whole  aquaculture 
sector  (including  freshwater)  for  the  purpose  of  compliance  with  European  statistical 
regulation on aquaculture127. Similar data are collected (and collated by JRC) under the DCF, 
but  based  on  turnover  (difference with    production  because  fish  may  be  sold  several  times 
during their lifetime), by companies (with a threshold) on a different reporting time (January 
instead  of  November,  calendar  year  versus  accounting  year),  also  on  companies  producing 
juveniles  (nurseries,  hatcheries,  ornamental  fish),  with  a  different  segmentation  (by  species 
instead  of  groups)  and  with  different  rules  on  confidentiality  (<10  companies  vs  <3).  Most 
variables can easily be adjusted, the main problem are the variables (production or turnover), 
and the level (company or unit). 

Under the DCF also economic and social data on costs, profits and employment are collected 
using  different  methods  depending  on  the  Member  States,  and  also  on  the  type  of  data. 
Companies  systematically  record  most  of  the  required  data  in  their  accounts,  and  some  of 
these  data  are  routinely  collected  through  national  statistical  offices  for  national  purposes 
and/or  for  the  purpose  of  compliance  with  European  statistical  regulation  on  aquaculture. 
Some  Member  States'  reuse  the  economic  data  obtained  via  their  statistical  office  for  DCF 
end-users  (such  as  the  STECF),  whilst  in  other  Member  States,  the  bodies  involved  in  the 
DCF  programme  collect  the  data  directly  from  companies  e.g.  via  questionnaires  or  phone 
surveys or personal visits.  

127 Regulation (EC) 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) 788/96 (Text 
with EEA relevance) 

EN 

95 

   EN