Evaluation of proposals to revise DCF national programmes for 2016 (STECF-16-01).
Date: 2016-03-14
Institutions: Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen
Subjects: Community fisheries, aquaculture, common fisheries policy, data collection, fishery management, fishing regulations, research report

 Reports of the Scientific, Technical and 
Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 
- 
Evaluation of Proposals to Revise 
DCF National Programmes for 2016 
(STECF-16-01) 

Edited by Christoph Stransky & Fabrizio Natale 

This report was reviewed by the STECF by written procedure 

in January 2016 

Report EUR 27758 EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission 

Joint Research Centre (JRC) 

Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC) 

Contact information 

STECF secretariat 

Address: Maritime Affairs Unit, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra VA, Italy 

E-mail: stecf-secretariat@jrc.ec.europa.eu 

Tel.: 0039 0332 789343 

Fax: 0039 0332 789658 

JRC Science Hub  

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

Legal Notice 

This publication is a Science and Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science 

service.  It  aims  to  provide  evidence-based  scientific  support  to  the  European  policy-making  process.  The  scientific  output 

expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person 

acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. 

JRC 100350 

EUR 27758 EN 

ISBN 978-92-79-56778-0 

EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1831-9424 

ISSN 2467-0715 

doi:10.2788/41585 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

© European Union, 2016 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged 

How to cite this report: 

Reports of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)  – Evaluation of Proposals to Revise DCF 

National Programmes for 2016 (STECF-16-01). 2015. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27758 EN, 

JRC 100350, 68 pp. 

Abstract 

The EWG 15-15 was held in Hamburg, Germany, from 23 to 27 November 2015 to evaluate National Programmes (NP) for 

2016 submitted by Member States (MS) under the Data Collection Framework (DCF), to revise procedures and guidance for 

the submission of DCF Annual Reports (AR) and for the evaluation of AR and Data Transmission (DT) by MS, and to provide 
expertise for the preparation of the EU Multi-annual Programme (EU MAP) for Data Collection under a revised DCF. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Evaluation of Proposals to Revise DCF National Programmes for 2016 (STECF 16-01) ........ 6 

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

Request to the STECF ................................................................................................................ 6 

Observations of the STECF ........................................................................................................ 7 

Conclusions of the STECF ......................................................................................................... 8 

Advice and recommendations of the STECF ............................................................................. 8 

Expert Working Group EWG 15-15 report ................................................................................ 9 

1  Executive summary ............................................................................................................ 10 

2 

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 12 

2.1  Terms of Reference for EWG 15-15 ............................................................................... 12 

3  Part I – Evaluation of Revised DCF National Programmes for 2016 ................................ 15 

3.1  Croatia ............................................................................................................................. 15 

3.2  Estonia ............................................................................................................................. 16 

3.3 

Ireland .............................................................................................................................. 17 

3.4  Slovenia ........................................................................................................................... 18 

3.5  Spain ................................................................................................................................ 20 

4  Part II – Revision of Annual Reporting and Data Transmission exercises ........................ 22 

4.1  Revision of the Annual Report guidelines, standard tables and evaluation procedure ... 22 

4.1.1  Annual Report guidelines and standard tables ............................................................. 22 

4.1.2  Guidelines for the evaluation of Annual Reports and Data Transmission, and evaluation form

 .................................................................................................................................... 23 

4.2  End-user feedback and tools for Data Transmission assessment .................................... 24 

4.3  Linking Annual Reports with Data Transmission Failures ............................................. 25 

4.3.1  Reports from ad hoc experts on linking Annual Reports with Data Transmission ...... 25 

4.3.2 

Implementation of generating AR tables from information submitted through data calls  26 

5  Part III – Preparation of future EU MAP ........................................................................... 28 

5.1  DCF, EU MAP and Guidance Document ....................................................................... 28 

5.2  Biological variables ......................................................................................................... 30 

5.2.1  Collection of biological data ........................................................................................ 30 

5.2.1.1  Commercial fisheries ................................................................................................. 31 

5.2.1.2  Recreational fisheries ................................................................................................. 31 

5.2.1.3  Eels and salmon .......................................................................................................... 32 

5.2.1.4  Long-distance fisheries (external waters) .................................................................. 32 

4 

4 

 
 
5.2.1.5  Outermost regions ...................................................................................................... 32 

5.2.1.6  Deep-sea regulation, ecosystem data ......................................................................... 33 

5.2.2  Transversal variables .................................................................................................... 33 

5.2.3  By-catch of non-target species ..................................................................................... 33 

5.2.4 

Impacts of fisheries on marine habitats ........................................................................ 33 

5.2.5 

Impacts of fisheries on food webs ................................................................................ 34 

5.2.6  Data on the activity of Union vessels in Union and external waters, including level of fishing 

and of effort and capacity of the Union fleet ............................................................. 34 

5.2.7  Thresholds below which Member States do not need to collect data or carry out research 

surveys, based on their fishing activities .................................................................... 34 

5.2.8 

(Dis-)aggregation levels ............................................................................................... 35 

5.2.9  Methodology ................................................................................................................ 35 

5.3  Economic and transversal variables ................................................................................ 36 

5.3.1  General observations .................................................................................................... 36 

5.3.2  Recreational fisheries ................................................................................................... 36 

5.3.3  Specific case of long-distance fisheries (external waters) ............................................ 37 

5.3.4  Specific case of Outermost regions .............................................................................. 37 

5.3.5  Transversal variables (Appendix VIII) ......................................................................... 37 

5.3.6  Data on the activity of Union vessels in Union and external waters, including level of fishing 

and of effort and capacity of the Union fleet ............................................................. 38 

5.3.7  Socio-economic data on fisheries to enable the assessment of the socio-economic performance 
of the Union fisheries sector ...................................................................................... 38 

5.3.8  Socio-economic data on aquaculture to enable the assessment of the socio-economic 

performance of the Union aquaculture sector ............................................................ 39 

5.3.9  Socio-economic data on the fish processing sector to enable the assessment of the socio-
economic performance of the sector .......................................................................... 41 

5.3.10  Social variables on the fleet, aquaculture & processing sectors ................................. 42 

5.3.11 

(Dis-)aggregation levels ............................................................................................. 42 

5.3.12  Thresholds below which Member States do not need to collect data or carry out research 

surveys, based on their fishing activities .................................................................... 43 

5.4  Revision of the EU MAP appendices .............................................................................. 43 

6  CONTACT DETAILS OF STECF MEMBERS AND EWG-15-15 List of Participants .. 64 

7  List of Annexes .................................................................................................................. 69 

8  List of Background Documents .......................................................................................... 69 

5 

5 

 
 
 
 
SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES (STECF) 

Evaluation of Proposals to Revise DCF National Programmes for 2016 (STECF 16-01) 

THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE STECF BY WRITTEN PROCEDURE IN 
JANUARY 2016 

Background 

Data  collection  currently  occurs  under  the  Data  Collection  Framework  (DCF)  and  the  multi-annual 
Union programme (EU MAP) for data collection established thereunder. Member States establish DCF 
National  Programmes  (NPs)  in  accordance  with  provisions  of  the  EU  MAP  (Article  4  of  Council 
Regulation  199/2008).  These  NPs  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 MAP. NPs are analysed by the STECF (independent experts) and are adopted by 
the Commission through a Commission Decision (Article 6 of Reg. 199/2008). NPs can be modified if 
requested by a Member State and after evaluation of the proposed changes by the STECF. The EWG 
15-15  was  requested  to  review  all  NPs  for  2016  submitted  by  31  October  2015  (Croatia,  Estonia, 
Ireland,  Slovenia  and  Spain)  to  determine  whether  a  re-adoption  of  the  2014-2016  NPs  is  required, 
based on the overarching criteria of conformity and scientific relevance.  

Under  Article  7  of  the  DCF  Regulation,  Member  States  are  required  to  report  annually  on  the 
implementation of their National Programme in their Annual Reports (AR). The Commission assesses 
the  implementation  of  the  National  Programmes  on  the  basis  of  an  evaluation  by  the  STECF.  The 
current AR guidelines and standard tables were prepared in February 2015, based on STECF advice in 
2014.  There  is  potential  to  simplify  the  AR  preparation  and  review  process,  to  evaluate  MS  data 
transmission (DT) failures more efficiently and to link the AR and DT. On the basis of experience in 
the  latest  STECF  EWG  on  AR/DT  review  (EWG  15-10,  June  2015)  and  ad  hoc  contract  work,  the 
EWG 15-15 was requested to: 

a)  review  the  guidance  for  submission  of  ARs  (guidelines  and  table  templates),  guidelines  for  AR 
evaluation and the evaluation form; 

b) provide suggestions for improvements for end-user feedback and tools for DT assessment; 

c) provide suggestions for linking ARs and DT failures. 

Following the agreement on the Basic Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy (Reg. 1380/2013), 
which  includes  Article  25  laying  out  the  key  principles  for  Member  States  to  collect  biological, 
technical,  environmental  and  socio-economic  data,  the  Commission  has  prepared  a  proposal  for  a 
revision of the DCF, submitted in June 2015. This will be followed by a Commission proposal for a 
revision of the EU MAP. Discussions on the revision of the EU MAP are ongoing and the key issues 
that  need  to  be  addressed  have  been  identified  and  discussed  to  various  extents  in  STECF  expert 
working  groups  and  other  relevant  fora.  The  EWG  15-15  was  requested  to  critically  assess  changes 
proposed by the Commission by types of variables, to review the EU MAP appendices and to address 
outstanding questions for which no general agreement has been reached in the past. The EWG 15-15 
was provided with documents produced during consultation with involved parties. 

Request to the STECF 

STECF is requested to review the report of the STECF EWG 15-15 meeting (Hamburg, Germany, 23-
27 November 2015), evaluate the findings and make any appropriate comments and recommendations. 

6 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
Observations of the STECF 

STECF observes that the EWG 15-15 has fully addressed their Terms of Reference. 

The revisions to the National Programmes (NPs) 2016 of Croatia, Estonia, Ireland, Slovenia and Spain 
were  found  to  be  mostly  minor.  STECF  considers  that  for  Croatia  and  Ireland,  all  NP  changes  are 
acceptable. For the other three MS, STECF suggests that clarification on proposed changes in several 
NP  modules  should  be  provided  by  the  MS  to  the  European  Commission.  STECF  observes  that  the 
Spanish NP was submitted in Spanish and could not be fully evaluated by the EWG. 

STECF observes that the EWG 15-15 revised the guidelines and standard table templates for Annual 
Reports, draft  guidelines for pre-screening  and evaluation of AR and  Data  Transmission  by MS and 
the  Annual  Report  evaluation  form.  STECF  supports  the  EWG  suggestions  for  simplifications  and 
clarifications,  as  well  as  proposed  amendments  which  will  improve  overall  consistency  in  the 
guidelines and templates. STECF notes that based on the EWG revisions and the follow-up by ad-hoc 
contract work, the guidelines and templates are scheduled to be finished by the end of January 2016 for 
dissemination to MS as guidance for the submission of ARs 2015. 

STECF observes that the EWG 15-15 discussed possible solutions for improving end-user feedback on 
MS data transmission and STECF supports the following EWG considerations: 

  When classifying a data transmission issue regarding timeliness of the data provisions, one additional 
category should be created which classifies the severity of the issue (“Impact on the WG performance”). 
This is intended to identify failings where the late submission of data had impacted the work of the data 
end-user. 

  Each data transmission exercise should only focus on the data that had been newly provided (except in 

cases of revisions of a whole time series).  

  A template and basic instructions will be  made available to the end-users to support the upload of the 
end-user feedback to the IT platform hosted by JRC. All end-users will be asked to use the template and 
take the instructions into consideration. 

STECF further observes that, based on two reports by ad hoc experts, the EWG 15-15 considered the 
issue  of  how  improved  linkage  between  Annual  Reports  and  data  transmission  could  be  achieved. 
These reports pointed to modules in the Annual Reports that could be flagged to the evaluators via an 
automated link between AR and data transmission to the evaluators, as potential sources of future data 
transmission failures. STECF considers these suggestions as providing a short-term or ad hoc solution. 
However,  STECF  considers  that  a  more  appropriate  medium  to  longer  term  solution  should 
incorporate  the  data  delivered  to  the  Regional  Databases  (RDBs)  and  other  databases  storing  data 
collected under the DCF. STECF acknowledges that the EWG presented an updated future scenario for 
information  flow  between  IT  systems  in  relation  to  Annual  Reports,  DT  and  National  Work  Plans, 
based on the work of the EWG 14-17. In addition, a new reporting format for data transmission in the 
Annual Report (Table VI.1) has been proposed by the EWG.  

STECF  notes  that  the  European  Commission  provided  the  EWG  15-15  with  a  series  of  background 
documents  on  various  issues  with  regard  to  the  revision  of  the  EU  MAP.  One  of  these  documents 
contained proposals for elements to be included in the EU MAP and also contained specific questions 
to be addressed by EWG 15-15 regarding several aspects of the legal requirements under the current 
proposal for a revised DCF Regulation. STECF notes that some of these questions had been addressed 
by  STECF  previously.  Furthermore,  some  of  the  Commission  proposals  did  not  take  STECF  advice 
into  consideration  or  contradicted  previous  STECF  advice.  In  addition,  some  of  the  background 
documents  provided  to  the  EWG  by  the  EC  were  outdated  and  did  not  take  all  relevant  reports  and 
advice into account. STECF, however, welcomes the constructive approach of the EWG 15-15 to point 
to the relevant information and previous STECF advice. 

7 

7 

 
 
STECF supports the suggestion of the EWG 15-15 that detailed appendices should not be included in 
the new EU MAP, but rather the EU MAP should lay down and specify principles and be considered 
as the basic binding instrument for MS to carry out fisheries data collection. In the view of STECF, 
detailed lists, definitions, additional variables and specification of methodologies (including sampling 
intensity and frequency) to apply shall be included in a “Guidance Document” accompanying the EU 
MAP.  These  lists  should  be  compiled  by  the  Regional  Co-ordination  Groups  (RCGs)  and  PGECON 
(or successor) in cooperation with the main data end-users and approved by STECF. 

STECF observes that the EWG 15-15 was requested to review the EU MAP appendices and to provide 
proposals for changes in order to achieve the objectives of the DCF revision. In most cases, the EWG 
used  previous  STECF  advice  for  proposing  changes.  STECF  acknowledges  the  EWG  proposals  and 
explanations for changes to the EU MAP appendices, in order to inform a Commission proposal for 
the EU MAP. 

STECF  considers  that  the  social  indicators  identified  by  EWG  15-15  should  be  included  in  the  EU 
MAP and that these should be supported by explanations on each indicator in the guidance document. 
STECF considers that MS should be encouraged to initially adopt pilot projects to determine how the 
social indicators should be collected and derived. 

STECF  observes  that  the  proposal  of  the  EWG  to  incorporate  income  generated  through  interest 
payments  into  the  “financial  results”  indicator  is  questionable  and  should  not  be  considered  for 
inclusion  in  the  EU  MAP.  National  Data  collection  is  undertaken  at  a  vessel  rather  than  a  company 
level and it is therefore not possible to assign any interest income to an individual vessel if it belongs 
to a company operating more than one fishing vessel or other enterprises. 

STECF observes that it is not possible to directly compare fuel subsidies with tax exemptions on fuel 
as the comparison can be misleading. In the case of tax exemptions, the company does not receive any 
direct  payment  as  a  rebate.  However,  it  could  be  interpreted  as  received  payment  as  under  current 
reporting requirements. If needed, tax exemptions can already be derived from the fuel costs, without 
having to include a new variable in the EU MAP. 

Conclusions and recommendations of the STECF 

STECF concludes that the EWG 15-15 fully addressed all Terms of Reference. STECF endorses the 
findings and suggestions presented in the EWG 15-15 report and advises the following: 

1.  The submitted revisions of the DCF National Programmes 2016 of Estonia, Slovenia and Spain require 
further dialogue between the European Commission and the concerned MS with regard to clarifications 
on some of the amended modules, as detailed in the EWG 15-15 report. 

2.  The guidance for the submission of Annual  Reports (AR, guidelines and standard table templates), as 
well as the guidelines for AR evaluation and the evaluation form, updated by the EWG 15-15, should be 
finished by the end of January 2016 to be submitted to MS well before the AR submission deadline (31 
May 2016). 

3.  The improvements of end-user feedback on data transmission, as suggested by the EWG 15-15, should 

be implemented as soon as possible and communicated to the end-users. 

4.  The  suggestions  of  the  EWG  15-15  for  a  better  link  between  Annual  Reports  and  Data  Transmission 
should  be  seen  as  a  pragmatic  short-term  fix.  A  more  robust  solution,  involving  databases  and  online 
reporting tools, is required to make significant progress in simplifying and improving the efficiency of 
the current system which is time consuming and error prone. 

5.  STECF considers that the European Commission has now been provided by the EWG 15-15 (and the 

previous EWGs on DCF/EU MAP revision) with answers to the last remaining questions in order to put 
the EC into a position to formulate an EU MAP proposal. The availability of a revised EU MAP in 
spring 2016 is crucial for the preparatory work of MS in relation to their national Work Plans for Data 
Collection for 2017 and beyond. 

8 

8 

 
 
 
EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG 15-15 REPORT 

REPORT TO THE STECF 

EXPERT WORKING GROUP ON  
Evaluation of Proposals to Revise 
DCF National Programmes for 2016 
(EWG 15-15) 

Hamburg, Germany, 23-27 November 2015 

This report does not necessarily reflect the view of the STECF and the European 
Commission and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area 

9 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The EWG 15-15 was held in Hamburg, Germany, from 23 to 27 November 2015 to evaluate National 
Programmes (NP) for 2016 submitted by Member States (MS) under the Data Collection Framework 
(DCF), to revise procedures and guidance for the submission of DCF Annual Reports (AR) and for the 
evaluation of AR and Data Transmission (DT) by MS, and to provide expertise for the preparation of 
the EU Multi-annual Programme (EU MAP) under a revised DCF. 

Part I: Evaluation of revised DCF National Programmes for 2016: 

The EWG 15-15 evaluated the revisions of National Programmes (NPs) 2016 from Croatia, Estonia, 
Ireland,  Slovenia  and  Spain.  Most  of  the  revisions  were  found  to  be  minor,  according  to  the  criteria 
used by STECF before. For Croatia and Ireland, all NP changes are acceptable. For the other three MS, 
the  EWG  suggests  that  clarification  on  proposed  changes  in  several  NP  modules  is  needed.  The 
Spanish  NP  was  submitted  in  Spanish  and  could  not  be  fully  evaluated,  as  the  available  machine 
translation into English did not contain the tracked changes of the Spanish version. 

Part II: Revision of Annual Reporting and Data Transmission exercises: 

The  EWG  15-15  revised  the  guidelines  and  standard table  templates  for  Annual  Reports (AR),  draft 
guidelines  for  pre-screening  and  evaluation  of  AR  and  Data  Transmission  (DT)  by  MS  and  the  AR 
evaluation form. These files were prepared by an ad hoc expert before the meeting. The EWG suggests 
several  simplifications  and  clarifications,  as  well  as  amendments  for  improved  overall  consistency. 
Based on the EWG revisions, these files will be finished by the end of January 2016 for dissemination 
to MS as guidance for the submission of ARs 2015. 

Based  on  a  JRC  report  on  end-user  feedback  on  DT  and  experience  gained  at  the  EWG  15-10,  the 
EWG 15-15 was asked to propose improvements for DT feedback. After discussing possible solutions, 
the EWG considers the following: 

  When classifying a DT issue regarding timeliness of the data provisions, one additional 

category should be created for the classification of the severity of the issue (“Impact on the WG 
performance”), which is meant to classify situations when the late submission of data had 
impacted the regular work of the data end-user. 

  Each DT exercise should only focus on the data that had been newly provided (except in cases 

of revisions of a whole time series).  

  A template and basic instructions will be made available to the end-users to support the upload 
of the end-user feedback to the IT platform hosted by JRC. All end-users will be asked to use 
the template and take the instructions into consideration. 

The EWG 15-15 discussed how a better linkage between AR and DT could be achieved, based on two 
reports by ad hoc experts prepared before the meeting. These reports pointed to modules in the AR that 
could  be  flagged  as  potential  sources  of  later  DT  failures.  The  EWG  considers  these  suggestions  as 
serving  well  as  a  short-term  solution,  but  there  should  be  a  medium  to  longer  term  solution 
incorporating  the  data  delivered  to  the  Regional  Databases  (RDBs)  and  other  databases  storing  data 
collected  under  the  DCF.  An  updated  future  scenario  for  information  flow  between  IT  systems  in 
relation to AR, DT and National Work Plans, based on the work of the EWG 14-17, was presented by 
the EWG 15-15. In addition, a new reporting format for DT in the AR (Table VI.1) has been proposed 
by the EWG.  

Part III: Preparation of future EU MAP: 

The  European  Commission  provided  a  series  of  documents  on  various  issues  with  regard  to  the 
revision of the EU Multi-annual Programme (EU MAP) for Data Collection. In a central document, the 
EC made proposals for contents of the EU MAP and directed questions to the EWG 15-15 on several 

10 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
aspects of the legal requirements under the current proposal for a revised DCF Regulation. The EWG 
15-15  found  that  a  part  of  these  questions  had  been  addressed  to  and  answered  by  STECF  before. 
Furthermore,  some  of  the  Commission  proposals  did  not  take  STECF  advice  into  consideration  or 
contradicted  STECF  advice,  without  justifications  given  for  doing  so.  A  part  of  the  documents 
provided as “fiches” for EWG discussions on the EU MAP  were  not  up-to-date  and did  not  take  all 
relevant  reports  and  advice  into  account.  The  EWG  15-15  pointed  to  the  relevant  additional 
information and previous STECF advice in the corresponding report sections. 

As a general principle, the EWG 15-15 suggests that detailed appendices should not be included in the 
new EU MAP. The EU MAP should lay down and specify principles and be considered as the basic 
binding  instrument  for  MS  to  carry  out  fisheries  data  collection,  including  the  principles  for  setting 
thresholds as the basis for sampling. Detailed lists, definitions, additional variables and specification of 
methodologies (including sampling intensity and frequency) to apply shall be included in a “Guidance 
Document”  accompanying  the  EU  MAP.  These  lists  should  be  compiled  by  the  Regional  Co-
ordination Groups (RCGs) and PGECON (or successor) in cooperation with the main  data end-users 
and approved by STECF. 

The  EWG  15-15  was  requested  to  review  the  EU  MAP  appendices  and  to  provide  proposals  for 
changes in order to achieve the objectives of the DCF revision. In most cases, previous STECF advice 
was  applied  for  proposing  changes.  The  EWG  discussed  all  appendices  and  proposed  editorial 
amendments  as  well  as  fundamental  changes  to  attain  the  principles  explained  above.  Detailed 
explanations for proposed changes in the appendices are provided in the report. 

11 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2  INTRODUCTION 

The EWG 15-15 was held in Hamburg, Germany, from 23 to 27 November 2015 to evaluate National 
Programmes (NP) for 2016 submitted by Member States (MS) under the Data Collection Framework 
(DCF), to revise procedures and guidance for the submission of DCF Annual Reports (AR) and for the 
evaluation of AR and Data Transmission (DT) by MS, and to provide expertise for the preparation of 
the EU Multi-annual Programme (EU MAP) under a revised DCF. 

2.1  Terms of Reference for EWG 15-15 

The aims of the EWG were as follows: 

1.  To evaluate the proposed revisions to the DCF 2014-2016 National Programmes for 2016 in 

terms of conformity and scientific relevance. 

2.  To revise Annual Reporting and Data Transmission exercises. 

3.  To provide expertise for preparation of the future EU Multi-annual Programme and National 

Work Plans. 

Part I: Evaluation of revised DCF National Programmes for 2016 

Background 

Data collection currently occurs under the Data Collection Framework (DCF) and the multi-annual 
Union programme for data collection established thereunder.  Member States establish DCF National 
Programmes in accordance with provisions of the multi-annual Union programme for data collection 
(Article 4 of Council Regulation 199/2008). These NPs 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 STECF 
(independent experts) and are adopted by the Commission through a Commission Decision (Article 6). 
NPs can be modified if requested by a Member State and after evaluation of the proposed changes by 
the STECF. 

Tasks for the EWG 

All requests for changes submitted by the 31st of October 2015 will be reviewed by EWG 15-15, using 
the 'Guidelines and Procedures' developed in SGRN 09-03 as well as the 'Guidelines on amendment of 
National Programmes 2011-2013 for the year 2013' reviewed by EWG 12-08 (these guidelines apply 
to the NP 2014-2016 as well). The evaluation with regard to the latter is to determine whether a re-
adoption of the 2014-2016 National Programmes (NP) for the year 2016 is required. The evaluation 
will be based on the overarching criteria of conformity and scientific relevance.  

Part II: Revision of Annual Reporting and Data Transmission exercises 

Background 

Under Article 7 of the DCF Regulation, Member States are required to report annually on the 
implementation of their National Programme. The Commission shall assess the implementation of the 
National Programmes on the basis of an evaluation by the STECF. 

The current Annual Report guidelines and standard tables were prepared in February 2015, based on 
experience with evaluation of the Annual Reports 2013 as well as conclusions drawn by the STECF 
during expert groups EWG 14-07 (Oostende, 23-27 June 2014) and EWG 14-17 (Hamburg, 20-24 
October 2014), as reviewed in the STECF Plenary meetings PLEN 14-02 (Copenhagen, 7 - 11 July 

12 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
2014) and PLEN 14-03 (Brussels, 10 - 14 November 2014). Since then, additional conclusions were 
drawn by the STECF during expert group EWG 15-10 (Gdynia, 22-26 June 2015), as reviewed in 
STECF Plenary meeting PLEN 15-02 (Varese, 6-10 July 2015). On the basis of an ad hoc contract, the 
Commission has prepared a draft update of the guidelines and standard tables, which incorporates any 
conclusions that were straight forward and agreed by STECF.  

Tasks for the EWG 

a) Revision of the Annual Report guidelines, standard tables and evaluation procedure 

The EWG 15-15 is invited to review the following draft documents, prepared by an ad hoc contract 
and taking into consideration the conclusions drawn by the STECF: (i) guidelines for pre-screeners, 
(ii) guidance for submission of Annual Reports, (iii) Annual Report templates, (iv) evaluation form 
and (v) guidelines for experts on new modules added: MS-recurring issues and MS-specific issues. 
The EWG 15-15 will be asked to decide upon these changes, so the guidelines and standard tables can 
be finalized after the meeting.  

The focus of the exercise should be on simplification, user-friendly formatting and standardisation. 

b) End user feedback and tools for DT assessment 

Based on experience with evaluation of the Data Transmission Failures 2015, conclusions drawn by 
the STECF and JRC Data Coverage Reports, the JRC compiled a document on main issues per end 
user, as well as guidelines for end users with the aim to streamline the procedure of DT assessment. 
The EWG 15-15 is invited to review this document. The EWG 15-15 is invited to discuss: (i) pros and 
cons of possible expansion of the approach developed by JRC to prepare the AR standard tables from 
the data calls data to modules other than the fleet economic data call, (ii) further enhancement of the 
data transmission IT platform, after taking into consideration input from the Liaison Meeting 2015.   

c) Linking Annual Report with Data Transmission Failures 

The EWG 15-15 is invited to review the work carried out by ad hoc contracts on Annual Report 
modules serving as indicators for potential data failures. The aim is to identify those modules that 
describe the collection of data and how these can warn about possible gaps in data collection and 
consequently data transmission issues.  

Part III: Preparation of future EU MAP 

Background 

Following the agreement on the Basic Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy (Reg. 1380/2013), 
which includes Article 25 laying out the key principles for Member States to collect biological, 
technical, environmental and socio-economic data, the Commission has prepared a proposal for a 
revision of the Data Collection Framework (Council regulation (EC) No. 199/2008), submitted in 
2015. This will be followed by a Commission proposal for a revision of the EU Multiannual 
Programme for data collection. Discussions on the revision of the EU Multiannual Programme are 
ongoing and the key issues that need to be addressed have been identified and discussed to various 
extents in STECF expert working groups and other relevant fora. 

Under the EMFF, the MS Operational Programmes must be supplemented by a work plan for data 
collection (Reg. 508/2014, Article 21), replacing the current DCF National Programmes. The STECF 
EWG 14-17 (Hamburg, 20-24 October 2014) carried out preliminary work on the basic elements of 
National Work Plans, reviewed in the STECF Plenary (PLEN 14-03, Brussels, 10-14 November 2014). 

13 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Tasks for the EWG 

The EWG 15-15 is invited to critically assess changes proposed by the Commission by types of 
variables, to review the EU MAP appendices and to address outstanding questions for which no 
general agreement has been reached in the past. The EWG 15-15 will be provided with documents 
produced during consultation with involved parties. The contents of the EU MAP must be put in 
conjunction with the different parts of the National Work Plans as discussed at the EWG 14-17. In 
addition, the EWG is requested to give advice about what should not be in the future EU MAP but still 
must be put into the Work Plans or, for voluntary collection, elsewhere (e.g. Master Reference 
Register).  

14 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3  PART I – EVALUATION OF REVISED DCF NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR 2016 

The  proposed  amendments  to  the  NP  2016  were  evaluated  following  the  updated  Guidelines  for  the 
amendment of National Programmes 2011-13 for the year 2013 in the STECF report 15-011. 

Five Member States submitted proposals for revised NP for 2016 (Croatia, Estonia, Ireland, Slovenia 
and Spain). These five Member States submitted their full NP highlighting any modifications and also 
a summary of the proposed amendments. Only Slovenia did not provide a summary on the changes. 

Ireland  and  Spain  updated  the  reference  years,  i.e.,  years  from  which  the  data  that  supports  the 
sampling  designs  are  taken,  including  a  re-run  of  the  ranking  system.  This  is  marked  as  a  minor 
revision as the existing guidelines state that: Regarding Reference Years, MS can choose whether or 
not to update the reference years in the text and tables of the amended NP. If a Member State updates 
the  reference  years,  they  do  not  need  to  resubmit  their  amended  National  Programme  to  the 
Commission, but should report on this in their Annual Report. It also is in line with the conclusion in 
the STECF report 15-011 stating that if significant changes occur, such as a new sampling métier or 
changes  in  sampling  intensities,  the  reference  year  should  be  updated  to  provide  background 
information and justification for these changes. For the future it is advisable to request MS to submit 
updated  NP  tables  regarding  which  metiers  will  be  sampled  at  the  sampling  intensity  and,  if 
applicable, the associated updated NP text. 

In the following sections, the MS submissions were evaluated using the criteria and format used at last 
year’s EWG on NP evaluation (EWG 14-18, STECF report 15-011). 

Is 
revision 
minor or 
major? 

Is revision 
justified? 

Does 
revision 
improve 
NP? 

Is revision 
acceptable
? 

Action needed 

Comments 

Major 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

- 

- 

3.1  Croatia 

Section  Description of 

the revision 

III.A 

III.A/ 

III.B 

General 
description of 
the fishing 
sector 

Inclusion of 
small-scale 
fisheries for 
personal needs 
into the PGP 
will be delayed. 
Data for 
transversal 
variables will 
be available in 
2016 and for 
economic 
variables in 
2017 (reference 

1  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Review  of  DCF  National  programme 
amendments for 2015 (the 2013 Annual Report for Bulgaria) & development of the revised DCF Multiannual Programme 
(STECF-15-01).  2015.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  EUR27090  EN,  JRC  94538,  89  pp.; 
page 18&19. 

15 

15 

 
 
                                                 
 
Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

VIII 

year will be 
2015). 

Has been 
updated with 
approved and 
pending request 
for derogations 
according 
economic data 
collection for 
small-scale 
fisheries for 
personal needs. 

Derogations only 
need to be 
included for the 
year of approval 
and not repeated 
for subsequent 
years in Table 
I.A.1.  

Yes. There is a 
mismatch 
between the text 
sections relating 
to some of the 
species where 
derogations were 
agreed and those 
species being 
sampled 
according to the 
tables relating to 
those variables in 
Tables III.C.5, 
III.D.6,  III.E.1 
and III.E.3. The 
NP states that 
data would be 
collected in 2014 
-16 for 
reassessment of 
the 2013 
derogations. 
Where this has 
happened, this 
should be 
referred to in the 
text. 

3.2  Estonia 

Section  Description of the 
revision 

II.A 

III.A, 
III.C, 
III.E 

Updated contact 
details 

Addition of scientific 
observers in ICES 
areas I and II 
(sections III.A, III.C 
and III.E) 

Is 
revision 
minor 
or 
major? 

Is 
revision 
justified? 

Does 
revision 
improve 
NP? 

Is revision 
acceptable? 

Action needed 

Comments 

- 

- 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Partly 

16 

16 

Yes; in sections 
III.C.3 and 
III.C.4, more 
information is 
needed on data 
quality evaluation 
and data 
presentation 
following the 
guidelines for 
submission of 
NP; 
Very minor 
change of NP on 
p. 11 necessary, 

 
 
 
III.D 

III.G 

New survey on 
recreational fisheries 

Inclusion of Baltic 
Acoustic Sprat 
survey into research 
surveys at sea list  

Major 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Major 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

as there are now 
fleet operations 
in three and not 
only two regions 
anymore. 

No 

No 

- 

- 

3.3 

Ireland 

Section  Description of the revision 

Is revision 
minor or 
major? 

Is 
revision 
justified? 

Does 
revision 
improve 
NP? 

Is revision 
acceptable? 

Action 
needed 

Comments 

III.B 

Some small text changes 
including clarification on 
raising procedures 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

III.B.1.a  Change of wording of 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

definition of variable "direct 
subsidies" according wording 
of COM Decision 
2010/93/EU. 

III.B.2 

For imputation of non 
responses, a third method for 
extra clarification was added. 

III.C 

III.C 

III.C 

III.C 

III.G 

Table III.C.1 was re-run with 
new reference years 2012 & 
2013 

Statistically Sound Sampling 
Scheme- Design of a pilot 
programme in 2015 for 2016 

Modification of protocols to 
include the sampling of data 
both onshore and off shore as 
a result of the landing 
obligation 

Collection of By-catch and 
PETS data 

Boarfish Acoustic Survey, 
survey description and maps 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Major 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Major 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

III.G 

Monkfish and megrim survey  Major 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

17 

17 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

 
 
 
 
VI, survey description and 
maps 

III.G 

Monkfish and megrim survey 
VII, survey description and 
maps 

Major 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

- 

The  proposed  surveys  are  not  included  in  DCF  survey  list  (Commission  Decision  2010/93/EU, 
Appendix 9). Following the SGRN 07-01 report2, the survey should follow the scheme as presented in 
that  report.  However,  it  is  unclear  if  this  procedure  should  still  be  applied  under  the  EMFF.  The 
surveys  as  proposed  by  MS  are  initiated  on  request  of  the  corresponding  ICES  stock  assessment 
working groups, are in line with existing survey methodologies (basically extending the area covered), 
compliant with EMFF and nationally funded. The last point raises the discussion if the surveys have to 
be listed in the DCF NP.  

3.4  Slovenia 

Section  Description of 

the revision 

all 

III.E.6, 
III.G, 
VIII 

III.E.6 

III.G.5 

asking for the 
derogation 
regarding the 
biological 
samplings for 
individual 
parameter 
measurements 
of age (reading 
of otoliths) for 
MEDITS 
species 
Merluccius 
merluccius, 
Mullus barbatus 
and Mullus 
surmuletus 

asking for the 
derogation 
regarding the 
biological 
samplings for 

Is 
revision 
minor 
or 
major? 

Is 
revision 
justified? 

Does 
revision 
improve 
NP? 

Is revision 
acceptable? 

Action 
needed 

Comments 

Yes 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Yes 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Yes 

Add summary of the proposed 
changes following the 
guidelines of submission of 
NP 

Amendment not relevant as 
catches < 200 tonnes don't 
have to be sampled according 
to the exemption rules 
(Commission Decision 
2010/93/EU, section B2.5). 
Average landings in III.E.1 
indicate that the catches for 
those species are less than 200 
tonnes. 

Amendment not relevant as 
catches < 200 tonnes don't 
have to be sampled according 
to the exemption rules 
(Commission 2010/93, article 

2 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). 2008. Report of the Working Group on Research 
Needs Review of list of surveys at sea (Appendix XIV of EU Commission Regulation N°1581/2004) with their priorities 
(SGRN 07-01). Brussels, 12-16 February 2007. JRC 49126, EUR 23654 EN. 

18 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
individual 
parameter 
measurements 
of age (reading 
of otoliths) for 
MEDITS 
species 
Merluccius 
merluccius, 
Mullus barbatus 
and Mullus 
surmuletus 

III.G 

Various text 
changes 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Yes 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Yes 

VIII 

asking for the 
derogation 
regarding the 
biological 
samplings for 
individual 
parameter 
measurements 
of age (reading 
of otholits) for 
MEDITS 
species 
Merluccius 
merluccius and 
Mullus barbatus 
and Mullus 
surmuletus 

B2.5). Average landings in 
III.E.1 indicate that the 
catches for those species are 
less than 200 tonnes. 

Unclear why the text changes 
appear. If there are any 
changes in the NP proposal 
they should be reflected in the 
tables. Summarise the 
proposed changes at the 
beginning of the amended NP. 
If MS is obliged to support a 
survey and is not able to 
comply with the obligation, 
MS should ask for a 
derogation. 

Amendment not relevant as 
catches < 200 tonnes don't 
have to be sampled according 
to the exemption rules (COM 
Decision 2010/93/EU, section 
B2.5). Average landings in 
III.E.1 indicate that the 
catches for those species are 
less than 200 tonnes. 

The  MS  asks  for  derogations  for  stocks  that  do  not  have  to  be  sampled.  The  MS  should  add  summary  of 
proposed changes at the beginning of the document. 

19 

19 

 
 
 
 
3.5  Spain 

Section  Description of the 
revision 

Is 
revision 
minor or 
major? 

Is 
revision 
justified
? 

Does 
revision 
improve 
NP? 

Is revision 
acceptable? 

Action needed 

Comments 

Table 
III.C.1 

List of identified 
metiers 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

Changes to 
Tables are as 
given in the 
summary sheet 
provided by MS 

Table 
III.C.2 

Merging and 
disaggregation of 
metiers  

Table 
III.C.3 

Expected sampled 
trips by metier 

Table 
III.C.4 

Metier sampling 
strategy 

Table 
III.C.5 

Table 
III.E.1 

Table 
III.E.2 

Sampling intensity 
for length 
compositions (all 
metiers combined) 

List of required 
stocks (Appendix 
VII) 

Long-term planning 
of sampling for 
stock-based 
variables 

Table 
III.E.3 

Sampling intensity 
for stock-based 
variables 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

Conversion factors  Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

Revisions to text 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Update of 
agreements 

Minor 

20 

20 

Yes. Clarifica-
tion needed on 
the impact of 
cessation of the 
agreement with 
the UK and if it 
should be 
renewed, as text 
deleted from NP 
as submitted 
making it not 

From the 
summary sheet 
provided by MS, 
most of the 
changes in all 
sections appear 
to be minor 
updates in line 
with submission 
guidelines.  

Table 
III.F.2 

I. 
General 
Frame-
work 

II.C 
Regional 
coordina
tion 

 
 
 
 
Updated text 

Minor 

III.A 
General 
descripti
on of the 
fisheries 
sector 

III.C 

Updated text 

III.D 

Updated text 

III.E 

Updated text 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor 

possible for 
EWG 15-15 to 
assess the 
change. 

Track changes 
did not transfer 
over to the 
translated 
(English) 
version of the 
full NP, making 
it not possible 
for EWG 15-15 
to assess fully 
the impact of 
any changes. 

as above 

as above 

as above 

- 

- 

- 

- 

III.G 

Updated text 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

IX 

Updated list 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

Changes easy to 
identify in 
English 
Translation 

Changes 
Highlighted 

Annex I  Updated description 
of Spanish fisheries 

Minor 

Annex 
III 

Updated list of 
bilaterals 

Minor 

- 

- 

Track changes 
did not transfer 
over to the 
translated 
(English) 
version of the 
full NP, making 
it not possible 
for EWG 15-15 
to assess fully 
the impact of 
any changes. 

Yes. Clarifica-
tion needed on 
the impact of 
cessation of the 
agreement with 
the UK and if it 
should be 
renewed, as text 
deleted from NP 
as submitted. 

Annex 
IV 

Addition of pilot 
study 

Minor 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

None 

New section  

21 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4  PART II – REVISION OF ANNUAL REPORTING AND DATA TRANSMISSION EXERCISES 

4.1  Revision of the Annual Report guidelines, standard tables and evaluation procedure 

The  EWG  15-15  discussed  revised  Annual  Report  (AR)  guidelines  and  standard  tables  that  were 
prepared by an ad  hoc expert before the meeting. The revised AR guidance available at the meeting 
incorporated the suggestions of the EWG 15-10 (Gdynia, June 2015; STECF report 15-133). Several 
editorial  amendments  and  additions  based  on  discussions  at  the  EWG  15-15  were  made  and  will  be 
included  in  final  versions  of  the  AR  guidance  until  the  end  of  January  2016  for  dissemination  to 
Member States in February 2016, in time for the preparation of the AR 2015. 

Regarding  the  evaluation  procedure  for  AR  and  Data  Transmission  (DT)  by  MS,  an  ad  hoc  expert 
delivered draft guidelines and templates for pre-screeners and EWGs on the evaluation of ARs and DT 
failures.  The  EWG  15-15  also  reviewed  these  documents  and  suggested  improvements  based  on 
discussions at the EWG. 

4.1.1  Annual Report guidelines and Standard Tables 

The guidelines for the submission of the Annual Reports and Standard Tables were reviewed by the 
EWG 15-15 and some of the proposed changes were implemented and some further additions made. 
These mainly draft additional tables in the guidelines which explain in more detail how to complete the 
relevant tables in the Tables I.A.1, I.A.2 and III.A.1; adding an explanation on the use of the comments 
column;  removal  of  some  columns  in  the  tables  (Precision  target  in  Table  III.E.3  and  description  of 
surveys in Table III.G.1); explanations on new colour coding- explaining cells that are filled directly, 
filled  from  NP  and  those  that  contain  calculations.  Smaller  additions  included  are  requests  for 
submission  of  a  PDF  copy  of  the  report  as  well  as  a  Word  document  and  inserting  some  more 
hyperlinks to historical reports.  

The EWG discussed the merging of Tables III.C.4 and III.C.3 and considered that while countries are 
moving towards 4S that merging of these tables is not necessary. Not all countries have implemented 
the 4S, and therefore, these countries still need these tables. The EWG considered that since there is 
only  one  year  left  with  the  current  regulation,  that  this  exercise  would  be  futile  as  trying  to  merge 
could make the filling of a new combined table more difficult for countries with complex fisheries and 
sampling frames. 

If  countries  are  continuing  to  use  the  ranking  and  the  landings  from  the  reference  period  from  their 
original NP submission or are using an updated reference period (without an updated NP submission), 
then this should be clearly stated in the text and the tables with the appropriate explanations given for 
deviations. 

An additional column was added in Table III.D.1 for reporting on recreational catches. MS now have 
to indicate whether they have an estimation of the quarterly catch weight.  

The ‘custom lists’ tab in the standard tables was updated with new fields (Fishing Ground) and all of 
the relevant tabs were updated with these lists. It was decided not to generate a list of metiers, as this is 
prone to change.  

It was decided to keep the column ‘share in EU TAC’ in Table III.E.3, because it is needed to check if 
a species is not sampled due to the exemption rules. Table III.F.2 was deleted as the EWG considered 
that it did not serve any purpose for the AR. 

3 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Evaluation of 2014 MS DCF Annual Reports & 
Data  Transmission  (STECF-15-13).  2015.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  EUR  27410  EN, 
JRC 96975, 287 pp. 

22 

22 

 
 
 
                                                 
In  section  VI,  MS  are  now  asked  to  report  data  failures  in  terms  of  achievement  levels  (see  section 
4.3). 

4.1.2  Guidelines for the evaluation of Annual Reports and Data Transmission, and evaluation form 

The EWG 15-15 updated and refined the evaluation guidelines in order to support pre-screeners and 
the STECF EWG evaluating ARs and DT failures. Proposals for adding or removing questions were 
made in the text in order to get better insight into the MS’s compliance with the legal obligations.  

General comments 

  When a table is added to the AR, this table should also be available in the NP, even when this 
means that all MSs have to resubmit the NP tables as an amendment. Only in this way can the 
evaluation exercise can be carried out properly. Currently this applies to Table III.D.1 
(recreational fisheries). This should be implemented in the future EU MAP. 

  The invitation to pre-screeners should be sent well in advance of the AR deadline (31st May), as 

the pre-screening exercise requires a lot of effort in a short period; pre-screeners need to be able to 
arrange this in their agendas. This is especially the case for new pre-screeners, as an 
announcement around the AR deadline limits the possibility of them being able to make room in 
their planning at such short notice. 

  Pre-screeners should also be requested to attend the STECF EWG evaluating the AR in order to 

make the system as efficient as possible. 

Module VI (Management of data) 

Based on discussions on end-user feedback (section 4.2) and linking AR with DT (section 4.3), the 
EWG suggests a new format for Table VI.1 in order to obtain more information on DT failures, 
especially on the achievement level for DT. 

Module VIII (list of acronyms and abbreviations) 

For MSs, it is time consuming to keep the list up-to-date. For evaluation purposes, it is almost 
impossible to check if the list is correct and covering all acronyms and abbreviations. As a result, the 
pre-screeners and STECF EWG evaluating the ARs only evaluate if there is a list in the report. There 
is a strong wish for a centralised custom list of acronyms and abbreviations that should be used by all 
MSs. MSs can then add acronyms and abbreviations (usually of national use) that are not in the custom 
list to Module VIII. 

Module IX (Comments, suggestions) 

Pre-screeners should highlight in the evaluation sheet if there is any text in this chapter. The STECF 
EWG evaluating the ARs should then compile all comments into a single document for the 
Commission and highlight major issues in the STECF EWG report. 

23 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2  End-user feedback and tools for Data Transmission assessment 

The EWG 15-15 discussed with two key end-users, ICES and STECF, the background document “The 
DCF Reporting and Implementation Cycles and the Data End-user Feedback”, prepared by JRC (EWG 
15-15 Doc. 2). This document builds on the findings and conclusions from the EWG 15-10 (STECF 
report 15-134) by adding to these the technical details to aid future exercises on end-user feedback.   

From the discussion, the JRC report was considered to give a good support to the end-users on the 
preparation of the feedback from the data they have been provided with by the MS following a DCF 
data call. The following points were agreed and should add to the JRC document: 

1.  When classifying an issue regarding the timeliness (issue type = timeliness) of the data provisions, 
one additional category must be created for the classification of the severity of the issue (“Impact 
on the WG performance”), which is meant to classify situations when the late submission of data 
had impacted the regular work of the data end-user. The new severity class corresponds to the 
highest classification (i.e., more severe than “high”). 

2.  Each Data Transmission exercise should only focus on the data that had been newly provided. 

Meaning that, when a data call requests an entire time series to be provided, only the data that was 
not provided in previous data calls shall be considered for the current exercise. However, this 
should not apply when a procedure of data revision could have been put in place by a MS. In this 
case, the entire time series should be considered, since those figures will be assessed for the first 
time.    

3.  A template (Excel file) will be made available to the end-users to support the upload of the end-
user feedback to the IT platform hosted by JRC on behalf of DG MARE. Together with the 
template, the criteria of specific fields will be provided, as well as basic instructions to use the 
template (e.g. only include one MS per issue). 

4.  To ensure that the STECF EWG on AR/DT evaluation will receive a coherent and harmonized 
input to assess Data Transmission, every data end-user will be requested to adhere to the same 
approach on delivering the feedback to DG MARE, i.e. to use the Excel template to provide the 
data issues and follow the guidelines on the identification and classification of the issues as stated 
in the JRC document. 

5.  When available, end-users should provide information on the time stamp of the data submission. 

4 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Evaluation of 2014 MS DCF Annual Reports & 
Data Transmission (STECF-15-13). 2015. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27410 EN, 
JRC 96975, 287 pp. 

24 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.3  Linking Annual Reports with Data Transmission Failures 

4.3.1  Reports from ad hoc experts on linking Annual Reports with Data Transmission 

As input for the EWG discussion, two reports on improving the link between AR and DT were 
prepared by ad hoc experts, one on biological data (EWG 15-15 Doc. 3) and one on economic and 
transversal data (EWG 15-15 Doc. 4). These reports are meant to close the cycle of the data flow 
between AR and DT. Currently, the missing link is the connection of the data collection and end-users.  

The ad hoc contracts were set up to (1) help the MS to improve the sampling, and (2) let the AR 
provide information for the DT evaluation exercise. The proposals as presented in the reports should 
serve as a short-term solution. Parts of the analysis of the AR tables related to DT can be automated. 

The EWG 15-15 discussed that: 

  The proposed solution serves well as a short-term solution; 

  There should be a medium to longer term solution incorporating the data delivered to the 

Regional Databases (RDBs) and other databases storing data collected under the DCF. With the 
purpose of a link between what has been already agreed in the EWG 14-17 (report STECF-14-
245, section 4 - Long-term perspectives for National Workplans and Annual Reports), this 
solution was further elaborated by the EWG 15-15 and the outcomes of this work are presented 
in section 5.1. 

The EWG 15-15 agrees that: 

 

In future, the database containing NP and AR tables should be filled as much as possible 
directly from existing databases; 

  The RCMs/RCGs are responsible for the planning of the sampling in a region; 

  End-users send the feedback on DT to the Commission, following a Memorandum of 

Understanding; 

  End-users preferably provide feedback using similar criteria; 

  All short-term developments should be done in line with the medium and longer term 

developments. 

The EWG 15-15 suggests that Table VI.1 and section VI in the AR should be updated: 

  MSs report data failures in Table VI.1; 
  Table VI.1 should have room for comments; 
  Add column ‘likely to encounter data issues in the current year?’; 
  Add subheading in chapter VI of the AR to ask for explanations on data failures. 

Centralised data call registrations/data requirements from end-users have to be taken into account (e.g. 
ICES: http://www.ices.dk/marine-data/tools/Pages/Data-calls.aspx) . 

5 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Preparations for future data collection under the 
revised  DCF  (STECF-14-24).  2014.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  EUR  26954  EN,  JRC 
93103, 44 pp. 

25 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The output of centralised data calls/requirements should be used for Table VI.1: 

  Each data call contains a standard table that the MS can fill in when responding to a data call. 

This information can serve as input for the AR and can be used by end-users and the 
Commission as an early warning for non-compliance on data transmission. 

  Communication between end-users and Commission should be improved, especially informal 

communications.  

  An overview of data that have to be collected under the DCF should be at least available for the 

DT pre-screeners and EWG on AR/DT evaluation. 

The economic data requested for DT are in general more standardised. Moreover, these data are being 
stored  in  a database  at  the  JRC  already.  Thus  it  is  comparatively  straightforward  to  identify  gaps  or 
failures. Usually, the results of data calls directly feed into the compilation of the  Annual Economic 
Report (AER). Failures are detected at least partly ahead of the AER  EWG meeting and feedback is 
given  to  MS.  For  an  IT-based  comparison  of  DT  with  NP,  it  would  be  necessary  to  implement  NP 
tables into the economics database. 

4.3.2 
Implementation of generating AR tables from information submitted through data calls 
Following the EWG 14-17 suggestions (STECF report 14-246), JRC performed an exercise on deriving 
AR Tables III.B.1-III.B.3 from data available through the fleet economics data call in 2015. For that 
purpose, the data call templates were extended by a few columns which could be filled in by MS on a 
voluntary  basis.  All  participating  MS  welcomed  the  exercise  and  appreciated  the  outcome  (see 
PGECON 2015 report) and regarded it helpful to facilitate the AR reporting requirements. In fact, for 
fleet  economic  data, the approach is mature enough  to  replace  the obligation of AR tables III.B.1-3, 
provided some adjustments are implemented. 

The  EWG  15-10  recommended  that  the  “viability  of  extending  this  exercise  to  biological  and 
transversal should be assessed in forthcoming STECF EWG.”. 

The EWG 15-10 observed some inconsistencies which should be solved: 

“- Table III.B.2 requires fleet at the 1st of January, while the data call requests for “target fleet” 
that could be different, 

- Response rates reported in table III.B.1 should be in some way consistent with response rates 
reported in table III.B.3, 

- Naming of fleet segments and formats of the JRC tables differ from guidelines.” 

Tables III.B.2 and III.B.3 could be comprehensively extracted from the data collected through the data 
call. For Table III.B.1, some information was missing: 

- Planned sample number, 

- Planned sample rate, 

- Type of data collection scheme, 

- Achieved sample number  

- Achieved sample rate.  

6 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Preparations for future data collection under the 
revised  DCF  (STECF-14-24).  2014.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  EUR  26954  EN,  JRC 
93103, 44 pp. 

26 

26 

 
 
 
                                                 
These data should in general be available through the NP tables (see also EWG 14-17 report6, Table 
4.2.1).  However,  as  NP  tables  have  not  been  introduced  into  a  database  yet,  those  cells  were  not 
available for the exercise. But this can be implemented for the future. 

According to PGECON  2015,  “one major difference  between  IIIB1 and IIIB3  is  that  IIIB3 refers to 
single variables whereas IIIB1 is meant to describe the characteristics of the surveys through which 
the  individual  variables are  achieved. The possible  application  for this purpose  was assessed taking 
into account different scenarios as for instance the cases when MS have different sampling strategies 
for different fleet segments and variables.”.  

According to our best knowledge, AR tables have not been used with respect to the characteristics of 
surveys. If a MS applies different sampling strategies for different variables within a fleet segments, 
this is reflected in Table III.B.3 where the sampling strategy is contained. It is a possibility that a MS 
performs two different surveys within a segment to collect the same variable. However, it is unclear 
which conclusions could be drawn from that kind of information. 

Another  example  of  information  that  is  only  provided  in  Table  III.B.1  is  the  frame  population. 
According  to  PGECON  2015,  the  interpretation  of  “frame  population”  varies  grossly  between  MS. 
Thus  far,  the  frame  population  has  never  been  analysed.  Given  these  circumstances,  it  appears 
justifiable to skip this kind of information. 

Given  these  considerations,  Table  III.B.1  appears  to  be  redundant.  Thus  EWG  15-15  recommends 
reconsidering  if  AR  Table  III.B.1  is  really  relevant  for  the  evaluation  of  MS  performance.  A  table 
similar to Table III.B.1, giving an overview on fleet level, could be created from the data call database 
upon request. 

If Table III.B.1 is removed from the AR table template, the remaining fleet economics Tables III.B.2 
and III.B.3 could be automatically derived from the JRC database, given the design of the 2015 data 
call. 

Furthermore, the EWG 15-15 suggests considering the completion of the fleet economics data call as 
sufficient contribution of MS to the AR table part (i.e. Tables III.B.2 and III.B.3). In other words, if a 
MS has completed the data call on fleet economics, a separate provision of Tables III.B.2 and III.B.3 
would no longer be required. 

Given  the  timing  –  the  AR  2015  guidelines  have  been  already  discussed  and  amended  -  such 
modifications  can  no  longer  take  place  in  due  time.  Nevertheless,  this  analysis  should  be  fully 
considered when the new templates and procedures for the upcoming DCF planning period start to be 
devised. 

27 

27 

 
 
 
 
5  PART III – PREPARATION OF FUTURE EU MAP 

The  European  Commission  provided  the  EWG  15-15  with  a  document  containing  proposals  for  the 
contents  of  the  future  EU  Multi-annual  Programme  for  Data  Collection (EU  MAP)  and  questions  to 
the EWG 15-15 (see Annex 1) and a series of documents (“fiches”) and reports dealing with various 
aspects  of  the  EU  MAP  (see  Background  documents).  The  EWG  15-15  found  that  a  part  of  these 
questions  had  been  addressed  to  and  answered  by  STECF  before.  Furthermore,  some  of  the 
Commission proposals did not take STECF advice into consideration or contradicted STECF advice, 
without  justifications  given  for  doing  so.  A  part  of  the  documents  provided  as  “fiches”  for  EWG 
discussions on the EU MAP were not up-to-date and did not take all relevant reports and advice into 
account.  

The following report sections contain the EWG comments and answers to the questions raised by the 
Commission in the document “Commission proposal for the contents of the future EU MAP” (Annex 
1), by legal provisions in the DCF proposal (Document COM(2015) 294 final of 18 June 2015). The 
EWG  15-15  comments  on  the  Commission  proposals  are  provided  in  sections  5.2  and  5.3,  while 
section 5.1 is laying out the EWG’s general considerations for a future EU MAP. 

The EWG 15-15 was also requested to review the EU MAP appendices and to provide proposals for 
changes in order to achieve the objectives of the DCF revision. In most cases, previous STECF advice 
was  applied  for  proposing  changes.  The  EWG  discussed  all  appendices  and  proposed  editorial 
amendments  as  well  as  fundamental  changes.  Detailed  explanations  for  proposed  changes  in  the 
appendices are provided in the report section 5.4. 

5.1  DCF, EU MAP and Guidance Document 

For  clarification,  the  scheme  below  illustrates  the  structure  of  the  future  Data  Collection  system,  in 
particular with regard to the incorporation of detailed data collection elements, suggested by the EWG 
15-15. 

DCF (revised 
Regulation 
199/2008) 

EU MAP (previously 
Decision 
2010/93/EU and 
Reg. 665/2008) 

Guidance 
Document- 
reference list and 
descriptons of 
methodology et al. 

Regional Workplan 
(established in RCG) 

National Workplans 

Figure 5.1.1: Levels of detail for implementation of the work plan. Red= stability in place, Green = 
flexibility to change 

28 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As stated earlier by the EWG 14-02 (STECF report 14-077), the EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that no 
detailed  appendices  shall  be  included  in  the  new  DCF  Regulation  or  in  the  EU  MAP,  but  in  the 
“Guidance Document”.  

In  the  whole  process  of  implementation  of  the  future  Data  Collection,  the  RCGs  are  tasked  with  a 
central role. Therefore, it is of crucial importance that all relevant documents should be available in a 
central  website,  which  is  easily  accessible  and  user-friendly.  The  central  website  as  well  as  all 
documents need to have a clear version control system. 

As a follow-up of the EWG 14-17 regarding the National Work Plans and Annual Report information 
flows (STECF report 14-248, section 4.1.3), the EWG 15-15 updated the schematic presentation of the 
scenario that should support the implementation of the new DCF framework (Figure 5.1.2). 

Figure 5.1.2: Elements and linkages of National Work Plans and Annual Reports under the future EU 
MAP. 

7  Scientific,  Technical  and Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  DCF  Revision  - part  4 (STECF-14-07). 2014. 

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26612 EN, JRC 89788, 77 pp. 

8 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Preparations for future data collection under the 
revised  DCF  (STECF-14-24).  2014.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  EUR  26954  EN,  JRC 
93103, 44 pp. 

29 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Reference to Guidance Document / stand-alone annexes in the future EU MAP 

The EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that the new legislation (DCF) should include both a timeline of the 
frequency  when  the  Guidance  Document  shall  be  updated  and  the  full  procedure  of  the  process  of 
agreeing any modifications. This should speed up the MS implementation of any planned changes that 
are agreed. 

The Guidance Document to be used needs to be in place so that all information is available for MS to 
ensure  that  any  agreed  changes  can  be  accounted  for  in  their  annual  work  plans  for  the  next 
submission. 

Who may propose changes?: 

  End users (following the proposed identification of end-user in EWG 13-02, STECF report 13-

069) 

  Individual MS 
  The European Commission 

Where these changes should be agreed: 

In the first instance, the most appropriate forum for modifications to be agreed would be the RCGs and 
PGECON (or successor) as it is likely that a high proportion of the proposed changes will not affect all 
species / stocks / fleets in all RCGs at the same time or to the same magnitude. 

Given  that  all  MS  have  finite  budgets  and  resources  available  it  may  be  necessary  for  an  umbrella 
(Liaison)  group  to  be  set  up  to  prioritise  /  ratify  any  changes  in  circumstances  where  the  overall 
number of modifications for a given year has a high cost impact. 

Timeline 

There are already dates foreseen for submission and review of NP proposals and AR and for the timing 
of the RCGs. It should be ensured that any modification to the Guidance Document fits to the timeline 
of the existing process. 

5.2  Biological variables 

5.2.1  Collection of biological data 

As a general principle, detailed appendices shall not be included in the new EU MAP. The EU MAP 
should lay down and specify principles and be considered as the basic binding instrument for MS to 
carry  out  fisheries  data  collection,  including  the  principles  for  setting  thresholds  as  the  basis  for 
sampling. Detailed lists, definitions, additional variables and specification of methodologies (including 
sampling  intensity  and  frequency)  etc.  to  apply  shall  be  included  in  the  Guidance  Document 
accompanying the EU MAP (see section 5.1). These lists will be compiled by the RCGs and PGECON 
(or successor) in cooperation with the main end users (see description in EWG 13-02, STECF report 
13-069) and approved by STECF. As continuity shall be ensured, the current lists shall act as basis for 
discussion or, when RCG have already compiled updated lists, the most recent version shall be used as 

9 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Review of DC MAP – Part 1 (STECF-13-06). 

2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 25974 EN, JRC 81593, 42 pp. 

30 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
a  basis.  Also,  as  described  by  EWG  14-17  (STECF  report  14-2410),  the  current  best  practices  shall 
form the basis for future work.  

Special  attention  needs  to  be  paid  to  the  RCG  approval  procedures.  Simple  decision-making 
procedures  shall  be  described  for  the  RCGs.  A  simple  majority  voting  system  is  proposed  in  which 
each MS has one vote. When the total EU TAC share is low (threshold to be specified), MS shall not 
be  obliged  to  collect  data,  unless  a  RFMO  requires  data  collection  under  their  respective  rules  of 
procedure. For thresholds, EU TAC shares shall form the basis while paying attention to the relative 
contribution  of  the  total  EU  share  to  the  total  TAC.  In  regions  without  TACs,  relative  shares  in  the 
total EU landings may form the basis for thresholds.  

A proposal for a revised Appendix VII is provided in a separate document. 

5.2.1.1  Commercial fisheries 

Appendix VII may be revised as described above.  
The Control Regulation (Regulations 1224/2009 and 404/2011) is not considered suitable as the basis 
for collecting biological information for TAC nor non-TAC species. The Control Regulation has no 
link to the current DCF Appendix VII.  
As described above, the general specification (e.g. species, methodology, sampling frequency, 
exemption rules) of the biological variables to be collected will be specified by the RCG. The EWG 
15-15 agrees on the basic principle laid out in Appendix 3 of the “Fiche on biological data on 
commercial fisheries” (Background documents). This appendix specifies the basic data to be collected 
(length and weight) from commercial fisheries, as well as  the inclusion of end users needs regarding 
spatial and temporal coverage as well as variables (e.g. age, sex, maturity etc.), intensity and frequency 
of sampling.  
Thus - by default - for all species caught, length and weight data will be collected, but exceptions may 
occur in areas where many species are present, depending on the area and STECF/RCG judgement for 
e.g. species that are seldomly caught. 

5.2.1.2  Recreational fisheries 

The EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that the starting point for the list of species to be collected and new 
species  may  come  in  through  the  RCGs  procedures.  As  a  starting  point,  the  current  proposal  as 
described  in  the  “fiche  on  recreational  fisheries”  (Background  documents)  should  be  adapted  to  the 
following minimum: 

Baltic: remove sharks, add sea trout 
North Sea: add seabass, pollack, European lobster 
North Atlantic: add pollack 
Mediterranean: add large pelagics and Epinephelus species 

The basic information to be collected is the number of individuals and the total weight by species. In 
order to fulfil the requirements for assessments, length compositions by species may be required. As 
confidence  levels  are  (very)  low,  it  is  unlikely  that  setting  thresholds  will  suffice  for  setting  general 
derogations  for  MS.  The  general  approach  should  be  to  collect  data,  however,  MS  can  apply  for  a 

10 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Preparations for future data collection under the 
revised  DCF  (STECF-14-24).  2014.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  EUR  26954  EN,  JRC 
93103, 44 pp. 

31 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
derogation through the RCGs, based on pilot studies and scientific proof that the relative contribution 
is low.  

As  licensing  systems  are  not  widely  implemented  and  are  unlikely  to  be  implemented  at  a  national 
level for each MS, the number of licences is not an appropriate variable to be collected. The number of 
fishermen (by gear type) is the variable to be collected, the methodology to achieve this number is at 
the discretion of the MS, while the RCG approves the methodology. This is the general approach for 
the new EU MAP: The EU MAP shall not specify methodologies, but lay down the basic principles 
and specify the data required to collect. The end-users and RCGs should decide on a regional level on 
the relevant frequency to collect and report data while addressing end-user needs.  

In theory, survivability studies could be useful in principal, however, these studies should be executed 
on  a  species-by-species  level  as  well  as  differentiate  by  region,  season  and  fishing  technique.  Given 
these limitations, such studies are not considered feasible. 

5.2.1.3  Eels and salmon 
STECF  EWG  14-17  (STECF  report  14-2411)  addressed  these  issues  thoroughly  on  the  basis  of  the 
reports  mentioned.  This  meeting  compiled  an  overview  and  approach  to  address  these  issues  for  the 
new DCF. 

5.2.1.4  Long-distance fisheries (external waters) 

As a general rule, MS should comply with rules set by the RFMO in place as already prescribed in the 
current  DCF.  This  approach  should  continue,  without  listing  all  the  variables.  The  RCG  on  Long-
Distance Fisheries (LDF) shall advise on the variables to be collected based on RFMO procedures in 
place. 

5.2.1.5  Outermost regions 

For the outermost regions, the general approach to collect data on a species-by-species basis applies. 
For  the  outermost  regions  and  except  for  large  pelagics,  the  relevant  RCGs  shall  set  up  the  list  of 
important species in line with the relevant RFMO and EU needs. For large pelagics, the RCG on large 
pelagics shall specify the data and species to be collected. STECF EWG 14-18 (STECF report 15-0112) 
addressed  this  issue  for  outermost  regions,  including  the  separation  of  the  various  regions  over  the 
relevant RCGs and adaption of the current Appendix 1 of the EU MAP. To facilitate this process as 
well  as  to  identify  the  responsible  and  appropriate  RCG,  the  EWG  15-15  agrees  with  the  proposal 
specified in the “fiche on outermost regions” (Background documents) to set up an ad-hoc contract on 
the implementation of the current EU MAP in close cooperation with the relevant MS to identify the 
appropriate fishing activities as well as the biological and economic data to be collected. 

11 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Preparations for future data collection under the 
revised  DCF  (STECF-14-24).  2014.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  EUR  26954  EN,  JRC 
93103, 44 pp. 

12  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Review  of  DCF  National  programme 
amendments  for  2015  (the  2013  Annual  Report  for  Bulgaria)  &  development  of  the  revised  DCF  Multiannual 
Programme  (STECF-15-01).  2015.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  EUR27090  EN,  JRC 
94538, 89 pp. 

32 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.2.1.6  Deep-sea regulation, ecosystem data 

The EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that EU MAP should not incorporate the deep-sea regulation and 
provisions as such. The regulation shall be referenced to in the recitals and shall be considered in the 
end-user consultation process. The deep-sea regulation requires more detailed data, but the European 
Commission shall ensure that the deep-sea regulation serves the purpose of data provision under the 
EU MAP. 

5.2.2  Transversal variables 

For transversal variables, the Control Regulation (Regs. 1224/2009 and 404/2011) shall be considered 
as the basis for collecting and providing the data. However, as with other regulations conjunct with the 
EU MAP, the Control Regulation shall be considered in the end-user consultation process and the 
European Commission shall ensure that the Control Regulation serves the purpose of data provision 
under the EU MAP. As described in the STECF report 13-1213 (EWG 13-05), consideration shall be 
given to the data quality collected under the control regulation. If the data is not considered to be 
appropriate, the EU MAP shall facilitate the data collection up to the required level. 

5.2.3  By-catch of non-target species 

In general, incidental by-catch of vulnerable and endangered species (birds, reptiles, mammals and rare 
fish)  shall  be  recorded  up  to  species  level  on  a  haul-by-haul  basis  during  fisheries  observer  trips  by 
default. In case fisheries observer trips are not considered to cover the data collection of incidental by-
catch sufficiently, alternative methodologies may be implemented by MS after approval of RCGs. This 
issue  has  been  extensively  discussed  in  the  EWG  13-18  (STECF  report  14-0214)  and  refined  and 
detailed  in  the  EWG  14-02  (STECF  report  14-0715)  and  has  resulted  in  description  of  adequate 
protocols  and  recording  sheets  for  on-board  sampling.  Coverage  of  metiers  and  appropriate 
methodology  (on-board  sampling)  will  be  described  by  the  relevant  RCGs  in  cooperation  with  the 
specialist  end-users  of  the  data,  international  treaties  and  for  cetaceans  in  line  with  the  appropriate 
regulations in place. 

5.2.4 

Impacts of fisheries on marine habitats 

The EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that the variables describing the impact of fisheries on the marine 
habitat should be covered sufficiently under the Control Regulation as these variables are considered 
as transversal variables and duplication of the collection of these data should be avoided. Should the 
quality of data collected under the Control Regulation be insufficient, either the Control Regulation 
requirements need to be adapted by the Commission to suit the needs, or additional data collection can 
be commenced under the EU MAP, based on the addition through the relevant RCG. Adapting the 
Control Regulation might be more cost-effective than additional data collection under the EU MAP, 
e.g. to avoid the need to install multiple localisation systems onboard fishing vessels. Data transfer and 
data availability shall be granted to fisheries data collectors, thus solving the current issue that data 

13 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Review of DC MAP – Part 2 (STECF-13-12). 

2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26095 EN, JRC 83566, 87 pp. 

14  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Revision  of  DCF  (STECF-14-02).  2014. 

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26573 EN, JRC89196, 103 pp. 

15 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – DCF Revision - part 4 (STECF-14-07). 2014. 

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26612 EN, JRC 89788, 77 pp. 

33 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
collected under the Control Regulation cannot be made available for use beyond the scope of the 
Control Regulation. 

Impacts of fisheries on food webs 

5.2.5 
The EWG 14-02 (STECF report 14-0715) clearly described the issues in collecting stomach data 
including analysis, spatial and temporal coverage and identified that a pilot study is considered to be 
appropriate to test the feasibility for future EU MAP revisions and based on a strict end user needs.  
The pilot study should build upon the experience gained under the MARE 2014/19 studies 
(“Strengthening regional cooperation in the area of fisheries data collection”) as well as the EU “Study 
on the stomach content of fish to support the assessment of GES of marine food webs and the 
prediction of MSY after stock restoration” (MARE/2012/02). Ultimately, the RCG shall decide upon 
the feasibility of inclusion of the data collection in the regional sampling programmes, including 
selection of species, temporal and spatial scale as well as the periodicity and intensity. Priority shall be 
given to address MSFD indicators. The EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that collecting stomach content 
data will not be feasible under the EU MAP before the outcomes of pilot studies are known. 

5.2.6 

 Data on the activity of Union vessels in Union and external waters, including level of fishing 
and of effort and capacity of the Union fleet 

The EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that this issue should be solved under the Control Regulation instead 
of through the EU MAP. This includes data provision to users outside the Control Authorities. 

5.2.7  Thresholds  below  which  Member  States  do  not  need  to  collect  data  or  carry  out  research 

surveys, based on their fishing activities 

The variables survey effort and maximum days can be deleted as these variables are not indicative of 
cost effectiveness and are restrictive to deploying new/additional tasks for ecosystem system data 
collection through already existing surveys. 

The EWG 15-15 agrees with the principles laid out by the EWG 12-01 (STECF report 12-0716) and the 
cost sharing methodology as described in recent RCM reports (e.g. RCM NS&EA 2014, 2015, RCM 
NA 2014, 2015). The EU MAP shall contain a basic list of mandatory international coordinated 
surveys, tested against updated eligibility criteria (as suggested by RCM NA 2015, SGRN 10-0317). 
The criteria can be specified in the Guidance Document accompanying the new EU MAP. The most 
up-to-date survey list is provided by the 2015 RCMs (RCM MED&BS), or in case the RCM did not 
deliver a list, the list as was compiled for and discussed at the EWG 13-05 (STECF report 13-1218).  

In order to review and update the basic list of mandatory surveys, the EWG 15-15 suggests (in line 
with RCM NA, but applicable to all RCGs dealing with EU regions) to organise a dedicated expert 

16  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF).  Review  of  Proposed  DCF  2014-2020  –  Part  1 
(STECF-12-07). 2012. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 25338 EN, JRC 71290, 70 pp. 
17  SCIENTIFIC,  TECHNICAL  AND  ECONOMIC  COMMITTEE  FOR  FISHERIES  (STECF).  SUB-GROUP  ON 
RESEARCH  NEEDS.  SGRN  10-03.  REVIEW  OF  NEEDS  RELATED  TO  SURVEYS.  4  -  8  OCTOBER  2010, 
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM. 

18 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Review of DC MAP – Part 2 (STECF-13-12). 

2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26095 EN, JRC 83566, 87 pp. 

34 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
working group early 2016. This group shall have an up to date list of eligibility criteria available (e.g. 
compiled through an ad-hoc contract) and incorporate the most up-to-date survey list as a basis. For 
the ICES area, the results of the EFARO-ICES meeting on Cooperation in Surveys and Data 
Collection (EIMSD, January 2016) shall be taken into account. In case the proposed workshop is not 
feasible, the survey list produced by STECF EWG 13-05 (STECF report 13-1219) shall form the basic 
list to be included in the initial version of the new EU MAP. The list can then be updated later through 
the RCG procedures and approved by STECF.  

Future international surveys can be included on the basis of the list of eligibility criteria, based upon 
requests by end users and to be decided by the RCGs.  

For cost sharing, the thresholds for MS to share in the survey costs shall be based on the relative share 
of the EU TAC by MS as described in the 2015 RCM reports. The share of the EU TAC is the default 
option. If no EU TAC share exists, RCGs can decide on a different indicator for cost sharing. Also, 
RCGs need to develop a methodology to cost share multi-species surveys, e.g. through setting 
thresholds for groups of species based on the order of the species. Without the need of setting 
conversion factors for e.g. more valuable species as the species under investigation has limited 
influence on the daily vessel prices.  

The PGECON workshop on thresholds, as mentioned in the “Commission proposal for the contents of 
the future EU MAP” (Annex 1), is not of relevance for survey cost shares.  

5.2.8 

(Dis-)aggregation levels 

Disaggregation levels shall be determined in the Guidance Document, based on RCG expertise in 
cooperation with the relevant end-users. Biological data will be available at the highest level of detail, 
thus allowing analysis of the impact of policy measures, while statistical sound sampling procedures 
ensure sufficient coverage serving the purpose of delivering different aggregation levels, including the 
provision of data on a metier level allowing to link biological and economic data. 

5.2.9  Methodology 
As described in various STECF reports (e.g. EWG 13-05, STECF report 13-1219), the new EU MAP 
should not be prescriptive in terms of methodology to collect the data. Possible solutions can be 
described in the Guidance Document, but the appropriate method to collect the data that suits the needs 
of end users is up to the MS and approval for this method shall be sought at the RCGs. Concurrent 
sampling or other strict methodologies shall not be included in the EU MAP. 

19 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Review of DC MAP – Part 2 (STECF-13-12). 

2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26095 EN, JRC 83566, 87 pp. 

35 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.3  Economic and transversal variables 

5.3.1  General observations 

The EWG 15-15 (economists sub-group) addressed the “Commission proposal for the contents of the 
future  EU  MAP”  (see  Annex  1)  and  the  questions  from  the  Commission  on  the  Appendixes  for  the 
future EU MAP.  

The EWG observed that the Commission proposal document was partly inconsistent between columns: 
The “Question to the EWG” did not always match the “Legal provisions” or the “Changes proposed” 
and thus the issue was not always clear. The EWG had to assume what the core question was and tried 
to respond accordingly. 

The EWG also observed that the proposal from the Commission was not updated to the latest advice 
from STECF  (e.g. latest  version  of the  appendix to  the  regulation in  the  STECF report 13-1219)  and 
lacked references  to  literature or  previous documents of  the  expert  and coordination groups (e.g. for 
new variables suggested by the EC for this EWG).  

The EWG 15-15 therefore suggests that previous STECF advice should be considered when drafting 
the EU MAP, in particular with respect to the list of variables to be collected and the segmentation. 

In revising the content of the future EU MAP with respect to the economic modules, the EWG 15-15 
applied the general principle that the EU MAP should include the list of variables, the population to 
which  variables  refer  and  the  minimum  level  of  segmentation  of  the  population.  Other  important 
aspects like the definition of the variables, the resolution, the time frame for collecting and providing 
data  and  the  appropriate  methodology  should  be  included  in  the  Guidance  Document  accompanying 
the EU MAP (see section 5.1). 

This means that the EU MAP should clearly state that MS have to refer to the Guidance Document for 
preparation of the National Work Plans.  

5.3.2  Recreational fisheries 

The  EWG  15-15  considers  that  the  definition  of  recreational  fisheries  has  been  amended  in  the 
proposal for the new DCF regulation (recast). The aim of the proposal is to enlarge the definition of 
“recreational  fisheries”  to  include  all  the  non-commercial  fisheries,  irrespective  of  their  specific 
purpose, in order to cover all forms of fisheries that may affect fish stocks. This will imply a higher 
data collection effort for MS. 

Recreational  fisheries  can  have  a  significant  impact  on  fish  resources  and  basic  data  on  this  sector 
should, therefore, be collected. The focus is on ecosystem impacts of recreational fisheries.  

The EWG 15-15 considers that the use of economic data on recreational fisheries is very low and that 
the actual need is to improve the quality of data on recreational fisheries currently provided through 
the economic data call.  

The Commission asked to advise on the inclusion of the “turnover and employment of the companies 
providing services for recreational fisheries” in the EU MAP. The EWG considers that these variables 
are  not  directly  related  to  the  assessment  of  the  state  of  exploited  marine  biological  resources,  the 
impact  that  fishing  activities  on  the  marine  ecosystems  and  socio-economic  performance  of  the 
fisheries, which are the main aims of the DCF, as defined by article 25 of the CFP (Reg. 1380/2013). 

36 

36 

 
 
 
 
5.3.3  Specific case of long-distance fisheries (external waters) 

The EWG 15-15 was requested to “solve the issue of non-submitted data on segments in the external 
fleet with few vessels”. The EWG is of the opinion that this issue should be dealt within the already 
established  European  legal  framework  on  the  data  protection  authority  and  statistical  confidentiality 
(Reg. 223/2009 on European statistics). 

Clustering procedures are already established and reported in the guidelines for NP and AR. 

5.3.4  Specific case of Outermost regions 
The STECF EWG 14-18 (STECF report 15-0120) already addressed this issue for outermost regions. 

In particular, it was considered that social and economic data collected under DCF should be reported 
for  each  supra  region  and  fleet  segment,  as  defined  on  Appendix  II  and  III,  respectively.  However, 
fleet segments and supra regions do not have enough resolution to distinguish the outermost  regions 
(e.g.,  Azores  is  inside  North  Atlantic,  mixed  with  mainland  vessels),  nor  they  can  distinguish  fleets 
operating exclusively outside Union waters. 
The STECF EWG 14-18 (STECF report 15-0120) proposed the addition of an indicator that can divide 
a fleet segment when there is a need to differentiate an existing segment. 

5.3.5  Transversal variables (Appendix VIII) 

The  group  recommends  considering  what  has  been  already  discussed  and  recommended  in  previous 
STECF meetings (in particular: EWG 13-02, STECF report 13-0621; and EWG 13-05, STECF report 
13-1222). 

The appendix on transversal data  should  be  maintained to  inform on the  variables  to be collected in 
case Member States implement additional collection of the data concerned (EWG 13-05). In addition, 
effort  variables  have  to  be  specified  for  the  artisanal  fisheries.  The  group  advises  to  consider  the 
outcome  of  the  DCF  Workshop  on  "Common  understanding  and  statistical  methodologies  to 
estimate/re-evaluate transversal data in small-scale fisheries" (Nantes, 21-23 May 2013), endorsed by 
PGECON and the 2014 LM. One of the outcomes of the workshop was a proposal for new EU MAP 
requirements for vessels < 10 meters.  

Regarding the content of the appendix, the columns “Heading”, “Variable” and “Unit” should be kept; 
while  the  columns  “Gear  (Level  2  in  the  matrix)”,  “Disaggregation  Level”  and  “Reference  period” 
could  be  deleted.  Disaggregation  levels  and  specifications  could  be  provided  by  the  Guidance 
Document. In particular, the Guidance Document should adopt the conclusions of the DCF workshop 
on transversal data, as already revised by STECF (Report on the Workshop on Transversal Variables, 
linking economic and biological effort data (call) design, Zagreb, 19-23 January 2015). 

The EWG 15-15 also considers that transversal data on the value and volume of catches and landings, 
fishing effort and fleet capacity are essential for the definition of fleet segments and fisheries. They are 

20  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Review  of  DCF  National  programme 
amendments  for  2015  (the  2013  Annual  Report  for  Bulgaria)  &  development  of  the  revised  DCF  Multiannual 
Programme  (STECF-15-01).  2015.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  EUR27090  EN,  JRC 
94538, 89 pp. 

21 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Review of DC MAP – Part 1 (STECF-13-06). 

2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 25974 EN, JRC 81593, 42 pp. 

22 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Review of DC MAP – Part 2 (STECF-13-12). 

2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26095 EN, JRC 83566, 87 pp. 

37 

37 

 
 
 
                                                 
the  basis  for  the  sampling  schemes  (biological  and  economic  surveys)  and  they  provide  the  link 
between economic and biological data. 

Considering the wide use of these data, a structured database of transversal data at the highest level of 
resolution  should  be  made  available  at  regional  and  European  level.  This  issue  will  be  further 
discussed at the Transversal Data Workshop to be held in February 2016. 

5.3.6  Data on the activity of Union vessels in Union and external waters, including level of fishing 

and of effort and capacity of the Union fleet 

The EWG 15-15 was requested to “solve the issue of non-submitted data on segments in the external 
fleet  with  few  vessels”.  EWG  cannot  see  the  link  between  the  “legal  provision”  (i.e.  “data  on  the 
activity  of  union  vessels…”),  the  proposed  changes  (“Remove  duplication…”)  and  the  question 
mentioned before. 

The  issue  of  confidentiality  has  been  addressed  under  the  point  on  “Specific  case  of  long-distance 
fisheries (external waters)”. 

Referring  to  the  specific  case  of  vessels  not  covered  by  logbook  or  VMS  obligation  (for  example, 
small-scale  fleet),  the  EWG  considers  essential  to  maintain  the  current  provisions,  requiring  the 
collection of activity data under the DCF. 

Further  considerations  on  this  issue  have  been  provided  recently  by  STECF  Plenary  (PLEN  15-03 
report, section 6.12). 

5.3.7  Socio-economic data on fisheries to enable the assessment of the socio-economic performance 

of the Union fisheries sector 

The EWG 15-15 suggests to consider what has been already discussed and recommended in previous 
STECF meetings. This includes the advice to no longer use the expression “socio-economic”, but treat 
these fields separately as “social data” and “economic data”.  

Several changes have been already proposed to Appendix VI (List of Economic variables for the fleet) 
by EWG 13-05 (STECF report 13-1223, appendix XI, page 63).  

The EWG 15-15 considers this Appendix from EWG 13-05 as the baseline for discussion.  

As a general comment, the appendix in the EU MAP should only include the list of variables and the 
column “unit” (without any additional information in brackets). The column on “specification for the 
collection of data” is no longer necessary, as the Guidance Document will provide these details. 

The  EU  MAP  should  specify  (in  the  text  or  as  a  footnote  to  the  economic  appendix)  that  the  basic 
segmentation to collect and provide economic data is reported in Appendix III (fleet segmentation by 
Region). Different levels of segmentation could be proposed by the EU Co-ordination Group (EUCG) 
and included in the Guidance Document, thus allowing to consider specific data needs. For this aim, 
the  EWG suggests  to  follow the  approach proposed  by STECF EWG 14-18 (report STECF 15-0124; 
the  addition  of  an  indicator  that  can  divide  a  fleet  segment  when  there  is  a  need  to  differentiate  an 
existing segment). This approach should be described in the Guidance Document. 

23 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Review of DC MAP – Part 2 (STECF-13-12). 

2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26095 EN, JRC 83566, 87 pp. 

24  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Review  of  DCF  National  programme 
amendments  for  2015  (the  2013  Annual  Report  for  Bulgaria)  &  development  of  the  revised  DCF  Multiannual 
Programme  (STECF-15-01).  2015.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  EUR27090  EN,  JRC 
94538, 89 pp. 

38 

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  footnotes  currently  included  in  Appendix  VI  can  be  deleted  because  they  refer  to  definition  or 
specification of variables. 

Size  categories  for  the  variable  “number  of  fishing  enterprises”  could  be  specified  in  the  Guidance 
Document.  

Regarding subsidies, the EWG 15-15 reviewed previous STECF reports and the JRC Report on DCF 
economics (Background documents) and suggests to include fuel subsidies in the list of variables to be 
collected. In addition, subsidies on investments should be included. In this way, all the different three 
categories  of  subsidies  are  included  separately  (direct/operating  subsidies,  subsidies  on  investments, 
fuel  subsidies).  This  proposal  is  also  in  line  with  the  glossary  of  the  economic  terms  presented  and 
discussed in PGECON 2013, as endorsed by 2013 LM. The Guidance Document should inform on the 
definition,  methodologies  and  consistency  with  the  Structural  Business  Statistics  (SBS,  Reg. 
295/2008). 

Regarding  the  issue  of  long/short  term  debt,  the  group  recalls  what  suggested  by  the  EWG  13-05 
(STECF report 13-1223).  All  debts have  to  be  collected,  irrespective if they  are due within a year  or 
later. The group points out that the variable “debt” as well the variable “total assets” should refer to the 
vessel  and  not  to  the  fishery  enterprise.    This  aspect  should  be  carefully  reported  in  the  Guidance 
Document  that  could  also  advise  on  the  fleet  segments  for  which  these  variables  are  requested  (for 
instance excluding the artisanal fishery).   

The EWG 15-15 suggests changing the variable “interest costs” into “financial results” in order to be 
consistent with SBS and to take into account the interest income and not only the interest costs.  

The  EWG  further  considered  the  issue  of  fuel  subsidies.  In  the  future,  both  tax  exemption  and  tax 
refund should be treated as fuel subsidies. However, they have different implications on the calculation 
of economic performance. If a tax refund applies, then the fuel costs include the tax, whereas in the 
case of tax exemption, the fuel costs reflect the costs without tax. For economic performance, net fuel 
costs should be used. Therefore, MSs should report NET fuel costs in all cases. MSs, as it stands, can 
report total paid fuel costs including, in some instances, fuel tax before reimbursement. With this new 
proposed approach the MS, with tax reimbursement, will have to report fuel costs without taxes, i.e. 
they will have to deduct fuel tax refunds from the gross fuel costs prior to reporting. The EWG also 
discussed  the  alternative  option  of  reporting  fuel  tax  refund  and  fuel  tax  exemption  separately. 
However,  it  was  concluded  that  the  number  of  variables  should  not  be  further  increased  unless 
necessary  and  that  the  homogeneous  usage  of  fuel  costs  without tax  in  all  cases  would  facilitate  the 
comparison between MS. 

5.3.8  Socio-economic  data  on  aquaculture  to  enable  the  assessment  of  the  socio-economic 

performance of the Union aquaculture sector 

The  EWG  15-15  advises  to  no  longer  use  the  expression  “socio-economic”,  but  treat  these  fields 
separately as “social data” and “economic data”. 

The  EWG  discussed  the  key  changes,  proposed  by  the  DG  MARE  and  listed  in  the  Commission 
proposal on the content of the future EU MAP. Which are: 

1.  ‘Enterprises  whose  primary  activity  is  defined  according  to  the  Eurostat  NACE  codes  03.21 

and 03.22 and who operate for profit'. 

2.  Operating subsidies 
3.  Species  “tuna”,  “eel”,  “seaweeds”,  “eggs  for  human  consumption”,  “crustaceans”,  “other 

molluscs”, “polyculture” and “other aquatic organisms” 

4.  Aquaculture  techniques.  For  fish  farming  techniques  definition  of  EUROSTAT  (“ponds”, 
“tanks  and  raceways”,  “enclosures  and  pens”,  “cages”,  “recirculation  systems”,  “other 

39 

39 

 
 
methods”,  “combined”)  with  the  addition  of  “hatcheries  and  nurseries”  as  separate  segments. 
For shellfish techniques (“rafts” and “longline”, “Off-bottom”). 

The EWG 15-15 discussed the proposal and agreed that these changes are in line with the results of the 
“Workshop on Aquaculture Data Collection” held in Gdynia (15-19 June 2015), previous discussions 
of the STECF EWGs and the JRC report on the “Analysis of socio-economic variables for fisheries, 
aquaculture  and  fish  processing  sectors  in  support  of  the  revision  of  the  EU  Data  Collection 
Framework” and should be implemented in the future EU MAP. Consequently, the modified Appendix 
XI seems changed in line with these discussions. However, the EWG noted that “cages” are missing 
from  the  Appendix  XI  and  should  be  reported.  The  minor  adjustment  suggested  by  the  group  is  to 
move seaweeds to the end of the list of species groups. 

The  EWG  also  discussed  the  modification  of  Appendix  X  in  order  to  align  it  with  EUROSTAT 
avoiding duplication of data collection. The EWG did not fully understand the proposal to delete the 
variable turnover and include ‘Gross transactions’ and where ‘Gross transactions return’ was coming 
from  and  would  advise  DG  MARE  to  consult  the  report  of  the  Workshop  on  Aquaculture  Data 
Collection (Gdynia, June 2015) where the possibility to collect data for Eurostat and DCF through the 
same data collection system and questionnaire allowing for the gradual alignment of the Eurostat and 
DCF data collection systems was discussed and most MS, collecting data for DCF were present.  

It  was  considered  not  appropriate  to  remove  the  turnover  from  the  variable  list  in  the  DCF.  The 
removal of this variable from the EU MAP might lead to a lack of comparability between the costs and 
some income indicators, which are estimated and based on the results of economic survey and value of 
production  (current  turnover).  It  should  be  considered  that  EUROSTAT  collects  only  production  by 
species  and  average  prices  for  all  production  units,  involved  in  fish  farming,  while  the  EU  MAP 
objective  is  to  concentrate  on  the  economic  activity  of  the  enterprises,  for  which  aquaculture  is  the 
primary activity. According to the  report on the Workshop on Aquaculture Data Collection (Gdynia, 
June  2015),  ‘Most  MSs  are  currently  avoiding  duplication  of  data  collection.  In  a  minority  of  MSs, 
Eurostat  and  DCF  data  are  collected  by  two  different  institutions  and  contain  different  information 
which  is  available  at  different  periods  of  the  year;  therefore  it  is  not  feasible  to  combine  data 
collection into one single questionnaire’.  

The modified Appendix X provided by the Commission for the EWG also did not take into account the 
proposals made by STECF EWG 13-05 (STECF report 13-1225) and in the JRC report28. Additionally 
to the proposals made by previous STECF EWGs on the EU MAP, it is also advisable to: 

 

 

remove  variables  ‘extraordinary  costs’ and  ‘extraordinary income’,  as  these  indicators  do  not 
refer to usual activity of the aquaculture enterprise, were not used for analysis and seem not to 
be  useful  for  the  EU  MAP  purposes.  Nevertheless,  MS  should  make  sure  that  extraordinary 
results are not included under any of the costs/income category. 
further  methodology  on  aggregation  level,  observation  unit  and  etc.  should  be  provided  for 
social indicators (see section on social indicator)  

  Separate  subsidies  to  the  separate  variable  group  ‘subsidies’  with  two  variables:  ‘operating 
subsidies’  and  ‘subsidies  on  investments’26.  This  proposal  is  in  line  with  the  glossary  of  the 
economic terms presented and discussed in PGECON 2013 and FADN statistics on agriculture 
where subsidies play a crucial role in the sector analysis27.  
It is also advised by the report on the Workshop on Aquaculture Data Collection (Gdynia, June 
2015) to change the name of the variable ‘Turnover’ to ‘Gross value of production’ and include 

 

25 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Review of DC MAP – Part 2 (STECF-13-12). 

2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26095 EN, JRC 83566, 87 pp. 

26 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/infometa_en.cfm?metavar=SE406  
27  See  also  JRC  Science  and  Policy  report.  Analysis  of  socio-economic  variables  for  fisheries,  aquaculture  and  fish 

processing sectors in support of the revision of the EU Data Collection Framework, p.16-27. 

40 

40 

 
                                                 
additional  variables  called  Livestock  weight  and  value  in  the  end  of  the  year  as  proposed  in 
JRC report28 and STECF EWG 13-0525 page 17. 

The thresholds  have  also been  discussed  by  the  Workshop on Aquaculture Data Collection (Gdynia, 
June 2015). It was agreed that there is no need to define threshold on the EU level and in case a MS 
has a problem with data collection, it should be allowed to justify the application of threshold to the 
Commission.  In case production data is available on census basis from the legislation on aquaculture 
production statistics, the economic data, usually collected through the sampling survey, could be easily 
raised to cover all the sector. 

During discussions on the resolution of data at NUTS3 level (employment and value of production), 
the EWG 15-15 agreed that weight of production and number of enterprises could be included in the 
list  of  variables.  The  EWG  also  agreed  that  NUTS3  level  might  be  too  detailed  for  some  countries, 
therefore NUTS2 could be obligatory and NUTS3 could be an optional aggregation level.  

The  group  was  asked  to  cover  environmental  indicators  (medicines,  chemicals  and  mortalities), 
however this issue has to be addressed by an appropriate group of experts. It was not clear what the use 
of  these  indicators  is  and  how  they  could  help  to  assess  environmental  impact  of  the  aquaculture 
activities as well as if they are really needed on the national level. Extensive information on this issue 
is provided in the reports from the Workshop on Aquaculture Data Collection (Gdynia, June 2015) and 
from JRC on aquaculture and ICES Working Group on Aquaculture (WGAQUA). 

5.3.9  Socio-economic  data  on  the  fish  processing  sector  to  enable  the  assessment  of  the  socio-

economic performance of the sector 

The  EWG  15-15  advises  to  no  longer  use  the  expression  “socio-economic”,  but  treat  these  fields 
separately as “social data” and “economic data”. 

The  EWG  considers  that  in  order  to  assess  the  economic  performance  of  the  fish  processing  sector 
there  is  a  need  to  provide  data  through  the  EU  MAP,  and  a  for  this  purpose  a  list  of  variables 
(Appendix XII) should be included. The method of collection should not be specified in the EU MAP 
and MS should have the possibility of providing the data collected for SBS and complementing them 
where necessary (for example for small companies). The main differences between DCF and SBS data 
are reported in the STECF report 13-3129.  

Given these differences, the provision of economic data only through the SBS, while removing some 
duplication in data collection, would pose some limitation to the analysis provided through the current 
DCF. 

To preserve the current level of analysis, the EWG 15-15 considers that additional data collection for 
the  processing  industry  under  the  DCF  is  needed  to  cover  enterprises  not  included  in  the  SBS 
population and several variables which are used to assess the economic importance of the processing 
sector such as investment subsidies and raw materials costs.  

If the current level of analysis and coverage is a requirement by end users and the EC, then Appendix 
XII should be kept with the entire list of variables. In this case, EWG suggests inclusion of variables 
listed in Appendix XIV of STECF EWG 13-05 with the following changes: 

The  EWG  15-15  suggests  that  ‘Extraordinary  costs’  and  ‘Extraordinary  income’  should  not  be 
included, as they are not directly related to the processing activity of the enterprise.  

28  JRC  Science  and  Policy  report.  Analysis  of  socio-economic  variables  for  fisheries,  aquaculture  and  fish  processing 

sectors in support of the revision of the EU Data Collection Framework 

29 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – The Economic Performance Report on the EU 
Fish Processing sector (STECF-13-31). 2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26444 EN, 
JRC 87692, 223 pp. 

41 

41 

 
 
                                                 
The EWG suggests removing the variable Subsidies and include Operating subsidies and Subsidies on 
investment  as  separate  variables.  The  distinction  between  types  of  subsides  would  be  important  for 
some industries and regions and for the evaluation of EMFF funding.  

The other option is to rely on SBS and complement them only for the residual part of the population 
but this will result in a more superficial analysis. 

Besides the existing variable on Raw  material costs, the  group suggests, to  evaluate the inclusion of 
variables on the origin and species of raw materials which are needed to establish a link to fisheries 
after  a  pilot  study  (“Origin  and  Sources  of  Raw  Material  in  the  European  Seafood  Industry“)  as 
suggested  in  PGECON  and  endorsed  by  the  Liaison  meeting  starting  from  2012,  as  well  as  STECF 
EWG 13-05 (report STECF 13-1230). 

5.3.10  Social variables on the fleet, aquaculture & processing sectors 
The EWG 15-15 recalls what was recommended by the STECF EWG 13-0530. In particular, the EWG 
13-05 agreed with  PGECON  that before social data are included in  the  new EU  MAP, a  pilot  study 
should  be  conducted  on  how  data  should  be  collected,  which  data  are  already  available  through 
common  sources  and  what  are  the  applications/end-user  requirements.  A  reference  for  this  type  of 
study could be the study report “Lot 3 Socio-economic dimensions in EU fisheries”31 and related sub-
case study reports. 

The aggregation level for collecting and providing social indicators could differ from the aggregation 
level requested for economic data on the fleet, aquaculture & processing sectors. This issue should also 
be addressed by the pilot study and results should then be included in the Guidance Document. 

5.3.11  (Dis-)aggregation levels 

The EWG 15-15 discussed the issue of disaggregation levels for the economic data of the fleet and the 
needs to link the economic and the biological information. 

The  EU  MAP  should  clearly  define  the  population  for  the  collection  of  economic  variables  (the 
population  is  all  vessels  in  the  EU  Fishing  Fleet  Register  on  December  31st  and  any  active  vessel 
fishing  at  least  one  day  during  the  year,  EWG  13-05).  In  addition,  capital  value,  capital  cost, 
investments  and  subsidies  on  investment  have  to  be  collected  for  inactive  vessels.  This  provision 
should be clearly specified in EU MAP. 

In addition, the EU MAP should specify (in the text or as a footnote to the economic appendix) that the 
basic  segmentation  to  collect  and  provide  economic  data  is  reported  in  appendix  III  (fleet 
segmentation). This provision is justified by the fact that regular data streaming is possible only if we 
fix the level of aggregation. 

Under this scheme, the link of economic data with biological data is possible only if transversal data 
are  made  available  at  an  appropriate  level  of  aggregation.  In  a  long-term  scenario,  transmission  of 
detailed  transversal  data,  adequately  treated  to  overcome  the  confidentiality  issue,  will  allow  to 
provide economic data at any level of aggregation that will be requested by specific end users’ needs. 

30 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Review of DC MAP – Part 2 (STECF-13-12). 

2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26095 EN, JRC 83566, 87 pp. 

31  Studies  for  carrying  out  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy:  Lot  3  Socio-economic  dimensions  in  EU  fisheries. 

MARE/2011/07. Final Report, October 2013, 142 pp. 

42 

42 

 
 
 
                                                 
In  the  short  term,  a  specific  data  call  on  transversal  data  should  be  regularly  launched  at  European 
level.  A  first  step  in  this  direction  was  done  in  the  2014  economic  data  call,  where  transversal  data 
(value, volume and landings and effort) were requested for fleet segment, gear type and sub-region. 

5.3.12  Thresholds  below  which  Member  States  do  not  need  to  collect  data  or  carry  out  research 

surveys, based on their fishing activities 

The issue of threshold in the context of fleet economic data and transversal data was addressed by a 
DCF  workshop  held  in  2014.  A  follow-up  of  this  WS  was  proposed  by  PGECON  and  endorsed  by 
2015 LM.  

The objective of threshold application in the context of economic and transversal data is to enable the 
distinction  in  the  reporting  of  the  data  for  “normally  active  vessels”  and  “low  activity  vessels”, 
however  data  collection  should  cover  the  entire  population  of  vessels  included  in  the  fleet  register. 
Sub-stratification  of  fleet  segment  data  should  contribute  to  higher  quality  of  data.  A  workshop  on 
further  development  of  thresholds  application  in  a  regional  context  has  been  recommended  by 
PGECON 2015 and should be held in the beginning of 2016. It was also suggested that the application 
of  a  threshold  should  be  optional.  If  a  MS  applies  a  threshold  for  reporting,  a  rationale  should  be 
included in the national work plan. 

5.4  Revision of the EU MAP appendices 

Apart from commenting on the Commission proposals for the future EU Multi-annual Programme for 
Data  Collection  (EU  MAP,  Annex  1),  the  EWG  15-15  was  asked  to  revise  the  Appendices  of  the 
current EU MAP (Commission Decision 2010/93/EU). 

Appendix I:  Regional Fisheries Management Organisations 

The EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that the structure of the table and the definitions of the headings of 
this  table  are  to  be  inserted  into  the  EU  MAP.  The  description  of  the  levels  will  be  inserted  in  the 
Guidance Document (see Fig. 5.1.1).  

In linkage with Appendix II, a study suggested by DG MARE to analyse and determine the needs for 
the Outermost Regions should be started. The outcomes of this study could result in modifications to 
Appendix I. 

To avoid possible confusions, the reference to “Geographic stratification” in the title of the Appendix I 
should be removed.  

Appendix II: Geographical stratification by Region 
In the STECF EWG 14-18 (STECF report 15-0132), a new Appendix II was agreed to be used in the 
EU  MAP  and  the  Guidance  Document.  The  EWG  15-15  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  Appendix  II  as 
proposed in the Excel file, is replaced by the Appendix II from STECF EWG 14-18 (STECF report 15-
01, p. 37).  

32  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Review  of  DCF  National  programme 
amendments for 2015 (the 2013 Annual Report for Bulgaria) & development of the revised DCF Multiannual Programme 
(STECF-15-01). 2015. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR27090 EN, JRC 94538, 89 pp. 

43 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Linked to Appendix II, DG MARE proposed to implement a study to analyse and determine the needs 
for the Outermost Regions. Based on the outcome of this study, the content of the table in Appendix I 
could still change.  

The EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that the structure of the table and the definitions of the headings of 
this table are to be inserted into the EU MAP. The description of the three levels should be inserted in 
the Guidance Document as some flexibility could be needed in establishing the Supra Region.  

Appendix III: Fleet segmentation by Region 

In  this appendix,  the  Length  classes (LOA)  should  be based  on the  Control  Regulation  (Regulations 
1224/2009 and 404/2011) and input from RCGs. 

Appendix IV: Fishing activity (metier) by Region  

The EWG 15-15 agrees to continue using this Appendix and is of the opinion that the structure of the 
table and the definitions of the headings of this table, are to be inserted into the EU MAP, as described 
and agreed by STECF EWG 14-02 (STECF report 14-0733).   

The further content of the table is to be  developed by Region and this shall be done by the different 
RCGs, as was previously agreed by STECF EWG 14-02 (STECF report 14-0733).  

For the implementation of Level 1-4, there is a need to have an alignment with an existing and formal 
coding system. The EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that the Control Regulation covers the coding of the 
Level 1-4, the coding on Level 5 and Level 6 shall be established on regional level and defined by the 
different  RCGs  and  inserted  in  the  Guidance  Document.  This  Appendix  is  either  for  the  use  of 
reporting or used in the data collection.  

In  the  proposed  Excel  table,  recreational  fisheries  is  referred  to  as  a  metier,  however,  ‘recreational 
fisheries’  is  not  a  metier  but  a  separate  entity  and  thus  should  be  handled  in  a  separate  list  (see 
comments on Appendix VII below). 

Appendix V: Disaggregation levels used for the collection of data 

To be deleted. 

Appendix VI: List of Economic variables 

See section 5.3.7. 

33 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – DCF Revision - part 4 (STECF-14-07). 2014. 

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26612 EN, JRC 89788, 77 pp. 

44 

44 

Activity (a)Gear classes (b)Gear groups©Gear type (d)Target assemblage(e)Mesh size and other selective devices (f)to be decided by the RCGs and PGECONLOA classes (m)Level 5Level 6 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Appendix VII - List of Biological variables with species sampling specification 

The EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that before the Appendix VII with biological variables is established, 
the  proposed  “Appendix  VII  Policy  needs”  (=  Appendix  XX  -  Policy  Needs),  should  be  established 
first.  

The EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that the structure of the table and the definitions of the headings of 
the table with List of Biological Variables, are to be inserted into the EU MAP, as  described in and 
agreed by STECF EWG 14-02 (STECF report 14-0734). 

The further content of the table is to be developed by each Region and shall be done by the different 
RCGs,  as  was  described  and  agreed  by  STECF  EWG  14-02  (STECF  report  14-0734),  and  will  be 
available in the Guidance Document.  

Coding of species should be determined by the RCGs and presented in the Guidance Document. The 
STECF EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that the coding for the species, should be in alignment with the 
coding used in the Control Regulation, in order to achieve a standard system over all RCGs. 
During the STECF EWG 14-02 (STECF report 14-0734), it was agreed that within the RCGs a basic 
list  of  species  is  established,  with  the  core  variables  to  be  collected,  and  the  periodicity  (annual, 
biannual  or  triennial).  These  basic  lists  should  be  available  in  the  EU  MAP.  Additional  variables 
should be left to the end-user consultation process, as described in STECF EWG 14-02 (STECF report 
14-0734). Unless a RCG agrees on changes, these variables are left on EU level. In the case of RCG 
decisions on changes, these would override the EU MAP. 

Three different basic list shall be compiled by each RCG, i.e. a list for the stocks, a list for recreational 
fisheries and a list for PETS/Vulnerable species, with the relevant biological variables linked to each 
species, suiting the needs of the end-users. 

The EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that the starting point for the three basic lists are the most up to date 
version, as established in the RCMs 2015 (list of stocks and recreational fisheries) and for the PETS 
the  outcome  of  the  STECF  EWG  13-18  (STECF  report  14-0235)  and  STECF  EWG  14-02  (STECF 
report 14-0734). 

Appendix VII + policy needs: = Appendix XX - Policy Need 

The EWG 15-15 supports the introduction of such an Appendix, where for all species, the applicable 
Policy  is  indicated.  The  compilation  and  the  maintenance  of  this  new  Appendix  XX  Policy  Need  is 
suggested to be undertaken by the EU (DG MARE), in consultation with the end-users, RCGs etc. and 
shall be available on the website of the Data Collection Regulation. A reference to this list and the link 
to the website shall be inserted in the EU MAP. 

34 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – DCF Revision - part 4 (STECF-14-07). 2014. 

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26612 EN, JRC 89788, 77 pp. 

35  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Revision  of  DCF  (STECF-14-02).  2014. 

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26573 EN, JRC89196, 103 pp. 

45 

45 

Appendix VII: List of Biological variables with species sampling specification(Y= Yearly; T= every three years)in guidelinesOtherCODEWeightSexMaturityFecunditySpecies (Engl.)Species (Latin)TAC area or management Species group(a)Ageno/1000t 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  the  proposed  table,  STECF  EWG  15-15  advises  to  insert  three  additional  columns,  for  indication 
which  species  are  relevant  for  Landing  Obligation  (LO),  de  minimis  rule  and  PETS/Vulnerable 
species. Regarding Column C, the EWG 15-15 supports to have the information by individual area. 

The EWG 15-15 proposes the RCG to use this Appendix as the basis for discussion in RCGs, in order 
to compile the list of species and biological variables to be collected, by Region (Appendix VII).  

Appendix  VII  should  consist  of  three  different  basic  list  of  species  and  biological  variables  to  be 
collected. These three basic list should be compiled by each RCG, i.e. a list for the stocks, a list for 
recreational  fisheries  and  a  list  for  PETS/Vulnerable  species,  with  the  relevant  biological  variables 
linked to each species, suiting the needs of the end-users and should be available in the EU MAP.  

The  EWG  15-15  is  of  the  opinion  that  input  from  end-users  would  be  of  useful  by  May  2016  for 
Appendix VII (for all species, incl. recreational and PETS). 

Appendix VIII: List of transversal variables with sampling specification 

In the DCF (Regulation), the obligation is present that MS have to collect the variables according to 
existing Regulations.  

The EU MAP refers to the link of the latest Regulation on capacity, catch, value, effort. If any reviews 
of  the  used  Regulations  occur,  this  overwrites  the  current  list.  In  the  “Guidance  Document”,  the 
detailed list should be available.  

For the different transversal variables to collect, the following should apply:  

-  Capacity: all MS have fleet register, therefore no additional data collection on capacity need to 

be applied 

-  Catch/ Landings data:  

o  All vessels > 10m have to carry a logbook. With the Landing Obligation (LO), it 

implies that all landings of species, for which the LO is applied, need to be registered. If 
no logbook is available, sales notes or landing declarations need to be in place. As such, 
a MS can decide not to apply additional data collection if these are available for all fleet 
segments.  

However, when in evaluating the quality of these data and the quality is not complying 
with the quality required for the data collection or for scientific purpose, these data can 
be collected in another way under the Data Collection. This is to be decided within the 
RCGs.  

  Option 1: to improve data collection on a national level (MS), taking the data 

collected under the Control Regulation into consideration. If this is not feasible 
or not achievable, then, option 2 is applicable. 

  Option 2: to implement an alternative procedure to collect these data with the 

relevant quality.   

o  All vessels < 10m: according to the Control Regulation, each MS need to have a 

reporting system in place on national level, e.g. sales notes, fishing calendar, sampling 
schemes etc.. This should form the basis of the collection of the catch data. As such, a 

46 

46 

Species (Engl.)Species (Latin)CODETAC area  or mangement areaLanding obligationDe MinimisICES MoU (b)TACs & Quotas (c) MED REG (min. cons. size) (d)National Management PlanEU Management PlanDeep-sea reg proposal (a)RFMOsSFPAs (e) GFCM stock assessment Current ICES categoryEU Action Plan for SharksPETS International obligationsOther 
 
 
 
 
MS can decide not to apply additional data collection, where these reporting systems 
are in place.  

However, when evaluating the quality of these data and the quality is not complying 
with the quality required for the data collection or for scientific purpose, these data can 
be collected in another way under the Data Collection. This is to be decided within the 
RCGs.  

  Option 1: to improve the data collection on a national level (MS), if this is not 

feasible or not achievable, then, option 2 is applicable. 

  Option 2: to implement an alternative procedure to collect these data with the 

relevant quality.  

Depending  on  the  national  situation,  a  national  threshold  to  collect  the  variables  of  the  landings  by 
vessels  <  10m  could  be  required.  The  application  of  the  national  threshold  and  the  estimation 
methodology should be decided in the relevant RCG. 

The EWG 15-15 is of the opinion that when option 2 need to be applied, the MS should put in to place 
the  methodology,  the  quality  targeted  that  allow  to  achieve  the  required  minimum  aggregation  level 
according  to  Appendix  1  (Regional  Fisheries  Management  Organisations  -  level  4),  monthly 
segmentation. Fleet gear should be decided on the regional level (RCGs), depending on the end-user 
needs.  

-  Effort: for effort the similar approach as described with catch/landings is applicable. However, 
for the specific variables to be estimated should be specified in the “Guidance Document”, 
according to the best practices and harmonized between MS and end-user needs. 

Further comments on Appendix VIII are given in section 5.3.5. 

Appendix IX - List of research surveys at sea 

See section 5.2.7. 

Appendix X: List of economic variables for the aquaculture sector 

See section 5.3.8. 

Appendix XI: Sector segmentation to be applied for the collection of aquaculture data 

See section 5.3.8. 

Appendix XII: List of economic variables for the processing industry sector  

See section 5.3.9. 

Appendix XIII: Definition of environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the 
marine ecosystem 

STECF EWG 15-15 agrees to delete the Appendix XIII.  

47 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
However, in consultation with the end-users, the RCGs will establish rules and methodologies for the 
calculation of the ecosystem indicators in the different regions. This information will be inserted in the 
Guidance Document. 

New Appendix: List of social variables for the fleet, processing and aquaculture sector 

See section 5.3.10. 

48 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Document provided by the European Commission for input on ToR Part III (EU MAP). 

Commission proposal for the contents of the future EU MAP 

November 2015 

Legal provision (in DCF proposal) 

Changes proposed compared to the current EU MAP 

Questions to the STECF-EWG 15-15 

i)  Biological  data  on  all  stocks  caught  or  by-
caught  by  Union  commercial  and,  where 
appropriate,  recreational  fisheries  in  Union 
and  external  waters  to  enable  ecosystem 
based  management  and  conservation  as 
necessary  for  the  operation  of  the  Common 
Fisheries Policy;  

Appendix VII (in the excel file “EU MAP Appendices”) needs to 
be  based  on  end  user  needs  and  was  therefore  updated  with 
policy needs and additional species. 

Species  without  policy  needs  should  be  considered  to  be 
removed.  For  all  species  the  policy  needs  must  therefore  be 
indicated.  After  a  recommendation  made  by  the  Baltic  RCM, 
we  decided  to  remove  the  Baltic  pike  from  the  species  list  in 
Appendix VII (currently the only species to be removed).  

The  Commission  considers  to  remove  the    frequency  of  data 
collection column from the table  

-For commercial fishing (in general) 

-Review  of  stocks 
Appendix VII” in the excel file EU MAP Appendices) 

included  (see 

  spreadsheet  “modified 

-Review of the biological variables for each stock 

-Inclusion of a new variable for some stocks: stomach content* 

49 

49 

What data should be collected on a regional basis?  

What  should  be  the  frequency  of  data  collection  and  how 
should  frequency  by  determined  in  the  legal  text  (by  RCGs)? 
Ideally the frequency of data collection should reflect the need 
for stock assessment. What information can be removed from 
the  text  and  appear  only  in  the  regional  work  plan?  Do  all 
Member States need that detailed level of instructions for their 
WP? 

For species without identified policy needs, STECF should verify 
whether there is a need to collect data for any of those species 
or  advise  which  of  those  species  can  be  removed  from  the 
amended  species  list  (see  spreadsheet  “Appendix  VII  Policy 
needs”) 

1)  For  all  stocks  caught  or  by-caught  by  Union  commercial, 
agree  on  what  minimum  data  should  be  collected  by  MS  (eg 
catch composition) and whether Control Reg can provide all of 
this  or  whether  EU  MAP  should  include  some  data  collection 
requirements too (eg if we want also length composition).  

2)  Identify  stocks  that  are  managed  or  protected  at  EU  or 
international level and data collection requirements stemming 
there  from    (see  “Fiche  on  biological  data  on  commercial 
fisheries”) 

 
 
 
 
 
-For recreational fisheries 

-Specific case of eels & salmon 

-  A  new  variable  on  the  number  of  licences  or  number  of 
licensed fishermen for recreational fisheries is requested. 

-Current  approach  of  listing  metiers  for  which  recreational 
fisheries data should be collected is not appropriate  

– makes more sense by stock (or for whole sector).  

-Reference to all 'sharks' not clear.  

-Current  species  covered  (and  areas)  don't  match  end-user 
needs in some cases. 

- If more biological data on this activity is requested, the survey 
could be complemented with the turnover and employment of 
the companies providing services for recreational fisheries. 

-Move from quarterly to annual catch levels. 

-Current  EU  MAP  requirements  are  not  appropriate/sufficient 
for eel and salmon. We need a different approach to the rest of 
the commercial stocks. The proposed way forward is to identify 
the  policy  needs  per  species  in  Appendix  VII,  considering 
obligations  stemming  from  EU  legislation  (eg  Eel  regulation) 
(see spreadsheet “Appendix VII Policy needs” and the “Fiche on 
eels and salmon”) 

-  STECF  to  provide  input  on  what  recreational  fishery  data 
(biological,  economic  and  fisheries  activity)  are  needed  to 
support  scientific  advice  (see  ICES  document  “Recreational 
fisheries for ICES WG” and “Fiche on recreational fisheries”). 

-Could  a  one-off  study  on  survivability  of  released  fish  be 
considered as it may be relevant for stock assessments?  

-Consider 
fisheries too? 

including  socio-economic  data  on  recreational 

-Consult  the  ICES  workshop  on  eel  and  salmon  (WKESDCF) 
regarding  specifically  what  data  collection  needs  exist. 
http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Gro
up%20Report/acom/2012/WKESDCF/WKESDCF%20report%202
012.pdf 

- STECF EWG12-15 REVIEW OF PROPOSED DCF 2014-2020 PART 
2 

http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/435014/2013-
01_STECF+13-01+-+Review+of+proposed+DCF+2014-
2020_JRC79209.pdf   

-STECF EWG13-06 Review of DC MAP Part I 

http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/506417/2013-
04_STECF+13-06+-+DC-MAP+review+part+1_JRC81593.pdf  

Note existence of the Joint EIFAAC/ICES/GFCM Working Group 
on 
(WGEEL): 
http://ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/WGEEL.aspx  

Eels 

50 

50 

 
 
 
 
-Specific  case  of 
(external waters) 

long-distance 

fisheries 

-Solve  the  issue  of  non-submitted  data  on  segments  in  the 
external fleet with few vessels.  

Option 1, transmit and process data in a secure frame to solve 
issue of confidentiality.  

Option 2, clustering of homogenous fleets  

-Ensure all obligations relating to MS data collection in external 
waters are covered by EU MAP. 

-Specific case of Outermost regions:  

Useful reference material:  

“Fiche on data collection in outermost regions “ 

STECF 
6.2): 
http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid
=ec03be8a-8a74-4fc8-b4b8-65eaf384e21e&groupId=43805   

(section 

report 

STECF to suggest a way to incorporate the proposed changes. 
(STECF EWG14-18 identified gaps in EU MAP compared to MS' 
obligations under RFMOs. 

http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/891967/2015-
01_STECF+15-
01+Review+DCF+NP+and+multiann+programs_JRC94538.pdf 
(section 5.1)) 

STECF to  identify  stocks  to  be  included  in EU  MAP  (see STECF 
report  below  which  lists  important  stocks  and  those  that  are 
assessed  and/or  managed).  Identify  gaps 
in  current  NPs 
compared to current EU MAP and reasons for this.  

-Specific case of deep-sea Regulation:  

Include  deep-sea  species  in  the  EU  MAP  list  of  stocks  to  be 
sampled. 

Cross  check  which  species  from  Deep  Sea  proposal  are  in 
current EU MAP and which need to be added. 

 -The deep-sea Regulation proposal contains a list of species for 
(mix  of  commercial  & 
which  data  must  be  collected 
protected/vulnerable  by-catch  species).  These  should  be 
included in the list of stocks of the EU MAP. 

ii) Transversal variables (Appendix VIII) 

Consider simplifications in structure: 

(e.g. no more column 'specification') 

STECF to consider some changes in content based on end user 
needs for specific variables and broader consultations. 

Alternative:  Is  it  needed  or  could  we  not  refer  to  the  Control 
regulation instead? 

51 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ii)  Ecosystem  data  to  assess  the  impact  of 
Union  fisheries  on  the  marine  ecosystem  in 
Union and external waters,  

-Deep  sea  Reg  proposal  also  requires  sampling  of  species 
belonging to the seabed ecosystem such as deep-water corals, 
sponges or other organisms belonging to the same ecosystem -
> these should be covered under the issue on by-catch species 
Reference  material:  -ICES  Workshop  on  DCF  indicators  2013: 
http://pure.ilvo.vlaanderen.be/portal/files/2130662/WKIND_2
013_1.pdf  (includes  advice  on  end-user  needs  regarding  level 
of (dis-)aggregation). 

Cross  check  which  species  from  Deep  Sea  proposal  are  in 
current EU MAP and which need to be added. 

issues 

-Special request by DG ENV to ICES for scientific advice on data 
collection 
2013: 
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/
2013/Special%20requests/EU_%20data_%20collection_issues.
pdf & Nov 2013): ..\Reference material\Environment (includes 
input on three topics below). 

(June 

52 

52 

 
including  data  on  by-catch  of  non-target 
species,  in  particular  species  protected  under 
international or Union law,  

-List in EU MAP should include  species belonging to the seabed 
ecosystem  such  as  deep-water  corals,  sponges  or  other 
organisms  belonging  to  the  same  ecosystem  (based  on  Deep 
Sea  Reg  proposal)(see  “fiche  on  by-catch  of  non-target 
species”).  

-Commission is about launch a study on mitigating measures to 
minimise seabird bycatch in gillnet fisheries in the Baltic, North 
Sea & Western Waters. Contract to be signed around Nov 2015 
and  assessment  of  present  knowledge  on  incidental  bird 
bycatches (incl.  gaps  in  data)  to be provided  to  COM within 3 
months (ie around Feb-March 2016)  

How should the future EU MAP incorporate incidental by-catch 
of birds, reptiles and mammals? 

-RCG  grants  2015 
ICES 
recommendations  regarding  bycatch  sampling  (to  fill  existing 
gaps). 

implement  some  of 

the 

to 

-Coverage of fisheries under the DCF is biased away from those 
fisheries carrying the greatest risk of catching many protected 
and sensitive species. Development of remote electronic video 
recording  seems  likely  to  be  a  cost-effective  way  of  assessing 
by-catch  in  the  future  as  it  can  be  applied  to  all  parts  of  the 
fishing fleet (metiers and/or fleet segments)  as defined in DC-
MAP. 

53 

53 

 
 
 
 
data  on 
habitats  

impacts  of  fisheries  on  marine 

Key  data  was  already  covered  by  DCF  (VMS  &  gear  info)  but 
this could be expanded.  

How should the future EU MAP the impact on marine habitats? 

-Bear in mind Deep sea Reg proposal also requires sampling of 
species belonging to the seabed ecosystem such as deep-water 
corals,  sponges  or  other  organismsbelonging  to  the  same 
ecosystem. 

-ICES advice in special request from DG ENV of June 2013 (see 
link above) concludes that: 

-  species  indicative  of  seabed  habitat  type  caught  in  surveys, 
and  by  commercial  vessels  with  on-board  observers,  be 
recorded. (As observers are already on some of these vessels, 
benthic data collection will be relatively cost-effective).  

- fishing positions of all vessels, including those less than 12 m 
(ie  not  currently  obliged  to  have  VMS  under  EU  Reg)  and  in 
Med VMS data missing for vessels under 15m, be recorded and 
reported at 30-minute intervals. 

-ICES  advice  Nov  2013  even  more  specific  on  data  needs: 
Assessing  the  surface  and  sub-surface  disturbance  by  bottom 
contact  gears  for  the  proposed  MSFD  indicators  (of  HELCOM 
and  OSPAR)  requires  data  on  the  extent  of  physical  damage 
and  loss  of  seabed  habitats  resulting  from  human  activities. 
Fishing activity information therefore needs to be provided on 
the spatial distribution of fishing, including: location (maximum 
30-minute  position  updates,  preferably  shorter),  gear  type 
(Levels 4 and5), gear width, vessel speed, and whether fishing 
is  occurring  or  not.  Effo  rt  should  be  recorded  in  appropriate 
units  (e.g.  hours  towed,  km  of  net  ×  soak  time,  number  of 
hooks set). 

54 

54 

 
 
How should the future EU MAP incorporate on food webs? 

and  data  on  impacts  of  fisheries  on  food 
webs; 

-  stomach  content  data  (This  is  dealt  with  under  i)  above). 
include  data  on  "forage  fish"  (i.e.  food  for 
Could  also 
predators).  

-RCG grants 2015 to include as a task: identify forage fish that 
account for >5% of the total fish biomass, or that are important 
in  the  diet  of  dependent  species  (especially  when  these  are 
protected species). These assessments should take account of 
the  distribution  and  availability  of  the  forage  species  to 
dependent predators? 

ICES  advice  in  special  request  from  DG  ENV  of  June  2013 
concludes that: 

-  Stock  assessments  of  all  forage  fish  species  (eg  sprats  and 
sand eels to the W of the UK) that account for >5% of the total 
fish  biomass,  or  that  are  important  in  the  diet  of  dependent 
species  (especially  when  these  are  protected  species),  are 
required.  These  assessments  should  take  account  of  the 
distribution and availability of the forage species to dependent 
predators. 

55 

55 

 
 
iii)  Data  on  the  activity  of  Union  vessels  in 
Union  and  external  waters,  including  level  of 
fishing and of effort and capacity of the Union 
fleet; 

Remove  duplication:  The  DCF  will  only  create  data  collection 
obligations insofar as they are not already covered by other EU 
legislation. 

-VMS data for vessels under 12m (and under 15m in Med.), and 
to be reported at 30min intervals? 

-Consider specific case of small-scale fleet (vessels not covered 
by logbook or VMS obligation). 

-ICES recommends that fishing positions of all vessels, including 
those  less  than  12  m  (ie  not  currently  obliged  to  have  VMS 
under EU Reg) and in Med VMS data missing for vessels under 
15m,  be  recorded  and  reported  at  30-minute  intervals  to 
improve data on fisheries impacts on seabed. 

(see  “fiche  on  Control  regulation  data”  and  STECF  EWG13-05 
(June  2013):  Appendix  III:  List  of  raw  data  on  fisheries 
dependent  information  that  shall  be  made  available  for  DCF 
purpose. 

Solve  the  issue  of  non-submitted  data  on  segments  in  the 
external fleet with few vessels.  

Option 1, transmit and process data in a secure frame to solve 
issue of confidentiality.  

Option 2, clustering of homogenous fleets 

56 

56 

 
 
 
iv)  Socio-economic  data  on  fisheries  to 
enable  the  assessment  of  the  socio-economic 
performance of the Union fisheries sector; 

Remove  duplication:  The  DCF  will  only  create  data  collection 
obligations insofar as they are not already covered by other EU 
legislation. 

Are  current  requirements  regarding  the  small  scale  fleet 
adapted to our needs? Consider specific situation of small-scale 
fisheries (see proposed change). 

 
 
 

Fuel subsidies 
Investment subsidies 
Long/short term debt 

Not much change on economic variables.  

Additional  social  variables  will  be  included  to  be  collected 
every 3 years: 

1.  Gender 
2.  Employment nationality: national, EU, non-EU 
3.  Average age of fishermen 
4.  Education level 
5.  Average age of retirement 

See “Fiche on additional definitions on economic terms”  

“JRC Report on  DCF Economics “ 

STECF EWG13-05 (June 2013) (see Annex – Appendix XI " List of 
Economic  variables  for  the  fleet"  which  presents  proposed 
changes to current list of fleet economic variables in EU MAP 

57 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
v)  Socio-economic  data  on  aquaculture  to 
enable  the  assessment  of  the  socio-economic 
performance of the Union aquaculture sector,  

-Remove  duplication:  The  DCF  will  only  create  data  collection 
obligations insofar as they are not already covered by other EU 
legislation. 

STECF to review the proposed changes or provide alternatives 

Key changes 

 

 

‘Enterprises whose primary activity is 
defined  according  to  the  Eurostat 
NACE codes 03.21and 03.22 and who 
operate for profit'. 
Freshwater  data  (surveys  or  other 
statistically 
validated  methods 
covering  at  least  90%  of  the  total 
production by volume).  

  Operating subsidies 
 

Species 
“tuna”, “eel”, “seaweeds”, “eggs for 
consumption”, 
human 
“other  molluscs”, 
“crustaceans”, 
“polyculture” and “other aquatic 
organisms” 

  Aquaculture techniques 
fish 

For 
techniques 
farming 
definition  of  EUROSTAT  (“ponds”, 
“tanks  and  raceways”,  “enclosures 
and pens”, “cages”, “recirculation 
systems”, 
methods”, 
“other 
“combined”)  with  the  addition  of 
as 
and 
“hatcheries 
separate segments. 
For  shellfish  techniques  (“rafts”  and 
“longline”, “Off-bottom”),  

nurseries” 

What  should  the  thresholds  and  data  to  be  collected  on  a 
voluntary basis be? 

-Requires  political  agreement  with  ESTAT  on  details  –  likely 
outcome: production & value data to be collected under ESTAT 
legislation  (DCF  will  collect  gross  sales  that  include  fry  and 
fingerlings).  Additional  economic  parameters  to  be  collected 
under  DCF  (Annex  in  EU-MAP)  –  but  ensure  a  single  data 
collection  process  takes  place  in  each  MS  the  ESTAT  &  DCF 
frameworks  use  same  building  blocks/are  compatible.  Also 
need  to  clarify  flow  of  data  from  MS  to  ESTAT  &  DCF  (link  to 
future DCF data availability system).  

-Modification of “Appendix X” and “Appendix XI” for alignment 
with ESTAT and to avoid duplication with them 

Data  collection  every    3  years  as  mandatory  data  or,  at  least 
pilot, studies: 

Environmental 
mortalities) 

indicators 

(medicines, 

chemicals 

and 

Disaggregated  data  at  NUTS3  level  (employment  and  value  of 
production) 

See:  “Fiche  on  aquaculture  data”  and  JRC  report  “JRC 
assessment of environmental performance of aquaculture” 

Polyculturet”(multiple activities). 

58 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-Environmental performance of aquaculture 

Data recorded by producers on mortalities and medicines used 
according to EU rules. DC-MAP will provide a vehicle for MS to 
transmit these data and contribute to an EU-wide time series.   

STECF to provide expert opinion 

Useful material: 

JRC report (2012) on An Approach Towards 

European  Aquaculture  Performance  Indicators:  Indicators  for 
Sustainable Aquaculture in the European Union. 

vi)  Socio-economic  data  on 
fish 
processing sector to enable the assessment of 
the 
the  socio-economic  performance  of 
sector.  

the 

- Remove duplication: The DCF will only create data collection 
obligations insofar as they are not already covered by other EU 
legislation. 

STECF to provide expert opinion 

-In  fact  the  DCF  will  discontinue  the  collection  of  processing 
data 

-Do  we  need  data  on  origin  of  raw  material?  (Experts  have 
recommended a study on cost-benefit of this as very costly to 
collect).  Wouldn't  more  social  variables  be  useful  to  support 
policy decisions especially regarding financing of this activity?  

Therefore:  Remove  variables  from  DCF  that  are  covered  by 
ESTAT SBS legislation.  

-Align populations (or develop a single collection exercise).  

Complement with  data non covered by SBS (small enterprises 
with less than 10-20 employees) 

-Main  difference  between  ESTAT  &  DCF  relate  to  the 
population covered and definitions.  

59 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Social  variables  on  the  fleet,  aquaculture  & 
processing sectors 

Do we include more social variables? Eg employment by gender 
not  currently  collected  for  the  fleet  (only  for  aqua  & 
processing) – wouldn't this be useful? 

STECF to review proposed changes 

-frequency of collection of such data? 

Com proposal to be collected every 3 years for the fishing fleet: 

6.  Gender 
7.  Employment nationality: national, EU, non-EU 
8.  Average age of fishermen 
9.  Education level 
10.  Average age of retirement 

To  be  collected  every  3  years  for  the  aquaculture  and  fish 
processing: 

1.  Regional distribution of Employment and turnover 

(NUTs III) 

2.  Employment nationality: national, EU, non-EU 
3.  Average age of fishermen 
4.  Education level 

60 

60 

 
 
 
 
STECF  to  include  rules  on  task  sharing  between  MS  for  these 
surveys & on thresholds. Can the variables "Survey effort" and 
"Days (Maximum") be deleted? 

b) A list of mandatory research surveys based 
on the following principles:  

-Change  contents  of  list  of  mandatory  surveys  slightly  (see 
“modified Appendix IX”. 

(1)  adequacy  for  the  information  needs  of 
management of the Common Fisheries Policy; 

(2)  needs  according  to  internationally  agreed 
coordination and harmonisation;  

(3)  needs  based  on 
the  evaluation  of 
management  plans,  including  the  monitoring 
of ecosystem variables;  

(4)  needs  to  obtain  sufficient  coverage  of 
stock area;  

(5) avoidance of duplication between surveys; 
and  

(6)  avoidance  of  disrupting  the  history  of 
survey data.   

Rules  on  participation  by  different  Member 
States  in  surveys  shall  be  based  upon  the 
relative  share  in  stock  exploitation  by  the 
concerned Member States. 

-Include rules on task sharing between MS for these surveys & 
on thresholds 

- RCMs in Aug-Sept provided lists of potential surveys for their 
region and apply criteria/weighting to them. 

-STECF to comment/approve/compare regional lists  

-STECF  EWG  12-01  evaluated  the  review  process  of  the 
research  vessel  surveys  prior  to  the  implementation  of  DC-
MAP, including a proposal for adaptation of criteria [no longer 
relevant  as  included  in  Recast  proposal],  scoring  rules  and 
weighting  for  evaluation,  ideas  on  survey  evaluation  after  the 
implementation of DC-MAP.  

See  “Fiche  on  research  surveys  “and  STECF  EWG10-03  was 
dedicated to DCF research surveys. 

61 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
c) Thresholds below which Member States do 
not need to collect data or carry out research 
surveys, based on their fishing activities. 

-Thresholds to be included more systematically and clearly.  

-This  issue  should  be  considered  under  each  of  the  above 
thematic points. 

-Compare  with  what  is  done  in  this  area  by  ESTAT  (eg  under 
statistical  Aquaculture  Reg,  3  LLC  have  derogations  to  either 
not provide data or provide estimates instead). 

A  workshop  on  thresholds  has  been  recommended  by 
PGECON. Follow development of ToR for this. 

-(Dis-)aggregation levels 

-Should continue to be specified in EU MAP but levels of  

STECF to provide expert opinion 

(dis-)aggregation may change to ensure end-user needs can be 
met. 

-  A  minimum  level  of  disaggregation  on  transversal  variables 
should  be  specified  to  allow  the  link  between  economic  data 
(segment) and biological data (metier) in particular for impact 
assessments and evaluation of management plans. 

 -Ensure biological & socio-economic data can be aggregated in 
a  meaningful  way  to  allow  analysis  of  eg  impacts  of  policy 
measures at local level. 

-There  are  differences  in  the  aggregation  levels  requested  by 
data  calls,  for  instance  monthly  strata  with  respect  to  ICCAT 
and quarterly segments with respect to the DCF 

See ” Fiche on bio-economic modelling” 

62 

62 

 
 
 
 
-Methodology 

-Most  of  the  detailed  requirements  on  methods  will  be 
removed  from  EU  MAP  and  left  to  regional  groups  (or  EU 
expert group) 

STECF to provide expert opinion 

-Continue to require concurrent sampling? 

-Refer to statistically sound sampling? 

- Or leave all this up to MS? 

-The  grants  for  regional  &  EU  cooperation  un  data  collection 
(to be launched end 2015) should help provide compilations of 
best practice methods or develop missing methods. 

- We need to determine whether it is safe to move completely 
from metier based sampling to statistically sound sampling. 

Therefore  as  an  exercise  we  would  like  STECF  to  use  existing 
data  collected  under  a  metier-based  sampling  and  carry  out 
data analysis using the statistically sound sampling scheme and 
then  revert  back  to  existing  metiers  using  CVs.  This  will  allow 
for  an  explicit  comparison  between  both  sampling  methods. 
Are  the  resulting  data  appropriate  to  use  for  bio-economic 
analysis. E.g. can the profitability of each metier be established 
if we change the sampling method?  

Useful information:  

“Fiche on statistically-sound sampling “ 

The workshop (WKISCON2) was chaired by Liz Clarke and Nuno 
Prista and held in Sukarrieta, Spain, on 16–19 June 2015 

reports: 
-WKPICS 
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%
20Group%20Report/acom/2011/WKPICS/WKPICS%20report%2
02011.pdf  

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%
20Group%20Report/acom/2012/WKPICS2/WKPICS2%20final%
20report%20feb%20update.pdf 

63 

63 

 
 
 
 
6  CONTACT DETAILS OF STECF MEMBERS AND EWG-15-15 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 

1 - Information on STECF members and invited experts’ affiliations is displayed for information only. In some 
instances  the  details  given  below  for  STECF  members  may  differ  from  that  provided  in  Commission 
COMMISSION DECISION of 27 October 2010 on the appointment of members of the STECF (2010/C 292/04) 
as  some  members’  employment  details  may  have  changed  or  have  been  subject  to  organisational  changes  in 
their  main  place  of  employment.  In  any  case,  as  outlined  in  Article  13  of  the  Commission  Decision 
(2005/629/EU and 2010/74/EU) on STECF, Members of the STECF, invited experts, and JRC experts shall act 
independently of Member States or stakeholders.  In the context  of the STECF work, the committee  members 
and  other  experts  do  not  represent  the  institutions/bodies  they  are  affiliated  to  in  their  daily  jobs.  STECF 
members  and  invited  experts  make  declarations  of  commitment  (yearly  for  STECF  members)  to  act 
independently in the public interest of the European Union. STECF members and experts also declare at each 
meeting  of  the  STECF  and  of  its  Expert  Working  Groups  any  specific  interest  which  might  be  considered 
prejudicial to their independence in relation to specific items on the agenda. These declarations are displayed on 
the public meeting’s website if experts explicitly authorized the JRC to do so in accordance with EU legislation 
on the protection of personnel data. For more information: http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/adm-declarations 

STECF members: 

Name 

Address1 

Tel. 

Email 

STECF members 

Abella,  J.  Alvaro 
(vice-chair) 

per 

la 
della 

ARPAT – AREA MARE 
Agenzia  Regionale 
Protezione  Ambientale 
Toscana 
Articolazione Funzionale RIBM 
Risorse 
Marina 
Via  Marradi  114,  57126  Livorno 
– Italia 

Ittiche  e  Biodiversità 

Andersen, Jesper 
Levring (vice-
chair) 

Bailey, Nicholas  

Department of Food and Resource 
Economics (IFRO) 
Section for Environment and 
Natural Resources 
University of Copenhagen 
Rolighedsvej 25 
1958 Frederiksberg 
Denmark 

Fisheries Research Services  
Marine Laboratory, P.O Box 101  
375 Victoria Road, Torry 
Aberdeen AB11 9DB  
UK 

Bertignac, Michel   Laboratoire 
Halieutique 
IFREMER Centre de Brest 
BP 70 - 29280 Plouzane, France  

de 

Biologie 

Tel. 
3206956 

0039-0555-

alvarojuan.abella@arpat.tosca
na.it 

Tel.dir.:  +45 35 28 68 
92 

jla@ifro.ku.dk 

+44 

Tel: 
876544  
Direct:  +44 
295398  
Fax: 
295511 

+44 

baileyn@marlab.ac.uk   
n.bailey@marlab.ac.uk 

(0)1224 

(0)1224 

(0)1224 

tel  :  +33  (0)2  98  22  45 
25  -  fax  :  +33  (0)2  98 
22 46 53  

michel.bertignac@ifremer.fr 

Cardinale, 
Massimiliano

Föreningsgatan 
Lysekil, Sweden 

45, 

330 

Tel: +46 523 18750 

massimiliano.cardinale@slu.se 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Address1 

Tel. 

Email 

STECF members 

Curtis, Hazel  

Delaney, Alyne 

Daskalov, Georgi 

Döring, Ralf  

Gascuel, Didier  

Graham,  Norman 
(chair) 

Garcia Rodriguez, 

Mariano 

Gustavsson,  Tore 
Karl-Erik  

Jennings, Simon  

Kenny, Andrew 

Kraak, Sarah  

Kuikka, Sakari 

Sea Fish Industry Authority 
18 Logie Mill 
Logie Green Road 
Edinburgh 
EH7 4HS 

Tel: +44 (0)131 558 
3331 
Fax: +44 (0)131 558 
1442 

H_Curtis@seafish.co.uk 

Innovative Fisheries Management, 
-an Aalborg University Research 
Centre, Postboks 104, 9850 
Hirtshals, Denmark 

Laboratory of Marine Ecology, 
Institute of Biodiversity and 
Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian 
Academy of Sciences 

Thünen Bundesforschungsinstitut, 
für Ländliche Räume, Wald und 
Fischerei, Institut für Seefischerei 
- AG Fischereiökonomie, 
Palmaille 9, D-22767 Hamburg, 
Germany 

AGROCAMPUS OUEST 
65 Route de Saint Brieuc, bat.4 
CS 84215, 
F-35042 RENNES Cedex 
France 

Marine Institute, Fisheries 
Science Services (FSS), Rinville, 
Oranmore, Co. Galway, Ireland 

Instituto Español de 
Oceanografía, Servicios 
Centrales, Corazón de María 8, 
28002, Madrid, Spain 

Independent 
Göteborg, Sweden 

Consultant, 

CEFAS Lowestoft Laboratory, 
Pakefield Road, 
Lowestoft 
Suffolk, UK 
NR33 0HT 

CEFAS Lowestoft Laboratory, 
Pakefield Road, 
Lowestoft 
Suffolk, UK 
NR33 0HT 

für 
Thünen-Institut 
Ostseefischerei,  Alter  Hafen  Süd 
2, 18069 Rostock Germany 

University of Helsinki, 
Department of Environmental 
Sciences, P.O. Box 65 
(Viikinkaari 1), FI-00014 
University of Helsinki, FINLAND 

Tel.: +45 9940 3694 

ad@ifm.aau.dk 

Tel.: +359 52 646892 

gmdaskalov@yahoo.co.uk 

Tel.: 040 38905-185 

ralf.doering@ti.bund.de 

Fax.: 040 38905-263 

Tel:+33(0)2.23.48.55.3
4 
Fax: 
+33(0)2.23.48.55.35 

Didier.Gascuel@agrocampus-
ouest.fr 

Tel: + 353(0) 91 87200 

norman.graham@marine.ie 

Mariano.Garcia@md.ieo.es 

tore.gustavsson@hotmail.com 

Tel.: +44 1502562244 
Fax: +44 1502513865 

simon.jennings@cefas.co.uk 

Tel.: +44 1502562244 
Fax: +44 1502513865 

andrew.kenny@cefas.co.uk 

Tel. +49 3818116113 

sarah.kraak@ti.bund.de 

Tel.: +358 50 3309233 
Fax. +358-9-191 58754 

skuikka@mappi.helsinki.fi 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Address1 

Tel. 

Email 

STECF members 

Martin, Paloma   

CSIC  Instituto  de  Ciencias  del 
Mar   
PasseigMarítim, 37-49 
08003 Barcelona 
Spain 

Tel: 34.93.2309500          
direct line : 
34.93.2309552 
Fax: 34.93.2309555 

paloma@icm.csic.es 

Malvarosa, Loretta   NISEA S.c.a.r.l.  

malvarosa@nisea.eu 

Murua, Hilario 

Nord, Jenny  

Nowakowski, 
Piotr  

Prelezzo, Raul  

Sala, Antonello 

Scarcella, 
Giuseppe 

Somarakis, 
Stylianos 

Stransky, 
Christoph 

AZTI - Tecnalia / Unidad de 
Investigación Marina, Herrera 
kaia portualdea z/g 20110 Pasaia 
(Gipuzkoa), Spain 

The  Swedish  Agency  of  Marine 
and Water Management (SwAM)  

Maritime  University  of  Szczecin. 
–  Faculty  of  Food  Science  and 
Fisheries,  Department  of  Fishing 
Technique, Szczecin 

AZTI - Tecnalia / Unidad de 
Investigación Marina 
Txatxarramendi Ugartea z/g 
48395 Sukarrieta (Bizkaia), Spain 

Fishing Technology Unit 
National Research Council (CNR) 
Institute  of  Marine  Sciences 
(ISMAR) - Fisheries Section 
Largo Fiera della Pesca, 1 
60125 Ancona - Italy 

Environmental Management Unit 
National Research Council (CNR) 
Institute  of  Marine  Sciences 
(ISMAR) - Fisheries Section 
Largo Fiera della Pesca, 1 
60125 Ancona - ITaly 

Department of Biology 
University of Crete 
VassilikaVouton 
P.O. Box 2208 
71409 Heraklion 
Crete 
Greece 

Thünen  Institute  [TI-SF]  Federal 
Research 
for  Rural 
Institute 
Areas,  Forestry  and  Fisheries, 
Fisheries, 
Institute 
Palmaille  9,  D-22767  Hamburg, 
Germany  

Sea 

of 

Tel: 0034 667174433 
Fax: 94 6572555 

hmurua@azti.es 

Tel. 0046 76 140 140 3 

Jenny.nord@havochvatten.se 

npfgd@poczta.onet.pl    

Tel: 94 6029400 Ext: 
406-  
Fax: 94 6870006 

rprellezo@suk.azti.es 

Tel: +39 071 2078841 
Fax: +39 071 55313 

a.sala@ismar.cnr.it 

Tel: +39 071 2078846 
Fax: +39 071 55313 

g.scarcella@ismar.cnr.it 

Tel.: +30 2610 394065, 
+30 6936566764 

somarak@biology.uoc.gr 

Tel. +49 40 38905-228  
Fax: +49 40 38905-263  

christoph.stransky@ti.bund.de 

ftheret@comata.com 

cu@aqua.dtu.dk 

Theret, Francois  

Ulrich, Clara  

Vanhee, Willy  

Scapêche 
17 Bd Abbé Le Cam 
56100 Lorient 
France 

DTU  Aqua,  National  Institute  of 
Aquatic  Resources,  Technical 
Denmark, 
of 
University 
Slot, 
Charlottenlund 
JægersborgAllé 
2920 
Charlottenlund, Denmark 

1, 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Address1 

Tel. 

Email 

STECF members 

van Oostenbrugge, 
Hans  

LandbouwEconomishInstituut- 
LEI, Fisheries Section, Burg. 
Patijnlaan 19 
P.O.Box 29703 
2502 LS The Hague 
The Netherlands 

Tel:+31 (0)70 3358239 
Fax: +31 (0)70 
3615624 

Hans.vanOostenbrugge@wur. 
Nl 

EWG-15-15 participants 

STECF members 

Name 
STRANSKY Christoph  Thuenen Institute of Sea Fisheries Palmaille 9 

Address 

Telephone no.  Email 
+494038905228 

christoph.stransky@ti.bund.de 

22767 HAMBURG Germany 

Invited experts 
Name 
ALMENDRA 
CASTRO 
Cristina 

RIBEIRO 

ARMESTO Angeles 

Address 
Freelance  consultant  Via  Tavernette-  40 
21020 MALGESSO Italy 

Telephone no. 
+393668934792 

Email 
almendra.castroribeiro@gmail.com 

Instituto  Espa±ol  de  Oceanografia  Subida 
a Radio Faro- 50 36390 VIGO  

34986492111 

angeles.armesto@vi.ieo.es 

AVDIC  MRAVLJE 
Edo 

Fisheries  research  institute  of  Slovenia    
Slovenia 

edoavdic@gmail.com 

BERKENHAGEN Jörg 

Thuenen 
Palmaille 9 22767 HAMBURG Germany 

Institute  of  Sea  Fisheries 

+49  040  38905-
206 

joerg.berkenhagen@ti.bund.de 

BRIGAUDEAU Cecile  Des  requins  et  de  Hommes  Impasse 
LAMPAUL-

Kerjacob 
29810 
PLOUARZEL France 

cecile@desrequinsetdeshommes.org 

CARPENTIERI Paolo  Maja s.c.ar.l.   ROME Italy 

paolocarpentieri@hotmail.com 

DALSKOV Joergen 

DAVIDJUKA Irina 

DE BOOIS Ingeborg 

DEGEL Henrik 

DINTHEER Christian 

EBELING Michael 

GOTI Leyre 

JACKSON Emmet 

JAKOVLEVA Irina 

KNITTWEIS Leyla 

KOUTRAKIS Manos 

DTU-Aqua  Charlottenlund  Slot  DK-2920 
CHARLOTTENLUND Denmark 

Institute  of  Food  Safety-  Animal  Health 
and  Environment  -  BIOR  Daugavgrivas  8 
LV-1048 RIGA Latvia 

IMARES  P.O.  Box  68  1970  AB 
IJMUIDEN  

DTU-Aqua  Øde  Hastrup  Vej  85  4000 
ROSKILDE Denmark 

IFREMER  Rue  de  l'Ile  d'Yeu  BP  21105 
44311 NANTES France 

Thünen 
Palmaille 
Germany 

Institute 

for  Sea  Fisheries 
9  D-22767  HAMBURG 

4535883380 

jd@aqua.dtu.dk 

37167612409 

irina.davidjuka@bior.lv 

+31 317 487070 

ingeborg.deboois@wur.nl 

4521314880 

hd@aqua.dtu.dk 

33 02 40 37 40 00 

christian.dintheer@ifremer.fr 

michaelebeling@t-online.de 

THÜNEN 
Palmaille 9 22767 HAMBURG Germany 

Institute  of  Sea  Fisheries 

0049  40  38905 
231 

leyre.goti@ti.bund.de 

Iascaigh  Mhara  Crofton  Road  

Bord 
DUBLIN  

Fisheries  Service  under  Ministry  of 
Agriculture  Naujoji 
92125 
KLAIPEDA Republic of Lithuania 

uosto 

University  of  Malta    MSD2080  MSIDA 
Malta 

NAGREF_Fisheries  Research 
Nea Peramos 64007 KAVALA Greece 

Institute 

35312144248 

jackson@bim.ie 

37046310660 

irina.jakovleva@zuv.lt 

leyla_knittweis@yahoo.de 

+302594029037 

manosk@inale.gr 

MCCORMICK Helen 

Marine 

Institute  Rinville-  Oranmore   35391387308 

Helen.mccormick@marine.ie 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
GALWAY Ireland 

MOTOVA Arina 

Seafish    United Kingdom 

arina.motova@yahoo.com 

NERMER Tomasz 

PÖNNI Jukka 

RAYKOV Violin 

National  Marine  Fisheries  Research 
Institute  Kollataja  1  81-332  GDYNIA 
Poland 

Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) 
Viikinkaari 4 790 HELSINKI Finland 

IO-BAS  40  Parvi  Mai  9000  VARNA 
Bulgaria 

48587356211 

nermer@mir.gdynia.pl 

+358295326000 

jukka.ponni@luke.fi 

+359877958939 

vio_raykov@abv.bg 

SABATELLA  Evelina 
Carmen 

NISEA  scarl  via  Irno  11-  Salerno  (Italy) 
84135 SALERNO  

e.sabatella@nisea.eu 

TORREELE Els 

ULLEWEIT Jens 

VERVER Sieto 

VUKOV Ivana 

WARNES Stephen 

JRC experts 
Name 
NATALE Fabrizio 

ILVO  Fisheries  Ankerstreet  1  8400 
OOSTENDE Belgium 

Thünen  Institute  of  Seafisheries  Palmaille 
9 20459 HAMBURG Germany 

IMARES  PO  Box  68  1970  AB 
IJMUIDEN Netherlands 

Ministry  of  Agriculture  of  Republic  of 
Croatia 
of  Fisheries 
-  Directorate 
Planinska 2a 10000 ZAGREB Croatia 

Self employed 44 Links Avenue NR6 5PE 
NORWICH United Kingdom 

++32(0)59569833 

els.torreele@ilvo.vlaanderen.be 

+49 40 38905 217 

jens.ulleweit@ti.bund.de 

31610670095 

sieto.verver@wur.nl 

38516443177 

ivana.vukov@mps.hr 

1603447734 

stevewarnes44@gmail.com 

Address 
Joint  Research  Centre  IPSC  Maritime  Affairs 
Unit  (TP  051)  Via  E.Fermi,  2749  I  -  21027 
Ispra (VA) Italy 

Telephone no.  Email 
+39 0332 789181 

fabrizio.natale@jrc.ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
Name 
KOSTOPOULOU 
Venetia  

Address 
EC DG MARE C3 BRU-J-79 02/049 

Telephone no.  Email 
+(32) 2 2965989 

venetia.kostopoulou@ec.europa.e
u  

DRUKKER Bas  

EC DG MARE C3 BRU-J-79 02/045 

+(32) 2 2965779 

bas.drukker@ec.europa.eu 

NATALE Fabrizio 

JRC STECF secretariat  

Stecf-
secretariat@jrc.ec.europa.eu  

Observers 
Name 
GRIUNIENE Vilda 

MORGADO Cristina 

Address 
Ministry  of  Agriculture  of  the  Republic  of 
Lithuania  J.Lelevelio  str.  6  1102  VILNIUS 
Republic of Lithuania 

ICES H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44-46 1553 
COPENHAGEN Denmark 

Telephone no.  Email 
37052398406 

vilda.griuniene@zum.lt 

+45 33386721 

cristina@ices.dk 

68 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7  LIST OF ANNEXES  

Electronic annexes are published on the meeting’s web site on:  
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ewg1515 

List of electronic annexes documents: 

1.  EWG-15-15 – Annex 1 – Guidelines for Annual Reports, version Nov. 2015 (Word file) 
2.  EWG-15-15 – Annex 2 – Standard Tables for Annual Reports, version Nov. 2015 (Excel file) 
3.  EWG-15-15  –  Annex  3  –  Guidelines  for  the  evaluation  of  Annual  Reports  and  Data  Transmission 

(Word file) 

4.  EWG-15-15 – Annex 4 – Evaluation form for Annual Reports (Excel file) 
5.  EWG-15-15 – Annex 5 – Modified EU MAP Appendices (Excel file) 

8  LIST OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS  

Background documents are published on the meeting’s web site on:  
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ewg1515 

List of background documents: 

6.  EWG-15-15 – Doc 1 - Declarations of invited and JRC experts (see also section 6 of this report – List of 

participants) 

7.  EWG-15-15  –  Doc  2  –  The  DCF  Reporting  and  Implementation  Cycles  and  the  Data  End-user 

Feedback. Cristina Castro Ribeiro (JRC Technical Report) 

8.  EWG-15-15  –  Doc  3  –  Ad  hoc  contract  to  improve  the  link  between  Annual  Reports  and  Data 

Transmission failures (biological data) 

9.  EWG-15-15  –  Doc  4  –  Draft  version  of  the  report  on  linking  ARs  to  DT  failures  and  examples  to 

illustrate linkage to be reviewed by STECF EWG 15-15 (economic and transversal data) 

10.  Analysis of national aquaculture data collections FINAL rev March 2015 (.docx) 
11.  Fiche on  biological data on commercial fisheries (.doc) 
12.  Fiche on  by-catch non-fisheries species (.doc) 
13.  Fiche on additional definitions on economic terms (.doc) 
14.  Fiche on aquaculture data (.doc) 
15.  Fiche on bio-economic modelling (.doc) 
16.  Fiche on control regulation data (.docx) 
17.  Fiche on data collection in outermost regions (.doc) 
18.  Fiche on eel and salmon (.doc) 
19.  fiche on recreational fisheries (.doc) 
20.  Fiche on research surveys (.doc) 
21.  Fiche on sound sampling (.docx) 
22.  ICES feedback survey list NA stocks (.xlsx) 
23.  JRC assessment of environmental performance of aquaculture (.pdf) 
24.  JRC Report on  DCF Economics (.pdf)  
25.  Recreational fisheries for ICES WG (.doc) 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union 

Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. 

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 

It can be accessed through the Europa server  http://europa.eu. 

How to obtain EU publications 

Our publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://publications.europa.eu/howto/index_en.htm), 

where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice. 

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. 

You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758. 

European Commission 

EUR 27758 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen 

Title: Reports of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries - Evaluation of Proposals to Revise DCF National 

Programmes for 2016 (STECF-16-01). 

Authors: 

STECF members:  

Graham, N., J., Abella, J. A., Andersen, J., Bailey, N., Bertignac, M., Cardinale, M., Curtis, H., Daskalov, G., Delaney, A., Döring, R., Garcia 

Rodriguez, M., Gascuel, D., Gustavsson, T., Jennings, S., Kenny, A., Kraak, S., Kuikka, S., Malvarosa, L., Martin, P., Murua, H., Nord, J., 

Nowakowski, P., Prellezo, R., Sala, A., Scarcella, G., Somarakis, S., Stransky, C., Theret, F., Ulrich, C., Vanhee, W. & Van Oostenbrugge, H. 

EWG-15-15 members:  

ALMENDRA CASTRO RIBEIRO Cristina, ARMESTO Angeles, AVDIC MRAVLJE Edo, BERKENHAGEN Jörg, BRIGAUDEAU Cecile, CARPENTIERI 

Paolo, DALSKOV Joergen, DAVIDJUKA Irina, DE BOOIS Ingeborg, DEGEL Henrik, DINTHEER Christian, EBELING Michael, GOTI Leyre, 

JACKSON Emmet, JAKOVLEVA Irina, KNITTWEIS Leyla, KOUTRAKIS Manos, MCCORMICK Helen, MOTOVA Arina, NERMER Tomasz, PÖNNI 

Jukka, RAYKOV Violin, SABATELLA Evelina Carmen, TORREELE Els, ULLEWEIT Jens, VERVER Sieto, VUKOV Ivana, WARNES Stephen 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union  

2016 – 68 pp. – 21 x 29.7 cm 

EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – 1831-9424 

ISSN 2467-0715 

ISBN 978-92-79-56778-0 

doi:10.2788/41585 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L
B
-
A
X
-
1
6
-
0
0
1
-
E
N
N

-

STECF 

JRC Mission 

The Scientific, Technical and 
Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF) has been 
established by the European 
Commission. The STECF is 
being consulted at regular 
intervals on matters pertaining 
to the conservation and 
management of living aquatic 
resources, including biological, 
economic, environmental, 
social and technical 
considerations. 

As the Commission’s  
in-house science service,  
the Joint Research Centre’s  
mission is to provide EU  
policies with independent,  
evidence-based scientific  
and technical support  
throughout the whole  
policy cycle. 

Working in close  
cooperation with policy  
Directorates-General,  
the JRC addresses key  
societal challenges while  
stimulating innovation  
through developing  
new methods, tools  
and standards, and sharing  
its know-how with  
the Member States,  
the scientific community  
and international partners. 

Serving society  

Stimulating innovation  

Supporting legislation 

doi:10.2788/41585 

ISBN 978-92-79-56778-0