COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the European Fishery Statistics
Date: 2019-11-28
Institutions: European Commission, Eurostat
Subjects: EU statistics, aquaculture, catch of fish, common fisheries policy, data collection, fishery product, fishing statistics, fishing vessel, official statistics, sea fishing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 28.11.2019  SWD(2019) 425 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION of the European Fishery Statistics {SWD(2019) 426 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 7 

1.1.  Context .............................................................................................................. 7 
1.2.  Reasons for the evaluation ................................................................................. 8 
1.3.  Scope and purpose of the evaluation ................................................................. 9 

2.  BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 10 

2.1.  Origins of the EFS regulations ........................................................................ 10 
2.2.  EFS intervention logic ..................................................................................... 11 
2.3.  Baseline ........................................................................................................... 14 

3.  STATE OF PLAY ..................................................................................................... 14 

3.1.  Content of EFS ................................................................................................ 15 
3.2.  Data sources ..................................................................................................... 15 
3.3.  Deadlines for transmission to Eurostat ............................................................ 17 
3.4.  Statistical quality ............................................................................................. 18 

4.  METHOD .................................................................................................................. 21 

4.1.  Evidence collection ......................................................................................... 22 
4.2.  Complementary sources .................................................................................. 24 
4.3.  Limitations and robustness of findings ............................................................ 25 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................ 25 

5.1.  Relevance ........................................................................................................ 25 
5.2.  Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 31 
5.3.  Statistical quality ............................................................................................. 34 
5.4.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 38 
5.5.  Coherence ........................................................................................................ 40 
5.6.  EU added value ................................................................................................ 43 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 45 

6.1.  Relevance ........................................................................................................ 46 
6.2.  Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 47 
6.3.  Statistical quality ............................................................................................. 48 
6.4.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 48 
6.5.  Coherence ........................................................................................................ 49 
6.6.  EU added value ................................................................................................ 50 

7.  LESSONS LEARNED .............................................................................................. 51 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 54 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................... 55 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ............................................... 79 

ANNEX 4: DATA FLOWS FOR FISHERIES ................................................................. 87 

ANNEX 5: DETAILED REQUIREMENTS OF EFS REGULATIONS ......................... 90 

1 

 
 
ANNEX 6: COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 93 

ANNEX 7: RESULTS OF DATA COMPARISON ......................................................... 96 

ANNEX 8: RESULTS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION ................................................. 98 

2 

 
Glossary  

Term 
acronym 

or 

Meaning or definition 

ASFIS 

Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Information System 

CAP 

CFP 

CWP 

DCF 

Common Agricultural Policy 

Common Fisheries Policy 

Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics 

Data Collection Framework 

DG ENV 

Directorate-General for Environment 

DG MARE 

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

ECA 

EEA 

EEZ 

EFS 

European Court of Auditors 

European Environment Agency 

Exclusive economic zone 

European fisheries statistics 

EFTA 

European Free Trade Association 

EMODnet 

European Marine Observation and Data Network  

ESP 

ESS 

EU 

European statistical programme 

European Statistical System 

European Union 

EUMOFA 

European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture  

Eurofish 

International network on the development of fisheries and aquaculture in Europe 

Eurostat 

Statistical office of the European Commission 

FAO 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 

FIDES 

Fisheries Data Exchange System 

FTE 

Full-time equivalent 

GDPR 

General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679)  

GFCM 

General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean 

3 

 
 
Term 
acronym 

or 

Meaning or definition 

GVA 

Gross value added 

ICCAT 

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 

ICES 

ISG 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 

Inter-service group 

ISSCFG 

International Standard Statistical Classification of Fishing Gear 

ISSCFV 

International Standard Statistical Classification of Fishing Vessels 

JRC 

MS 

Joint Research Centre 

Member States of the European Union 

NAFO 

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation  

NASCO 

North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation 

NEAFC 

North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission 

NGO 

NSI 

Non-governmental organisation 

National statistical institute 

OECD 

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 

ONA 

Other national authority 

RFMO 

Regional fisheries management organisation 

SDMX 

Statistical Data and Metadata eXchange  

STECF 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 

TAC 

VMS 

WTO 

Total allowable catch 

Vessel monitoring system 

World Trade Organisation 

4 

 
Definitions 

Term 

Meaning or definition 

Administrative 
data 

Data collected other than for primarily statistical purposes. In the case of fisheries, they 
are used for the management of the CFP and (potentially) re-used for compiling EFS. In 
contrast, statistical surveys are implemented primarily to provide statistics. 

Catches 

Catches  are  estimated  quantities  of  caught  species  by  fishing  gear,  expressed  in 
kilograms of live weight. They are estimated on-board and recorded in logbooks. 

EFS refer to nominal catches, which are calculated on the basis of the measured weight 
of  landed  products  (from  landing  declarations),  multiplied  by  conversion  factors. 
Conversion factors are set for each combination of species and presentation (e.g. gutted 
mackerel, plaice fillet). 

In the CFP context,  catches include discards (quantities discarded at sea after capture) 
and bycatch. 

Data  collected  by  Member  States  under  the  Control  Regulation1  relating  to  catch, 
transhipment, landing, transport, first sales and traceability of fisheries products as well 
as  data  relating  to  fishing  effort,  vessel  position,  fishing  gear,  vessel  characteristics, 
fishing  licences  etc.  Main  data  sources  include  logbooks,  landing  declarations, 
transhipment  declarations, 
take-over 
declarations,  sales  notes,  inspection  reports  and  VMS  records.  Member  States  must 
transmit aggregated catch data and fishing effort data to the Commission (DG MARE) 
on  a  monthly  basis  for  species  subject  to  quotas  and  on  a quarterly  basis  for  all  other 
species.. 

transport  documents,  weighing 

records, 

The DCF is the legal framework for the collection, management and use of data in the 
fisheries  sector  (meaning  activities  related  to  commercial  fisheries,  recreational 
fisheries,  aquaculture  and  industries  processing  fisheries  products  according  to  Article 
3(1)  of  Regulation  (EU)  2017/10042)  and  support  for  scientific  advice  on  the  CFP.  It 
includes  biological  data  on  fish  stocks  and  their  marine  environment,  fisheries-related 
information (catches and landings by fishing effort, fishing gear and size of vessel), and 
economic and social data. 

The DCF is under the jurisdiction of  DG MARE and  some  of the data  collections are 
managed by the JRC. 

Eurostat fisheries statistics on catches, landings, fishing fleet and aquaculture. 

Statistics provided by Eurostat. 

Control 
Regulation data  

Data  collection 
framework 
(DCF) 

European 
fisheries 
statistics (EFS) 

European 
statistics 

1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system 
for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1–50 

2  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  May  2017  on  the 
establishment of a Union framework  for the  collection,  management and  use of data in the fisheries 
sector and support for scientific advice regarding the common fisheries policy and repealing Council 
Regulation (EC) No 199/2008, OJ L 157, 20.6.2017, p. 1–21 

5 

 
 
                                                 
Term 

Meaning or definition 

Fishing effort 

A  measure of  inputs deployed to catch fish. In the EFS context,  it is linked to fishing 
gear  (number  of  sets,  hours,  hooks  or  effort  unit),  the  number  of  days  fished  and  the 
number of days on ground. For EFS purposes, effort data are required for catches in the 
Northwest Atlantic fishing area only. 

Landings  

Fishery products landed in ports, expressed in kilograms of product weight and broken 
down by species, product presentation and preservation state (e.g. fresh gutted mackerel, 
frozen salmon fillet). 

Other statistics 

Statistics  produced  by  Commission  Directorates-General  other 
e.g. DG MARE. 

than  Eurostat, 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1.  Context 

European  Fishery  Statistics  (EFS)  are  official  Eurostat  statistics  on  the  production 
volume and value of fisheries products caught from the sea and cultivated in aquaculture 
facilities  in  the  EU,  Norway  and  Iceland.  They  support  the  sound  management  of 
fisheries resources  and economic analysis of fisheries product markets. They  contribute 
to the management and further development of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and 
to  assessments  of  the  impact  of  policy  measures.  They  are  required  under  various 
international  conventions  and  by  several  international  organisations,  e.g. the  Food  and 
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Council for the 
Exploration  of  the  Sea  (ICES),  the  Northwest  Atlantic  Fisheries  Organisation  (NAFO), 
the  North  Atlantic  Salmon  Conservation  Organisation  (NASCO)  and  the  North  East 
Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC). 

Eurostat provides statistics on catches and landings of fisheries products, on aquaculture 
and on the fishing fleet. The relevant legal acts are:  

  Regulation (EC) No 216/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
11 March 2009 on the submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States 
fishing in certain areas other than those of the North Atlantic (recast)3;  

  Regulation (EC) No 217/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
11 March 2009  on  the  submission  of  catch  and  activity  statistics  by  Member 
States fishing in the north-west Atlantic (recast)4;  

  Regulation (EC) No 218/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
11 March 2009 on the submission of nominal catch statistics by Member States 
fishing in the north-east Atlantic (recast)5;  

  Regulation (EC) No 1921/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
18 December 2006  on  the  submission  of  statistical  data  on  landings  of  fishery 
in  Member  States  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EEC) 
products 
No 1382/916; and 

  Regulation (EC) No 762/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
9 July 2008 on the submission by Member States of statistics on aquaculture and 
repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 788/967. 

All these regulations have relevance for the European Economic Area and are therefore 
binding for the EU Member States, Iceland, and Norway. 

3   OJ L 87, 31.3.2009, p. 1. 
4   OJ L 87, 31.3.2009, p. 42. 
5   OJ L 87, 31.3.2009, p. 70. 
6   OJ L 403, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 
7   OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 1. 

7 

 
                                                 
Eurostat compiles fleet statistics directly from the EU fishing fleet register managed by 
DG MARE  under  Regulation  (EU)  No 1380/20138,  as  implemented  by  Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/218 on the Union fishing fleet register9.  

As  part  of  the  European  statistical  programme  (ESP),  EFS  aim  to  provide  comparable 
statistics at European level. They are produced in line with the principles of professional 
independence, impartiality, objectivity, reliability, confidentiality and cost-effectiveness, 
as provided for by Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on European statistics10.  

EFS  have  been  provided  since  the  inception  of  the  European  Economic  Community  in 
the  1950s.  Since  the  CFP  was  established  in  the  1970s  as  an  independent  part  of  the 
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), it has been monitored on the basis of additional data 
reporting and collection requirements under the Control Regulation and the DCF.   

Fisheries are by nature international, as fish often move in international waters, and are a 
renewable natural resource when exploited in a sustainable way. Therefore, international 
fisheries governance is necessary. The ratification of the United Nations Convention of 
the Seas in the 1980s was a milestone that led to the establishment of regional fisheries 
management  organisations  (RFMOs).  For  the  European  Commission,  DG MARE  is  in 
charge of reporting fisheries activity aggregates to RFMOs on behalf of the Union. FAO 
and  OECD  also  collect  and  publish  national  statistics  on  fisheries  activity  and 
aquaculture.  

1.2.  Reasons for the evaluation 

The  current  legal  basis  for  EFS  is  relatively  old  as  it  dates  back  to  2006-2009  and  is 
largely a recast of legal acts from the early 1990s. For this and other reasons, it was felt 
appropriate to  evaluate its  functioning.  It  no longer fully meets  user needs, which have 
evolved due to successive CFP reforms.  

Because they are so detailed, some of the data collected are confidential  and hence not 
publishable, in particular in the aquaculture sector, which in many countries is dominated 
by only a few companies. The detailed data needs require large samples (in many cases 
censuses) and long, complex questionnaires. This places an administrative burden on data 
producers, takes respondents’ time and is thus costly for statistical systems. 

EFS are part of a complex system of fisheries statistics/data in the EU and globally. This 
creates  potential  for  overlaps  and  discrepancies,  whereas  the  parallel  data  flows  would 

8   Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 
on  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  amending  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  1954/2003  and  (EC)  No 
1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council 
Decision 2004/585/EC (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22). 

9   OJ L 34, 9.2.2017, p. 9. 
10   Regulation  (EC)  No  223/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  March  2009  on 
European statistics and repealing Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1101/2008 of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  on  the  transmission  of  data  subject  to  statistical  confidentiality  to  the  Statistical 
Office  of  the  European  Communities,  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  322/97  on  Community  Statistics, 
and Council Decision 89/382/EEC, Euratom establishing a Committee on the Statistical Programmes of 
the European Communities (OJ L 87, 31.3.2009, p. 164). 

8 

 
                                                 
ideally  complement  and  support  each  other11.  Since  2007,  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors  (ECA)  has  released  three  audit  reports12  highlighting  redundancies  and 
inconsistencies between the data collected and disseminated by Eurostat and DG MARE 
under the Control Regulation and the DCF, and inherent problems in EFS. 

In  light  of  the  above,  the  Commission  launched  an  evaluation  of  EFS  in  2018  (see 
Annex 1 for details). 

1.3.  Scope and purpose of the evaluation 

The evaluation assesses the implementation and impact of the five statistical regulations 
and the use and impact (which is mostly indirect) of the resultant statistics. It covers the 
period from the entry into force of the regulations to the end of 2018. The main focus is 
on  the  current  CFP  period,  which  started  on  1  January  2014.  The  cut-off  dates  for  the 
analysis are determined by what statistics were available in 2018 and are as follows: 

  Aquaculture – 2016; 

  Catches and landings – 2017; 

  Fleet – 2017. 

The  evaluation  focuses  on  the  EFS  regulations.  It  does  not  cover  the  fisheries  data 
collections managed by other parts of the Commission, mainly under the responsibility of 
DG MARE,  but  takes  them  into  account  as  contextual  factors.  The  same  applies  to 
European  socio-economic  statistics  for  the  sector  (on  trade,  business,  employment  and 
organic farming).  

The  purpose  of  the  evaluation  was  to  provide  a  comprehensive  assessment  of  the 
relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  EFS.  These 
evaluation  criteria  are  stipulated  in  the  Commission’s  ‘Better  Regulation’  framework. 
Eurostat  added  a  sixth  criterion  on  statistical  quality  to  reflect  the  specificities  of 
statistical regulations. 

11   Annex 4 gives an overview of data flows for catch and landing, fleet and aquaculture data. 
12    ECA  special  report  7/2007  (Control,  inspection  and  sanction  systems  relating  to  the  rules  on 

conservation of Community fisheries resources); 
ECA special report 10/2014 (Effectiveness of European Fisheries Fund support for aquaculture); 
ECA special report 8/2017 (EU fisheries controls: more efforts needed).  

9 

 
                                                 
Statistical quality13 

Statistical quality is a multi-dimensional concept that is well defined in the European statistical system 
(ESS).  It  concerns  the  quality  of  statistical  output  (as  laid  down  in  Regulation  (EC)  No 223/2009)  in 
terms of: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

relevance – meeting users’ needs, including for completeness;  

accuracy and reliability – portraying reality accurately and reliably;  

timeliness and punctuality (in the availability and publication of statistics);  

coherence  and  comparability  –  are  statistics  consistent  internally,  over  time  and  comparable 
between regions and countries?; 

accessibility and clarity –are statistics presented in a clear and understandable form, released in 
a suitable and convenient manner, available and accessible on an impartial basis with supporting 
metadata and guidance? 

Not only the quality of the output has to be considered in a quality assurance framework, but also the 
institutional  environment  (statistical  independence),  control  over  processes,  cost-efficiency  and  a 
non-excessive burden on respondents. 

The  evaluation  assesses  the  extent  to  which  EFS  meet  their  original  objectives  and 
continue to be fit for purpose. It also assesses whether they are of significant added value 
for  users,  with  an  acceptable  administrative  burden  on  the  ESS  and  respondents 
(fishermen and managers of aquaculture facilities). 

This is the first evaluation of statistical regulations fully to follow the ‘Better Regulation’ 
guidelines. The results serve as an input for: 

 

improving the EFS regulations, including impact assessments; 

  streamlining EU and international fisheries/aquaculture data collections; and 

  developing the methods for evaluating statistical regulations. 

2.  BACKGROUND  

2.1.  Origins of the EFS regulations 

The  EFS  regulations  lay  down  statistical  variables,  data  and  metadata  parameters  (the 
latter are for statistical  quality reports), transmission deadlines  and quality  criteria. The 
catch  regulations  are  recasts,  while  the  landings  and  aquaculture  regulations  replaced 
previous regulations.  

The catch regulation recasts were necessary to provide greater clarity and more complete 
definitions and descriptions. The landings regulation eased the administrative burden on 
statistical systems by moving from monthly to annual data transmissions. It also required 
breakdowns  of  landings  statistics  by  vessel  flag  state.  The  aquaculture  regulation 
extended data collection to hatchery/nursery production and to production value. 

13   https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/64157/4392716/ESS-QAF-V1-2final.pdf/bbf5970c-1adf-46c8-

afc3-58ce177a0646  

10 

 
 
                                                 
When  the  regulations  were  drafted,  it  was  expected  that  statistics  would  be  collected 
mainly from sample surveys and (for minor species) expert estimates.  

2.2.  EFS intervention logic  

The  EFS  intervention  logic  (Figure  1)  describes  the  links  and  causal  relationships 
between problems and/or needs, inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes/results and expected 
impacts. It also includes key assumptions and contextual factors.  

The  high-level  general  objective  of  EFS  is  to  provide  fisheries  statistics  to  support  the 
CFP, in  particular to  manage Union fisheries resources and to  develop  and manage the 
fisheries  and  aquaculture  sectors  and  markets.  The  regulations  also  stipulate  more 
specific objectives, mainly linked to the delivery of statistics to the FAO, ICES, NAFO 
and other RFMOs.  

11 

 
Figure 1. EFS intervention logic 

12 

EUROSTAT HIGH LEVEL OBJECITVE: provide agriculture, fisheries and forestry statistics for the development and monitoring of the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Management of community fisheries resources through the CFP requires accurate and timely statistics, development and management of the fishing and aquaculture sectors and markets, data delivery obligation to  the FAO and NAFO, data availability for other RFMOs and international organisations. IMPACTSStatistics support exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditionsInformed, evidence-based policymaking at both national and EU level that allows for:-evaluation of fish stocks-market monitoring -fisheries management measures-structural financial measures in support of the fisheries and aquaculture dependent areas-mitigation measures to reduce negative effects of fisheries on the ecosystem Improved monitoring -high quality and objective data including market monitoring, monitoring the effectiveness of the CFPStatistical informationon fishery and aquaculture sectorsAvailability of statistics Commission DGs, EP, Council, CoA, EEA as well as RFMOs FAO, OECD, researchers, businessesOUTPUTSAssessment Reports to EP / CouncilFisheries / aquaculture statistics and datasetsMethodological reports Dissemination productsEurostat on-line database, metadata, Eurostat websiteand othersACTIVITIES1. MS Data collection collection on aquaculture, the catches and landings of fisheries products, and the EU fishing fleetand processing, QA and meta data provision2. Data validation, processing and quality assurance in ESTAT3. Disseminating statisticsOverall management Methodological guidance, training, WGs/DGAs meetings, reports to EP and Council and othersINPUTSCommission & Members State managementStatistics regulation basisRegulation (EC) No:•216/2009, •217/2009, •218/2009, •1921/2006 and •762/2008PROBLEM / RATIONALEData collected is very detailed which leads to confidentiality issues and unpublishable dataMarine sustainability and economic viability threatened if fish are overexploited due to bad or confusing statisticsUser needs not fully met by current Eurostat statistics due to changes in CFP, outdated regulations and their coverageHigh burden on data producers due to multiple reporting obligations. OUTCOMES / RESULTSFAO, OECDRFMOsDG MARE: DCFDG MARE: Control  regulation reporting and fleet dataOTHER FISHERIES DATA COLLECTIONSEurostat: statistics on trade and production of fisheries products and othersEUROPEAN COMMISSION FISHERIES DATA COLLECTIONS 
The  EFS  regulations  require  countries  to  collect  statistics  and  Eurostat  to  validate  and 
disseminate them in line with the statistical code of practice and certain quality criteria. 
EFS  and  the  accompanying  metadata  are  published  annually  on  Eurostat’s  website14, 
where users can consult and download them for free. The Commission (Eurostat) reports 
regularly to the European Parliament and the Council on the functioning of the landings15 
and aquaculture regulations16. 

The key components of the intervention logic are: 

 

 

inputs  –  compared  with  standard  intervention  logic  models,  input  for  EFS  is 
conceptually challenging, as the EFS regulations can be considered both an input 
and an output (an action that requires something to happen). The resources needed 
to  meet  the  legislative  requirements  (e.g. management  and  time/input  from 
Member States and Eurostat) are also considered inputs; 

activities – the usual cause-effect logic applied to programmes or projects cannot 
readily  be  applied  to  statistical  regulations,  to  which  no  direct  activities  can  be 
linked. However, the regulations are directly applicable in the Member States and 
the activities triggered by their implementation, such as the collection, processing 
and validation of statistics at national and Eurostat level, are put in this category;  

  outputs  –  the  immediate  outputs  (primary  quantifiable  deliverables)  are  the 

statistical datasets and metadata provided under the regulations;  

 

results/outcomes  –  the outcomes and impacts  of the regulations are less tangible 
and  more  difficult  to  identify  and  quantify  than  those  of  many  other  EU 
interventions  (e.g. the  CFP,  CAP  or  regional  policy,  which  are  associated  with 
large-scale spending programmes). Overall, the desired result is that the statistics 
in question lead to a number of (mostly indirect) outcomes such as: 

o 

improved market monitoring; 

o  monitoring of the CFP; and  

o  assessments of stocks and economic impacts on aquaculture and fisheries. 

Compliance  with  the  legislation  ensures  that  users  have  access  to  high-quality 
statistics; this is also considered as an outcome; 

 

impacts  –  previous  work  has  investigated  the  impact  of  fisheries  statistics  by 
looking at the causal relationships between context, inputs, activities, outputs and 
outcomes. This has informed a ‘narrative’ of how EFS contribute to higher-level 
impacts  such  as  supporting  the  sustainable  exploitation  of  aquatic  resources  and 
informed decision-making; 

14   https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/  
15   See COM(2010) 675 final, COM(2014) 240 final, COM(2016) 239 final and COM(2019) 47 final. 
16   See COM(2012) 422 final, COM(2015) 297 final and COM(2017) 747 final. 

13 

 
                                                 
 

specific  objectives  –  as  the  regulations  do  not  have  explicit  objectives,  the 
intervention logic refers to the most relevant functional recitals (e.g. supplying the 
FAO with statistics);  

  general objectives – Eurostat’s general objectives apply to all statistical activities 

and provide the framework for the intervention logic; 

 

strategic  objective  –  the  ESP  objective  most  closely  linked  to  the  regulations  is 
specific  objective 8.4,  under  which  the  ESS  is  to  produce  fisheries  statistics  to 
meet  specific  needs  relating  to  the  CFP.  This  is  closely  linked  to  the 
Commission’s wider political agenda. 

The original  goals  of the regulations were to  enhance statistical  quality  and availability 
and  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  on  statistical  systems  by  collecting  statistics 
annually instead of monthly. The resulting statistics were to: 

  support key EU policies (CFP, international agreements); 

  facilitate the economically, environmentally and socially sustainable exploitation 

of fish stocks; and  

  create a basis for informed, evidence-based policymaking at EU and international 

levels.   

2.3.  Baseline 

Like all statistical regulations, the EFS regulations were intended to provide a statistical 
evidence  base  for  policymaking.  Therefore,  the  evaluation  assesses  whether  they 
succeeded  in  this  respect  (as  compared  with  hypothetical  ideal  fisheries  statistics)  and 
how they were used in practice (as compared with other data sources). 

3.  STATE OF PLAY  

The EFS regulations were geared to user needs at the time of their adoption. They set out 
a  basis  for  the  content  of  the  statistics,  timeliness,  the  transmission  schedule  and 
associated metadata.  

The  ESS  (composed  of  Eurostat  and  national  statistical  institutes  (NSIs))  ensures  the 
correct  implementation  of the regulations. Eurostat’s role is  to  consolidate the statistics 
and,  by  using  a  harmonised  methodology,  ensure  that  they  are  comparable.  For  that 
purpose, in addition to issuing regulations: 

 

it  issues  methodological  guides  and  handbooks17  in  line  with  international 
standards; 

17   Latest version of aquaculture handbook:   

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/30227ee5-283f-4354-a3a8-
5222f87ff336/FISH_WG_2018_1_05_Annex_1_AQUA_Handbook.pdf  
Latest version of catches and landings handbook:   
https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/87c633b6-d5a8-44a2-9c6a-
7cbacb47ddbb/FISH_WG_2018_1_05_Annex_2_CATCH_LAND_Handbook.pdf 

14 

 
                                                 
  organises working groups; and  

 

assesses the quality of statistics and countries’ legislative compliance.  

The NSIs or other national authorities (ONAs) are responsible for compiling statistics in 
accordance with the EFS regulations following Eurostat’s guidelines. 

3.1.  Content of EFS 

The statistical requirements for catch statistics include the volume of nominal catches by 
species and detailed FAO fishing areas.  

For landing statistics, the volume and unit value of landed products are compiled by flag 
of the vessel, species, presentation and intended use.  

The  fishing  fleet  statistics  include  vessel  numbers  by  tonnage  class,  length  class,  age 
class, power class and gear category.  

The statistical requirements for aquaculture statistics include quantities and unit values 
by  species,  production  method  and  production  environment  for  fish,  crustaceans, 
molluscs, seaweed and fish eggs (for consumption). They also cover the growing of fish 
caught from nature, hatchery/nursery production and the structure of the sector.  

The detailed requirements are set out in Annex 5.  

3.2.  Data sources 

The  base  data  for  EFS  are  collected  largely  from  administrative  data  sources  (Control 
Regulation data (68%)) or statistical surveys (sample surveys or censuses (28%)).  

The most common administrative data sources used for catch and landing statistics are 
vessel  logbooks,  sales  notes  and  landing/transhipment  declarations  (Figure 2).  National 
authorities  can  carry  out  statistical  surveys  to  collect  information  directly  from 
fishermen, especially where administrative data sources do not cover the entire sector or 
are  not  deemed  fit  for  statistical  purposes.  As  stated  in  section 2,  when  the  EFS 
regulations  were  adopted,  it  was  expected  that  most  source  data  would  be  collected 
through statistical sample surveys. The availability of administrative data sources, mainly 
Control Regulation data, has changed the situation completely.  

15 

 
Figure 2.   Data sources for catch and landing statistics 

(source: catch and landings statistics metadata reports) 

Eurostat  compiles  fleet  statistics  directly  from  the  EU  fleet  register  maintained  by 
DG MARE18.  

For aquaculture statistics, most countries carry out statistical surveys (mostly censuses), 
as  the  collected  statistics  are  very  detailed  and  the  sector  is  fragmented.  58%  of  data 
sources  in  this  area  are  censuses  and  24%  administrative  (mostly  business)  registers 
(Figure 3). 

18   Until 1997, two parallel registers existed – one for statistical purposes and the other for administrative 

purposes. Since then, only the former has been maintained. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 3.   Data sources for aquaculture statistics 

(source: aquaculture statistics metadata reports) 

3.3.  Deadlines for transmission to Eurostat 

Eurostat collects most EFS annually (the deadlines in Table 1 refer to  year n+1, i.e. the 
year after the reference year). 

Table 1. 

Transmission deadlines  

Dataset 

Deadline 

Periodicity 

Catches in NW Atlantic (21A catch data) 

Catches in NE Atlantic 

Catches in certain areas other than those of North Atlantic 

Landings of fishery products 

Catches in NW Atlantic (21B catch data) 

Catches in NW Atlantic (21B effort data) 

Aquaculture production (excl. hatcheries and nurseries) 

Aquaculture production of fish eggs for human consumption 

17 

31/05 

30/06 

30/06 

30/06 

31/08 

31/08 

31/12 

31/12 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

Annually 

 
 
 
 
 
Dataset 

Input to capture-based aquaculture 

Aquaculture production of hatcheries and nurseries 

Aquaculture structural statistics 

Deadline 

Periodicity 

31/12 

31/12 

31/12 

Annually 

Annually 

Every 3 years 

The  aquaculture  statistics  are  accompanied  by  an  annual  metadata  report.  For  the 
landings  and  catch  regulations,  Eurostat  collects  metadata  reports  every  3  years  on  a 
voluntary basis, as the EFS regulations do not oblige countries to deliver regular quality 
reports.  The  metadata  reports  are  collected  using  a  standard  ESS  metadata  report 
template,  with  information  on  data  sources,  statistical  processing,  quality  management, 
relevance,  accuracy  and  reliability, 
timeliness  and  punctuality,  coherence  and 
comparability, accessibility, clarity and administrative burden. 

3.4.  Statistical quality 

Eurostat  regularly  assesses  the  EFS  against  the  statistical  quality  criteria  referred  to  in 
section 5.3  and  takes  the  necessary  action,  together  with  the  countries  concerned,  to 
improve them.  

3.4.1.  Relevance 

The relevance of statistics is normally assessed when establishing the legal basis; it is not 
part of the regular assessment of statistical quality. The main EFS users are policymakers 
working on the CFP,  environmental and trade policies. In the Commission, this includes 
DG  MARE,  JRC  (working  in  support  of  DG MARE),  DG ENV  and  DG TRADE.  It  is 
also assumed that EFS are used by other EU institutions (e.g. European Parliament, ECA, 
European  Council  –  in  relation  to  TAC/quota  regulations),  international  organisations 
(FAO,  OECD,  ICES),  regional  fisheries  bodies  (e.g. RFMOs),  national  administrations, 
NSIs and research institutes, the business sector, media and the general public. 

Eurostat  carries  out  regular  user  satisfaction  surveys,  for  which  EFS  are  clustered 
together  with  agricultural  statistics.  Due  to  the  limited  number  of  replies,  it  is  not 
possible to draw specific conclusions for EFS. 

Eurostat uses the number of downloads of EFS from its online database as an indication 
of  their  relevance.  Between  2013  and  2017,  the  number  almost  tripled,  to  24 000 
(Figure 4).  The  downloads  are  relatively  evenly  spread  between  dataset  groups,  with 
catch statistics being used slightly more than the others. 

18 

 
 
Figure 4.   EFS downloads by dataset group 

EFS  are  quite  popular  compared  with  other  sectoral  statistical  domains;  for  example, 
statistics  for  the  poultry  sector  (which  is  slightly  larger  in  economic  terms)  were 
downloaded less than half as often in the same period.   

3.4.2.  Completeness 

Under  the  EFS  regulations,  the  completeness  of  catch  and  landing  statistics  has 
improved since 2015. Previously, mandatory unit prices for fisheries products were often 
missing, but most of these are now available. Eurostat clarified the reporting instructions 
in the 2015 meeting of the Fisheries Statistics Working Group.  

Completeness  has  also  been  improved  by  some  countries’  measures  to  extend  their 
survey coverage to more vessel types, foreign vessels and species. Only three countries 
claim that they do not collect data on landings from vessels less than 10 metres long. In 
recent  years,  some  countries  have  flagged  some  catch  and  landings  statistics  as 
confidential, which prevents Eurostat from calculating EU aggregates. 

The  main  aquaculture  dataset  (‘production  from  aquaculture’)  has  become  more 
complete over time. The ‘fish eggs for human consumption’ dataset poses difficulties for 
a number of countries. The Fisheries Statistics Working Group discussed the importance 
of  distinguishing  fish  egg  from  fish  meat  production  in  April  2017.  In  the  ‘input  to 
capture-based  aquaculture’  dataset,  unit  prices  are  frequently  missing,  because  they  are 
difficult  to  estimate  where  aquaculture  facilities  catch  seed  fish  themselves  instead  of 
buying  them.  There  are  also  gaps  in  the  ‘production  from  hatcheries  and  nurseries’ 
dataset. 

In order to avoid flagging data as confidential (and thus not publishable), some countries 
report  statistics  at  a  more  aggregated  level  than  that  stipulated  by  the  EFS  regulations. 
Nevertheless,  the  confidentiality  issue  still  concerns  half  the  countries  and  many 
aquaculture  statistics  remain  confidential  (13%  of  values).  It  is  virtually  impossible  to 

19 

 
 
calculate EU aggregates for aquaculture. At a smaller scale, the same is true for landings 
and catches. The issue is due to: 

  Eurostat’s current approach to confidentiality, whereby aggregates are regarded as 
confidential  if  their  components  are  confidential,  in  order  not  to  reveal  the 
confidential values by simple subtraction from the EU totals; 

  highly complex data structures (many cross-tabulated dimensions); and  

 

the high degree of specialisation in the sector.  

Due  to  quality  problems  highlighted  in  the  ECA  2014  special  report19  and  a  lack  of 
resources, the ‘structure of aquaculture’ dataset is currently not published. The fact that 
Eurostat has not received any requests to resume publication indicates that it is of limited 
use as currently defined.  

3.4.3.  Timeliness and punctuality 

For catch statistics, the transmission deadline is set between 5 and 8 months after the end 
of the reference  year (n), depending on the  FAO fishing area. European  catch statistics 
are published between July and September of year n+1. Thus, the time lag from the end 
of the reference period to publication is between 6 and 8  months.  

Landing statistics are submitted to Eurostat 6 months after the end of the reference year 
and published within one month (July of year n+1). 

The deadline for submitting aquaculture statistics to Eurostat is 12 months after the end 
of the reference year and they are published between February and March of year n+2.  

The punctuality of data transmissions for  catches and landings has improved in recent 
years,  with  most  countries  delivering  on  time.  For    the  reference  year  2017,  three 
countries  (IT,  CY  and  MT)  were  late  in  transmitting  catch  data  and  five  (IT,  CY,  MT, 
RO and UK) in transmitting landing data.  

Eurostat produces fishing fleet statistics twice a year (in April and October). Keeping the 
fishing fleet register up to date ensures punctuality. 

In  aquaculture,  major  delays  were  observed  for  two  countries  (IT  and  FR)  for  the 
reference year 2016. 

3.4.4.  Accuracy and reliability 

The accuracy of catch and landings statistics largely depends on Member States’ control 
systems, including landing inspections to verify landed quantities, the weighing systems 
in  place  and  their  possible  manipulation,  the  availability  of  all  required  documents  as 
prescribed by the legislation and cross-checks and validation of data collected under the 
Control  Regulation  for  vessels  above  10  m  long.  For  catches  by  smaller  vessels,  the 
accuracy  depends  on  sampling  plans,  unless  Member  States  have  implemented  a 

19   ECA special report 10/2014 (Effectiveness of European Fisheries Fund support for aquaculture).  

20 

 
                                                 
reporting system, in which case the reliability depends on the control of the submission 
of those  reports  and on the relevant  data  analysisMost  aquaculture statistics  are based 
on  censuses.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  coverage  of  the  aquaculture  facilities  register 
varies between countries. ‘Economic value at first sale’ is the most problematic variable, 
because the first sale takes place at different stages of processing and is often estimated. 
As a result, the prices vary widely from year to year and from country to country. 

3.4.5.  Coherence and comparability 

For catches, the fleet composition can have an impact on the comparability of statistics 
between countries. Comparability between catch and landing statistics is affected by the 
fact that countries sometimes report catch data at relatively aggregated (genus) level and 
landings at more detailed (species) level.  

In many countries, the aquaculture sector is quite small in terms of the number of units, 
so  data  are  normally  collected  by  census.  This  guarantees  good  comparability  between 
countries.  

For price statistics, comparability between countries is clearly better for landings than for 
aquaculture. Prices for the former are broken down by species, intended use, presentation 
and  preservation  status.  For  the  latter,  prices  are  reported  at  first  sale  without  further 
details. However, it is known that the first sale from aquaculture facilities occurs at very 
different stages of processing, from living to highly processed products.  

The coherence of EFS is ensured by harmonised concepts and definitions that are in line 
with those used by FAO and other international organisations. 

3.4.6.  Accessibility and clarity 

The combination of very detailed breakdowns, the cross-tabulation of variables and the 
high  degree  of  specialisation  in  the  sector  gives  rise  to  a  large  number  of  confidential 
values (see above). As a result, Eurostat cannot provide users with all available statistics 
on  catches,  landings  and  (in  particular)  aquaculture.  The  issue  affects  detailed  national 
values and aggregates, and most EU aggregates. 

EFS  and  their  respective  metadata  are  publicly  available  on  Eurostat's  website20.  Data 
users can consult and download them for free.  

4.  METHOD 

Eurostat  carried  out  the  evaluation  with  the  assistance  of  a  consultant  and  under  the 
supervision  of  an  inter-service  group  (ISG)  chaired  by  Eurostat  and  composed  of 
representatives  of  five  Commission  Directorates-General  and  services:  DG ENV,  JRC, 
DG MARE, the Secretariat-General and DG TRADE. The ISG began work in 2018 with 

20   https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ 

21 

 
 
                                                 
the  publication  of  an  evaluation  roadmap21  and  monitored  each  major  step  of  the 
evaluation.. 

The  evaluation  covered  the  period  from  the  entry  into  force  of  the  EFS  regulations 
(2006-2009) to 2017, but focused on 2014-2017, as the latest CFP reform took effect in 
2014.  

4.1.  Evidence collection 

The Commission conducted several consultation activities to collect the evidence needed 
for the evaluation, including a public consultation and a data producers’ workshop. The 
consultant conducted a support study, which also included national case studies. 

4.1.1.  Data producers’ workshop 

The first major activity was a 1-day workshop organised back to back with a meeting of 
the  Fisheries  Statistics  Working  Group  Commission  expert  group  in  October  2018.  It 
focused on the strengths and weaknesses of the current EFS and future opportunities and 
threats from the point of view of national data providers (NSIs and ONAs). In addition to 
national  members  of  the  Working  Group  (who  are  responsible  for  providing  EFS), 
representatives from FAO, OECD and ICES also took part.  

4.1.2.  Public consultation 

A  public  consultation22  was  conducted  between  18  January  and  12  April  2019  on  the 
Commission’s dedicated website (EU Survey) and in line with its general principles and 
standards for consultation. A total of 24 respondents filled in the questionnaire. 

4.1.3.  Support study 

The  evaluation  was  carried  out  with  the  support  of  a  consortium  led  by  Coffey 
International  (UK)  under  a  14-month  contract  signed  in  July  2018.  The  consortium 
carried  out  a  large  number  of  consultations  (see  Annex 2)  and  desk  research  activities 
(see below), and produced a study report. The latter fed into the intervention logic and 
evaluation question matrices, i.e. a framework of criteria and indicators against which the 
responses  would  be  assessed  (see  Annex 3).  The  starting  point  for  the  evaluation 
framework  was  the  EFS  intervention  logic  and  a  theoretical  assessment  of  how  inputs 
into the statistical system are transformed into outputs and impacts. 

In  answering  the  evaluation  questions,  the  study  team  reviewed  a  large  number  of 
documents,  including  a  range  of  documents  supplied  by  Eurostat  (e.g. statistical 
regulations,  EFS  quality/methodological  reports,  handbooks,  Code  of  Practice).  The 
review  followed  the  logic  of  the  evaluation  matrix  and  sought  to  shed  light  on  the 
indicators identified for each judgement criterion. 

21   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-3790936_en 
22   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-3790936/public-consultation_en  

22 

 
                                                 
The  team  analysed  statistics/other  data  and  related  metadata  in  order  to  compare  EFS 
with  other  available  data  sources  (e.g. Control  Regulation,  DCF,  FAO).  This  involved 
extensive checking of overlaps and discrepancies, and comparison data tables for specific 
fisheries statistics indicators.  

The main objective of comparison of catch data in the various EU and FAO sources was 
to gauge their level of consistency. The team gathered and compared data from:  

  EFS – catches in major fishing areas (from 2000 onwards);  

  DCF – EU fleet landings23; 

  DG MARE – Control Regulation data24; and   

  FAO – capture production. 

The  consultation  strategy  was  developed  with  assistance  from  the  study  team  in  the 
inception  phase  and  some  amendments  were  made  in  the  course  of  the  evaluation. 
Overall,  the  stakeholders  addressed  and  the  tools  applied  were  as  planned,  with  some 
slight adjustments. Annex 2 provides an overview of the consultation work, as required 
by the terms of reference and the ‘Better Regulation’ guidelines. 

In-depth stakeholder interviews 

In-depth interviews were conducted with 15 stakeholders (see list in Annex 2) – mainly:  

  Redistributors (organisations that re-distribute EFS through their own databases, 

adding information from other countries or areas); and  

  Regular  professional  users  (organisations  that  use  EFS  in  the  course  of  their 

main activities). 

The aim was to gather detailed information on how the organisations use EFS, how they 
rate the quality of EFS and how EFS could be improved in the future.  

Case studies 

Case studies of Denmark, France, Greece,  Ireland, Italy and Poland were carried out to 
provide  an  overview  of  national  arrangements  for  collecting  EFS  and  analyse  them  in 
more detail. They served as a basis for understanding how certain fisheries-related data 
collaboration  is  organised  in  Member  States  and  how  organisations  cooperate.  In 
addition, the aim was to analyse how national data users use EFS and assess whether EFS 
meet their needs.  

In  addition,  the  support  study  included  a  horizontal  case  study  on  aquaculture,  with 
particular  emphasis  on  the  data  confidentiality  issue.  It  covered  the  above-mentioned 
countries and Germany (see Annex 2, section 4.3). 

23   https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/stecf/data-dissemination  
24   Aggregated Catch Data Report (not publicly available).  

23 

 
                                                 
Online survey 

An online questionnaire collected users’ and producers’ feedback on various aspects  of 
EFS,  including  usefulness,  ease  of  use,  cost  of  collection,  statistical  quality,  efficiency, 
effectiveness and coherence (as listed in the evaluation matrix).  

The questionnaire was circulated to 353 organisations/individuals identified by Eurostat. 
It  included  general  questions  for  all  respondents  and  routings  for  EFS  users,  producers 
and combined users/producers. A total of 135 respondents answered, representing 38.2% 
of the target population. Responses were received from 33 of the 36 countries (Member 
States, EFTA countries, candidate and potential candidate countries). 

The final support study is based on the evidence collected from all the above activities, 
including  the  public  consultation  and  the  workshop.  It  provides  a  comprehensive, 
evidence-based analysis of all evaluation questions identified in the roadmap. The draft 
final conclusions were sent to the ISG for comment. 

4.2.  Complementary sources 

The evaluation  also  uses additional insights  from  the following complementary sources 
not covered by the support study:  

  ECA reports: 

  Special Report 2007/7 (Control, inspection and sanction systems relating 

to the rules on conservation of Community fisheries resources); 

  Special Report 2014/10 (Effectiveness of European Fisheries Fund support 

for aquaculture); and  

  Special Report 2017/08 (EU fisheries controls: more efforts needed); 

Reports from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: 

  Four reports on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1921/200625; 

  Three reports on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 762/200826; 

Quality  and  methodological  (metadata  reports)  on  catch  and  landing,  and  aquaculture 
statistics27; 

  EFS handbooks on aquaculture, and catches and landings; and 

  2015-2018  documentation  from  the  Commission  (Eurostat)  expert  group  on 

fishery statistics. 

25   COM(2010) 675 final, COM(2014) 240 final, COM(2016) 239 final and COM(2019) 47 final. 
26   COM(2012) 422 final, COM(2015) 297 final and COM(2017) 747 final. 
27   Landings of fishery products metadata reports:  

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/EN/fish_ld_esqrs.htm 
Aquaculture production metadata reports:  

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/EN/fish_aq_esqrs.htm  

24 

 
                                                 
 
 
4.3.  Limitations and robustness of findings 

The evaluation encountered some methodological challenges and limitations: 

  It proved more difficult than expected to identify the users of EFS – it was not 
possible to get information (e.g. country of origin of downloads/institutions) on 
the users downloading statistics from Eurostat’s online database. In the case 
studies, the NSIs/ONAs interviewed had difficulties in identifying the national 
users of EFS or even of national fisheries statistics;  

  Eurostat’s  user  satisfaction  surveys  cluster  together  the  users  of  agricultural  and 

fisheries statistics – it was not possible to separate the results;  

  Institutions providing the DCF data were not always covered by the case studies, 

but they did receive the online questionnaire;  

  Responses to the public consultation were few in number (24) and disappointing, 
despite efforts to promote it to a wide audience and use of a short, user-friendly 
questionnaire;  

  Spain  is  the  biggest  fishing  nation  in  the  EU  and  the  plan  was  to  make  it  the 
subject  of  a  case  study;  however,  it  declined  due  to  a  lack  of  resources  and 
reorganisation;  

 

to  establish, 

the 
It  was  difficult 
regulations/statistics, as this is indirect and difficult to separate from other drivers 
(e.g. policy  changes  and  other  data  collections),  in  particular  as  the  base  data 
source for EFS is often the same as for the Control Regulation and DCF; and   

let  alone  quantify, 

impact  of 

the 

 

It was difficult to extrapolate general EU-level judgements from the case studies. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The evaluation  was  based on  six evaluation  criteria and 12 evaluation  questions  (EQs). 
The replies are summarised below. 

5.1.  Relevance 

This  criterion  assesses  the  extent  to  which  EFS  are  relevant  for  the  various  users  and 
whether  their  needs  have  evolved  over  time.  It  looks  at  the  relationship  between  the 
needs and problems in society and the objectives of the intervention. 

Two EQs were formulated for relevance. The first compares current user needs with the 
outcome of the current EFS. The second asks to what extent the current approach to data 
collection is appropriate in the light of user needs. 

The  main  objective  of  EFS  is  to  provide  independent,  comparable  and  harmonised 
statistics  on  fisheries  that  can  be  used  to  support  the  development,  monitoring  and 
evaluation  of  the  CFP,  for  market  monitoring  and  to  meet  international  reporting 
obligations. 

25 

 
 
EQ  1.1:  To  what  extent  are  the  current  (and  potential  future)  needs  of  data  users 
captured in the current legislation?  

To  answer  this  question,  it  was  necessary  to  identify  the  users  of  EFS.  As  stated  in 
section 4.3.,  privacy  protection  rules  mean  that  Eurostat  does  not  know  who  is  behind 
close  to  24,000  annual  downloads  of  EFS  datasets.  The  case  studies  showed  that  the 
same problem exists at national level, where EFS producers had difficulties in identifying 
the users of fisheries statistics.  

According to the online survey and the public consultation, a wide range of groups use 
EFS  (Figure 5).  The  largest  groups  identified  were  national  authorities  (mainly  those 
responsible for fisheries policy), NSIs and researchers working for DCF and in fisheries 
research in other contexts / for other purposes. The other half is made up of specialised 
users (international organisations, fisheries associations, NGOs, EU staff and businesses) 
and 11% are ‘other users’ (private individuals, regional bodies, etc.). This analysis may 
not  be exhaustive, as  the online survey  was sent  to  known potential users identified by 
Eurostat. However, the links to the survey and the open consultation were also available 
on the Eurostat website and social media, so they reached a wider user group. 

Figure 5.   Identified EFS user groups 

(source: online survey) 

26 

 
 
 
Most users said that they use EFS for more than one purpose. Figure 6 summarises the 
results.  The  most  common  purpose  was  linked  to  the  CFP  at  national  or  EU  level. 
Research and commercial purposes were the second and third most common uses, ahead 
of environment policy, blue economy policy, other policies and media uses. 

Evidence from the consultations shows that the legislation is serving its core purpose in 
providing relevant statistics to monitor and evaluate the CFP at national and EU levels, to 
inform wider policymaking (in particular on the environment and the blue economy) and 
for market monitoring in the business sector, research purposes and media use. 

27 

 
Figure 6.   Main use purposes of EFS 

(source: online survey) 

65% of users indicated that they use catch statistics, while 51% use landing statistics and 
60% use aquaculture statistics. Use of fleet  statistics was markedly lower, at  37%. The 
figures show that most users use several datasets. These proportions are in line with the 
user statistics in Figure 5.  

When asked to what extent EFS meet their needs, 23% of users replied that they do so to 
a large extent, 66% to some extent and 11% only to a small extent. Aquaculture statistics 
attracted the highest proportion of responses in the last category, suggesting ample room 
for improvement. This is probably because the large number of confidential values in the 
dataset has a significant impact on its usefulness (e.g. no EU aggregates).   

The evidence from these users indicates that the relevance of EFS is linked to:  

 

their official status as an ESS product; 

 

the availability of long time-series; and 

 

the well-developed quality criteria and validation process. 

The main criticism of EFS concerned the level of aggregation, which was considered too 
high;  further  breakdowns  (species,  geographical  units,  time,  etc.)  were  requested  for 
almost all variables. The high level of aggregation was the main reason why some users 
preferred other data sources. 

28 

 
 
 
The  relevance  of  EFS  varies  between  user  groups.  Several  prefer  to  use  other  data 
sources  –  often  scientific  or  administrative  data,  and  sometimes  also  other  statistics. 
However, where users get statistics from sources other than Eurostat (e.g. NSIs or FAO), 
these  are  actually  produced  pursuant  to  the  EFS  regulations,but  published  by  other 
institutions than Eurostat as well. Therefore, the relevance of the regulations goes beyond 
the direct use of EFS downloaded from Eurostat’s online database.  

However,  improvements  to  coverage,  aggregation  level  and  practical  aspects  of 
dissemination would further increase the relevance of EFS (Table 2).  

Table 2.   New and emerging needs in fisheries statistics 

Domain 

New and emerging needs 

Catches 

Landings 

Inclusion of all FAO fishing areas 
Higher spatial resolution (e.g. EEZ, grids) 
Recreational fishing 
Better vessel coverage 
Catches per fleet segment 
Catches by European joint ventures in third countries 
Catches by non-EU/EFTA vessels in a given area 
Effort data 
Other groupings for species 
Earlier deadline for NW Atlantic (1 May) 
Monthly frequency 
Total landings for all vessels of a country 
Landings of EU/EFTA vessels outside EU/EFTA territory 
Landings by non-EU/EFTA vessels in EU/EFTA territory 
Economic  indicators  and  data,  including  GVA,  gross  profit,  market 
prices at the different levels of the value chain 

Aquaculture  Tackle confidentiality issue  
Clarify statistical coverage 
Focus on most important commercial species 
Volume of stocks maintained from one year to the next (not sold) 
Intermediate  sales  (between  producers)  of  on-growing  species, 
including volumes and prices  
More detailed breakdown of unit value of products at first sale 
Areas used by aquaculture (marine and land areas) 
More details on algae production 
More information on mussels and shellfish (including biological data) 
Age classes of fish (for some species) 
Economic  indicators  and  data,  including  GVA,  gross  profit,  market 
prices at the different levels of the value chain 

Interested 
users 

DG MARE 

FAO 

NAFO 

National users 

Other users 

DG MARE 

OECD 

National users 

Other users 

DG MARE 

FAO 

National users 

Other users 

EQ 1.2: To what extent is the current approach to data collection appropriate to meet 
user needs? 

This question focuses on the current approach to statistical collection. While understood 
in terms of general conceptual aspects of the collection, processing and dissemination of 
EFS, such aspects  also  have practical  implications  (e.g. on timeliness and accessibility, 
which are key factors determining how relevant EFS are to their users). 

29 

 
To answer this question, it is important to bear in mind the fisheries-related information 
ecosystem in which EFS operate. EFS are not only interlinked, but largely based on other 
data  collected  in  the  context  of  the  CFP,  e.g. Control  Regulation  and  DCF  data.  The 
former  are  the  main  data  source  for  EFS  in  most  countries,  especially  those  where  the 
small-scale fishing fleet accounts for a small proportion of total catches.  

The following types of data fulfil their own user needs: 

  Statistics  –  these  provide  aggregated  and  statistically  representative  information 
on  a  collective  phenomenon 
in  a  certain  population  (Regulation  (EC) 
No 223/2009, Article 3(1)). They are governed by commonly agreed ESS rules as 
regards methodology and quality. They are independent and made available to all 
users with a time lag, as the producers have to follow complex procedures linked 
to methodology and quality assurance; 

  Administrative data (e.g. Control Regulation data and the Union fleet register) – 
these are generated to support specific administrative tasks such as those linked to 
CFP management. They are often confidential, as they can be linked to single 
beneficiaries (e.g. single vessels), and are not usually published. The time lag is 
short, in particular in fisheries, as quota uptake (for example) has to be monitored 
almost in real time; and 

  Data collected for scientific purposes (e.g. DCF biological data on fish stocks 
and the marine environment collected) – these are collected via a wide range of 
methods, some of which are experimental and are peer reviewed in the scientific 
community. Some are published in aggregated form, but they are not necessarily 
easily accessible by a wider user community.  

Certain  factors  have  made  EFS  less  relevant  vis-à-vis  their  overall  objective,  as  the 
development,  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  CFP  requires  more  and  more  data  and 
information: 

  The  2013  CFP  reform  has    exponentially  increased  policymakers’  requirements 
for  data  to  assess  the  achievement  of  specific  goals  (e.g. landing  obligation, 
multi-annual multi-species management plans, regionalisation at sea-basin level); 

  Tools  have  been  created 

to  monitor  quota  uptake,  e.g. by  compiling 

close-to-real-time information from logbooks; 

  The  consolidation  of  the  DCF  with  targeted  data  calls  has  become  the  primary 

source of information for the CFP; and 

  The  ecosystem  approach  to  fisheries  management  as  a  CFP  objective  requires 
extensive  data  on  biotic  (e.g. stocks,  bycatch),  abiotic  (e.g. sediments,  water 
quality) and socio-economic (e.g. fishermen’s economic situation) components.  

Therefore, the information ecosystem in which EFS operate has fundamentally changed 
in recent decades. The main role of EFS in this context is to provide validated, reliable 
European statistics on fisheries at aggregate level. They show major trends and serve as 
an  official  reference  point  for  other  data  collections.  EFS  are  not  designed  to  meet 

30 

 
short-term administrative needs, policy enforcement needs or scientific needs as regards 
the biological and social aspects of fisheries.  

Many  users  are  aware  of  the  differences  between  statistics  and  other  types  of  data,  but 
EFS were nevertheless criticised for a too high level of aggregation and a long time lag 
between  the  reference  period  and  publication  of  the  statistics.  These  are  inherent 
characteristics  of  statistics,  which  have  to  meet  quality  criteria  and  be  suitable  for 
publication. 

5.2.  Effectiveness 

Effectiveness analysis considers success in meeting general and specific objectives. This 
criterion is covered by two EQs:  

  How effective are the legal acts in delivering quality statistics? This was analysed 
mostly  on  the  basis  of  the  case  studies  and  in-depth  interviews,  as  regular  EFS 
users were not so familiar with the legal framework; and  

  To what extent are EFS used to meet their specific/general objectives? This was 
analysed  by  comparing  the  ESP  objectives  and  the  EFS  regulations  with  the 
current use made of EFS.  

The high-level objective of EFS is expressed in the ESP: 

‘…  [to]  provide  statistical  information,  in  a  timely  manner,  to  support  the 
development,  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  policies  of  the  Union  …  and 
serving  the  needs  of  the  wide  range  of  users  of  European  statistics,  including 
other decision-makers, researchers, businesses and European citizens in general, 
in a cost-effective manner without unnecessary duplication of effort;’  

The  more  specific  objectives  are  explained  in  section  2.2.  In  addition,  the  EFS 
regulations all refer to specific objectives in their recitals (see Table 3).  

Table 3.  

EFS specific objectives by Regulation 

Regulation  Statistics 

Specific objectives 

216/2009 

Catches in certain areas 
other than those of the North 
Atlantic 

217/2009 

Catches in NW Atlantic 

218/2009 

Catches in NE Atlantic 

Provide catch statistics to FAO 

Provide  timely  catch  and  activity  statistics  to  NAFO 
Scientific Council 

Provide  EU  fishery  resources  (predecessor  of  CFP)  with 
accurate and timely statistics on catches 

Provide timely catch and activity statistics to NEAFC 

ICES  advice  under  the  Cooperation  Agreement  between 
that organisation and the Community will be enhanced by 
availability of statistics on the activities of the EU fishing 

31 

 
fleet 
The  NASCO  Convention28  requires  the  EU  to  supply 
NASCO with the available statistics that it may request 

1921/2006 

Landings of fishery products  Provide  statistics  for  analyses  of  the  market  for  fishery 

762/2008 

Aquaculture statistics 

products and other economic analyses 

Landings data are an essential tool for CFP management  

Statistics  are  needed  to  review  and  assess  the  market  for 
aquaculture products 

Information  on  the  structure  of  the  sector  and  the 
technologies  used  is  needed  to  ensure  that  the  industry  is 
environmentally sound  

EQ 2.1: How effective are the legal acts in delivering quality statistics? 

The  EFS  regulations  are  crucial  for  the  availability  and  quality  of  statistics.  They 
stipulate the variables to be provided, main definitions to be used, the reporting system, 
transmission  and  assessment  procedures,  deadlines  and  geographical  coverage.  In 
addition,  they  ensure  the  use  of  quality  control  mechanisms  and  the  availability  of 
metadata.  The  latter  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  no  additional  quality  reports  need  to  be 
produced for catch and landing statistics, for which they are not legally required, whereas 
they  are  produced  for  aquaculture,  for  which  there  is  an  annual  metadata  reporting 
obligation in the Regulation. Eurostat does collect voluntary combined reports for catch 
and  landing  statistics,  but  the  timeliness  and  availability  are  far  inferior  to  those  of  the 
aquaculture reports.  

National  EFS  providers  and  institutional  users  (Commission,  FAO,  OECD,  ICES  and 
RFMOs) stressed the importance of a legal basis for EFS. Other users are rarely aware of 
the existence and/or content of the regulations.  

The case studies and the workshop confirmed that the EFS legal framework is crucial for 
NSIs’/ONAs’ provision of good quality statistics to Eurostat; it ensures the availability of 
resources  and  statistical  coherence.  However,  countries  stressed  the  importance  of 
supplementary  guidance  in  the  form  of  handbooks  and  training,  as  the  legal  acts  only 
provide a framework.   

The main weakness identified is the inbuilt problem of over-detailed cross-tabulations in 
the aquaculture Regulation, which leads to a large number of confidential values. It was 
also  pointed  out  that  the  regulations  are  not  always  consistent  with  each  other  or  other 
Commission data collections on fisheries. User needs have evolved since the adoption of 
the regulations and they have become less effective over time. 

From Eurostat’s point of view, the regulations are fundamental for the provision of good 
quality  EFS.  They  lay  the  foundation  for  the  effective  management  of  EFS:  a  legal 
obligation on which to build the statistical system and to ensure compliance.  

28   Approved by Council Decision 82/886/EEC (OJ L 378, 31.12.1982, p. 24). 

32 

 
                                                 
Eurostat acknowledges the weaknesses identified by countries:  

 

 

inbuilt problems linked to the confidentiality issue; 

incomplete  coherence  between  the  regulations  and  with  other  fisheries  data 
(mainly Control Regulation and DCF data, and FAO and OECD statistics); and  

  a growing gap between the content of the regulations and current user needs.  

Compliance  with  the  EFS  regulations  is  directly  linked  to  their  effectiveness.  In  most 
cases,  Eurostat’s  step-wise  compliance  monitoring  is  effective:  where  datasets  are 
missing or there is a lack of coherence in the statistics provided, its reminders and letters 
to  non-compliant  countries  elicit  new  statistics  and/or  corrections  and  revisions. 
However,  countries’  responsiveness  varies  and  this  sometimes  takes  a  long  time.  In 
recent years, the compliance monitoring system and the reaction speed have improved in 
most cases.  

EQ  2.2:  To  what  extent  are  fisheries  statistics  used  to  meet  their  specified/general 
objectives? 

The  main  objectives  of  EFS  are  to  provide  statistics  for  the  development,  management 
and  monitoring  of  the  CFP,  market  monitoring  and  meeting  international  reporting 
obligations. 

The evaluation shows that DG MARE’s use of EFS for CFP purposes is very limited, as 
more  detailed,  timelier  and  better-suited  data  sources  are  available.  Control  Regulation 
and DCF data meet CFP management needs better, as they are more timely and include 
biological and socio-economic data. However, DG MARE uses EFS (on landing volumes 
and values, and aquaculture) intensively for market monitoring in the framework of the 
European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture (EUMOFA). EFS are also 
used  in  the  DCF  context  to  assess  whether  countries  are  above  or  below  reporting 
thresholds.  In  addition,  DG MARE  uses  EFS  to  obtain  an  overview  of  fisheries  in 
Norway and Iceland.  

EFS are an important source of information for FAO, OECD and ICES, which confirms 
that  they  meet  objectives  linked  to  international  reporting  obligations.  The  FAO 
publishes some EFS, adding their own  estimates where the  EFS are confidential or not 
available for other reasons. It uses the EFS catch volume statistics, and no longer collects 
these data itself, continuing only to collect information on fishing areas not covered by 
EFS. The aquaculture statistics are currently used for validation purposes only. It would 
also  be  interested  in  using  the  EFS  aquaculture  statistics  more  if  they  were  published 
earlier and contained no confidential values. The OECD would use EFS if they addressed 
its  specific  needs  better.  ICES  relies  on  EFS  for  catches  in  the  Northeast Atlantic. 
Eurofish also uses EFS.  

The EU is a contracting party in several RFMOs. DG MARE ensures that its obligations 
to report to them are met. ICCAT, NAFO and NEAFC use EFS catch and fleet statistics 
for  validation  purposes  and  for  country-level  breakdowns  (DG MARE  reports  EU 
aggregates). 

33 

 
On the other hand, DG TRADE and the European Marine Observation and Data Network 
(EMODnet) use EFS only rarely or not at all. DG TRADE tends to use Eurostat trade and 
processing statistics, which suit their needs better. 

National fisheries statistics are preferred at national level, as they are often more detailed 
and broader in scope. National users use EFS for international comparisons. 

Public  interest  in  fisheries  statistics  has  increased  recently,  as  the  sustainability  of  the 
fishing sector and marine ecosystems has come into the spotlight. This might be one of 
the reasons for the increase in the number of downloads of EFS, the most popular being 
catch and landing statistics, followed by aquaculture and fleet  statistics. The evaluation 
indicated  that  national  authorities,  research  institutions,  NGOs,  national  fisheries 
organisations, international organisations and research institutions are the main EFS user 
groups.  The  most  common  use  is  for  fisheries  policymaking,  followed  by  research, 
commercial, environment and other policies, blue economy analysis and media purposes.  

Most users of EFS use them for periodical institutional tasks, e.g. annual reporting. The 
most frequent (almost daily) use was reported by EUMOFA. 

Users reported several strengths of EFS:  

 

 

they provide an overview and allow for comparative analysis for benchmarking; 

they make it possible to explore trends through consistent, long time-series; and  

 

they have been validated and are freely accessible. 

5.3.  Statistical quality 

Statistical quality has been added as an evaluation criterion, as it is crucial for assessing 
how statistical regulations work.  

The first EQ targets statistical output quality in terms of:  

 

 

 

 

accuracy and reliability; 

timeliness and punctuality; 

coherence and comparability; and  

accessibility and clarity.  

The second EQ compares the quality of EFS with that of other available data sources.  

EQ 3.1: To what extent do European Fishery Statistics meet statistical output quality 
principles (as defined by European Statistics Code of Practice)? 

The in-depth interviews, online survey and public consultation indicated that the quality 
of EFS is generally considered ‘good’.  

Users  rate  the  accuracy  and  reliability  of  EFS  as  ‘good’.  Many  stakeholders  value 
Eurostat’s quality management and validation practices highly. However, some reported 
country-specific quality issues and it is not clear how EFS are validated at national level.  

34 

 
Some specific accuracy problems were highlighted: 

  while  larger  (>10 m)  vessels  are  monitored  by  census,  catches  by  small-scale 
(<10 m)  vessels  are  not  monitored  with  logbooks,  but  through  sales  notes  or 
sampling; 

 

it  is  difficult  to  identify  certain  species.  Some  national  values  and  consequently 
EU aggregates are missing (not delivered or confidential) or not published due to 
ongoing validation; and 

  some values are presented as ‘estimates (e)’ or ‘provisional (p)’, and it is not clear 

how accurate they are.  

The accuracy and reliability of the EFS catch, landing and fleet statistics depends heavily 
on that of the underlying administrative data sources: logbooks, landing declarations and 
sales notes collected under the Control Regulation and the fishing fleet register.  

Generally,  EFS  are  published  punctually.  However,  in  the  last  few  years,  France  has 
delivered  aquaculture  statistics  with  a  considerable  delay  and  Italy  still  has  some 
problems in that area. The timeliness of EFS is assessed in general as ‘good’, but some 
users call for monthly statistics.   

Coherence  and  comparability  are  assessed  positively.  Nevertheless,  some  regular  users 
said that countries have different approaches to landing statistics (e.g. how to assess unit 
values of landed products) and some discrepancies were highlighted in species reporting 
between catch and landing statistics. In aquaculture, unit values are not fully comparable 
between plants and countries, as the Regulation requires that they be reported at first sale 
without any  further details  on the degree of  processing  (some plants sell  their products 
unprocessed and others as highly processed). Another factor affecting the comparability 
of  aquaculture  statistics  is  linked  to  Eurostat’s  various  attempts  to  tackle  the 
confidentiality  issue:  the  ad  hoc  aggregation  of  species,  production  methods  and 
production environments has made it difficult to compare between countries.  

Accessibility  and  clarity  of  catch,  landing  and  fleet  statistics  are  considered  in  general 
‘good’  and  regular  users  said  they  had  improved  in  recent  years.  However,  the 
accessibility  of  aquaculture  statistics  poses  problems:  for  half  the  countries,  the  highly 
detailed split of variables and cross-tabulation combined with the specialised structure of 
the sector give rise to a lot of confidential values. As a result, Eurostat can provide hardly 
any EU aggregates for aquaculture. Quality problems and a lack of resources mean that 
the ‘structure of aquaculture’ dataset is currently not published. 

Users appreciate the availability of metadata, but rarely consult them. They do not always 
find it easy to navigate in and download from Eurostat’s online database.  

EQ  3.2:  How  do  European  Fishery  Statistics  compare  with  other  sources  producing 
fisheries statistics?  

EFS catch statistics were compared with the two Commission data sources used for CFP 
management (Control Regulation and DCF data) and FAO catch statistics (Table 4). 

35 

 
EFS’ strong points are the long time-series and their timeliness. A clear weakness is the 
fact that not all catches by EU/EFTA vessels are covered. A large majority of users rate 
EFS as being as good as, or better than, other datasets (mainly DCF and FAO data; some 
users  can  also  access  Control  Regulation  data).  In  particular,  they  are  more  timely  and 
the metadata are more available.  

Table 4. Comparison of data sources for catches 

Dimension 

EFS 

Control 
Regulation data 

DCF 

FAO 

Term used 

Catch 

Catch 

Landings 

Production 

Main purpose 

Provide 
official 
European statistics, 
support 
EU 
policies, 
comparability 
between 
MS, 
market monitoring 

Monitor 
uptake 

TAC 

Facilitate scientific 
analysis 

Provide 
overview 
support 
management 

global 
and 
ocean 

Responsible 
national 
institution 

NSIs 
ONAs 
Other  

Fisheries 
directorates (FDs) 

National 
coordinators 
(in 
FDs)  /  designated 
research institutes 

NSIs 
ONAs 
Other  

Most  countries  use 
Control  Regulation 
data  
Some  use  sample 
surveys  (fully  for 
IT 
EL, 
and 
partially  for  other 
countries) 

Fisheries  control 
agencies 

Most countries use 
Control 
Regulation data  
Some  use  sample 
surveys  (fully  for 
IT 
EL, 
and 
partially  for  other 
countries) 

Most  countries  use 
Control Regulation 
data  
Some  use  sample 
surveys  (fully  for 
IT 
EL, 
and 
partially  for  other 
countries) 

1,273 

2,289 

2,014 

847 

Original data 
source 

Number of 
species (2016) 

Geographical 
coverage 

7 FAO sub-areas 

All 
FAO 
sub-areas  where 
catches  by  EU 
vessels occurred 

All  FAO  fishing 
sub-areas  where 
catches  by  EU 
vessels occurred 
ICES rectangles in 
EU 
Atlantic 
waters 

All  FAO  major 
fishing areas 

Periodicity  

Year 
NW  Atlantic:  year 
& month 

Month 

Year and quarter 

Year 

Time-series 

Since 1950 

Since 2009 

Since 2001 

Since 1950 

Country 
coverage 

Non-land-locked 
EU/EFTA 
countries 

Non-land-locked 
MS 

Non-land-locked 
MS 

All 
non-land-locked 
countries 

Other 
characteristics 

n.a. 

Catches by stock 

Catches  per  fleet 
segment 
(vessel 
length  and  gear 

n.a. 

36 

 
Dimension 

EFS 

Control 
Regulation data 

DCF 

groups) 

FAO 

Release delay 

7-9 months 

n.a. 

18 months 

15 months 

Accessibility  

Online queries 
in 
Downloads 
various 
formats 
(xls,  csv,  html,  pc- 
axis, spss, tsv, pdf) 

Not 
accessible 

publicly 

For  most  data: 
downloads 
in 
various 
formats, 
suitable  for  expert 
users 

Online 
Csv file 
FishStatJ 

For aquaculture, the comparison is between EFS, DCF and FAO datasets (Table 5). EFS 
and  FAO  statistics  are  published  annually  and  DCF  statistics  only  every  second  year. 
EFS are slightly timelier than FAO statistics.  

Table 5.  

Comparison of data sources for aquaculture 

Dimension 

EFS 

DCF 

Responsible 
national 
institution 

NSIs 
ONAs 
Other  

(in 
National  coordinators 
FDs)  /  designated  research 
institutes 

FAO 

NSIs 
ONAs 
Other  

Data  produced 
through 

Unit 

Environment 

Methods 

Most MS: census  

Sampling 

Most MS: census  

Tonne LWE 
Total value (€) 
Unit value (€/t) 

Tonne LWE 
Total value (€) 
Unit value (€/kg) 

Tonne LWE 
Total value (USD) 
Unit value (USD/t) 

Salt water 
Fresh  water  (voluntary,  not 
complete) 

Fresh water 
Brackish water 
Marine water 

Freshwater 
Sea  and  brackish  water 
(total) 
Seawater 
Brackish water 
Not specified 

All methods 
Ponds 
Tanks and raceways 
Enclosures and pens 
Cages 
Recirculation systems 
On bottom 
Off bottom 
Other methods 
Not specified 

All methods 
Bottom 
Cages 
Combined 
Hatcheries & nurseries 
Longline 
Ongrowing 
Raft 
Other 

Not distinguished 

All  FAO  major  fishing 
areas 

Geographical 
coverage 

Total fishing areas 
Inland waters – total 
Inland waters – Africa29 
Inland waters – Asia30 
Inland waters – Europe 

n.a. 

29   Small production declared by Spain. 
30   Small production declared by Cyprus until 2010. 

37 

 
                                                 
Dimension 

EFS 

DCF 

FAO 

Marine areas: 
Atlantic, North-East 
Atlantic, Eastern Central 
Mediterranean  and  Black 
Sea 
Area not specified 

Other 
dimensions 

for 

human 

Fish 
eggs 
consumption 
Production  from  hatcheries 
and nurseries by lifecycle 
Catches from wild 
Structural information  

Large 
number 
socio-economic data 

of 

Reference period  Year 

Year 

Year 

Time-series 

Volume since 1950 
Value since 1984 

Since 2008 

Since 1950 

Country 
coverage 

All MS (except LU), EFTA 
countries 

Relevant  MS  (landlocked 
MS  not  obliged  to  submit 
data) 

All countries 

Regularity 

Annual 

Every 2 years 

Annual 

Release delay 

14 months 

24-36 months31 

18 months 

Accessibility  

Online queries 
Downloads 
various 
formats  (xls,  csv,  html,  pc- 
axis, spss, tsv, pdf) 

in 

For most data: downloads in 
various formats, suitable for 
expert users 

Online 
Csv file 
FishStatJ 

Several users said that the FAO’s database is more user-friendly than Eurostat’s.  

5.4.  Efficiency 

The evaluation of efficiency considers the relationship between the resources used for an 
intervention and the changes generated. The efficiency EQs cover two dimensions: 

  Are the benefits worth the costs? This focuses on cost-effectiveness, by evaluating 
the  staff  and  time  resources  required  to  provide  datasets  in  line  with  EFS 
requirements; and  

  Could 

the  same  benefits  be  achieved  at 

through  different 
implementation  choices?  This  evaluates  ways  of  improving  efficiency  by 
simplifying the regulations and/or streamlining the statistical system. 

lower  cost 

EQ 4.1: To what extent is data collection cost effective? 

The evaluation identified many benefits of EFS. However, as the impacts of statistics are 
mostly indirect (in providing an evidence base for policymaking), the benefits cannot be 

31   An  Excel  file  with  2013-2014  data  was  released  in  December  2016.  No  update  was  released  until 

mid-April 2019. 

38 

 
 
                                                 
readily quantified. They are described in detail under other criteria, but in summary we 
can say that EFS are:  

 

independent; 

  based on statistical quality principles; 

  comparable for the EU Member States and the EFTA countries; 

  available as long time-series at EU and country level; and 

  available for free in a public database. 

The specific cost of EFS is made up of national and EU-level costs. The overall cost is 
estimated  in  monetary  value  and  burden  in  time  spent,  which  has  also  been  converted 
into an average monetary value.  

The  total  annual  cost  of  producing  EFS  in  the  Member  States  was  estimated  at 
€1.5 million. The costs are much higher in Mediterranean countries where the small-scale 
fishing fleet (<10 m vessels) accounts for a significant proportion of production (Greece, 
Italy,  Cyprus,  Malta  and,  to  some  extent,  Croatia)  than  in  countries  with  more  larger 
vessels. This is due to two factors which entail higher costs:  

 

 

the number of species to be reported to DCF for stock assessment is limited in the 
Mediterranean; and  

the  fact  that  the  Control  Regulation  does  not  require  smaller  vessels  to  keep 
logbooks.  

The  cost  for  the  Commission,  based  on  the  number  of  full-time  equivalents  (FTEs) 
dealing with EFS, is around €200,000 a year.  

Therefore, the total annual cost of producing EFS is about €1.7 million32. This represents 
only  0.01%  of  the  total  production  value  of  the  EU’s  fisheries  and  aquaculture  sectors 
(€7.2 billion for landings + €4.5 billion for aquaculture production = €11.7 billion33).  

The  reason  for  this  comparatively  very  low  cost  is  the  widespread  use  of  available 
administrative  data  as  source  data.  These  ‘raw  data’  are  not  specifically  collected  for 
EFS, but have to be collected under the Control Regulation for catches and landings and 
under  the  Fleet  Regulation  for  fishing  fleet.  This  is  in  line  with  the  ‘single  collection, 
multiple  use’  principle,  which  applies  to  fleet  statistics  in  particular:  Member  States 
report  changes  in  their  fishing  fleet  to  the  EU  fishing  fleet  register  only  and  Eurostat 
compiles fleet statistics directly from there, without involving the Member States further. 
For aquaculture statistics, most Member States carry out joint EFS/DCF data collections, 
which reduces costs significantly. 

32   The cost/benefit analysis is summarised in Annex 6. 
33   2017  EFS  for  landings,  with  estimates  for  Denmark,  Greece  and  Malta;  2016  EFS  for  aquaculture 

production, with estimates for Italy and Hungary. 

39 

 
                                                 
Aquaculture  statistics  are  collected  from  questionnaires  sent  to  all  or  most  facility 
managers/owners. It is estimated34 that completing the joint questionnaire for EFS/DCF 
data collection takes about 3 hours. Given the size of the sector and the work involved, 
the overall cost is less than €200,000, which is negligible against the economic value of 
the  sector.  In  order  to  reduce  the  burden,  countries  have  made  the  questionnaires  more 
user-friendly and made it possible to report data online.  

EQ  4.2:  What  are  the  possibilities  of  simplification  of  current  legislation  and/or 
streamlining statistical systems?  

Although the cost-effectiveness of EFS is very good, it could be improved by simplifying 
the legislation and streamlining the statistical system as part of the overall fisheries data 
ecosystem in the Commission and globally. 

Most  of  the  EFS  regulations  are  recasts  of  older  regulations  and  would  benefit  from 
overall  harmonisation  and  updating.  This  could  take  account  of  new  user  needs  and 
issues identified in the evaluation.  

The  aquaculture  legislation  requires  too  much  detail  for  variables.  This  leads  to  high 
costs and a significant number of confidential values, which rules out the calculation of 
most EU aggregates and is a major inefficiency.  

The  evaluation  also  indicated  a  need  to  simplify  metadata  reporting  for  aquaculture. 
Although  the  methods  and  quality  are  relatively  stable,  the  current  Regulation  requires 
this reporting on an annual basis. The EFS producers perceive this as burdensome and the 
IT tool for metadata reporting as not user-friendly. 

The evaluation uncovered an important source of inefficiency in fisheries data systems at 
the  EU  and  global  levels.  Each  country  has  to  report  overlapping,  slightly  different 
datasets to several organisations: Eurostat, DG MARE, FAO, OECD, ICES, RMFOs, etc. 
(see  Annex 4,  sections  A,  B  and  C).  With  few  exceptions,  countries  use  the  same  data 
sources for all datasets, which is very efficient on their side. However, the raw data need 
to be classified, aggregated, validated and transferred in accordance with different rules 
under  different  data  calls.  This  can  be  burdensome,  lead  to  discrepancies  between 
datasets  and  thus  create  confusion  for  users.  EFS  producers  and  users  call  for 
standardisation and more cooperation between organisations. The evaluation points to a 
need for the Commission (Eurostat) to deliver EFS, on behalf of the EU/EFTA countries, 
at least to the other organisations collecting fisheries statistics (FAO and OECD).  

5.5.  Coherence 

The assessment of coherence looks at how well different actions work together. The EQs 
address: 

 

internal  coherence  –  this  refers  to  the  degree  to  which  the  EFS  legal  acts 
complement, contradict, overlap or duplicate each other and how that affects the 

34   Source: national metadata reports for aquaculture statistics. 

40 

 
                                                 
coherence  of  statistics.  It  also  looks  into  how  EFS  relate  to  other  European 
statistics in this respect; and 

 

external coherence – this refers to the interaction between EFS and other fisheries 
statistics  (e.g. FAO,  DCF,  Control  Regulation  data), 
including  areas  of 
contradiction,  overlap,  duplication  or  complementarity.  It  also  explores 
stakeholders’  experiences  and  perceptions  in  providing  statistics  and  accessing 
EU and international fisheries statistical databases.  

EQ 5.1: To what extent are European Fishery Statistics internally coherent? 

The internal coherence of the EFS legal acts was assessed as ‘relatively good’. It is easy 
to  compare  catches  with  landings  and  link  them  to  fleets.  All  regulations  use  the  same 
species  codes  and  are  based  on  FAO  fishing  areas.  However,  the  coherence  of  catch 
statistics could be improved by merging the three regulations on catches.  

The  evaluation  found  that  internal  coherence  has  improved  in  recent  years.  As  a 
coordinating  body  of  the  ESS,  Eurostat  has  a  close  and  constructive  relationship  with 
countries  (in  particular  through  regular  communication  and  annual  meetings  with 
national experts). This enables it to guide and support them and to share best practices. 
One undeniable benefit of this contact is more comparable EFS. 

The  other  European  statistics  linked  to  fisheries  concern  trade  (COMEXT),  production 
(PRODCOM), business (structural business statistics), the labour force (FFS) and organic 
aquaculture statistics. In terms of content, these statistics complement EFS, but the level 
of detail is not compatible, e.g. the trade and production statistics are not broken down by 
catches  and  aquaculture  or  by  species.  Therefore,  these  domains  offer  a  less-than-ideal 
basis for detailed analysis of, for example, all economic activities relating to oceans, seas 
and coastal areas (the ‘blue economy’).  

By  way  of  exception,  the  ‘organic  production  of  aquaculture  products’  dataset  is 
compatible  with  EFS  on  aquaculture.  The  fish  species  code  list  is  shared,  but  contains 
fewer species, and for most countries the figures are coherent. In some cases where the 
statistics  are  provided  by  different  organisations,  there  are  discrepancies  between  total 
aquaculture  production  and  organic  production  (probably  due  to  mistakes  in  species 
codification).  

The  coherence  between  European  statistics  linked  to  the  fisheries  sector  could  be 
improved  by  taking  into  consideration  the  needs  of  the  CFP  and  the  blue  economy  in 
their further development. 

EQ  5.2:  Are  European  Fishery  Statistics  coherent  with  other  available  data  sources 
(external coherence)? 

The 2007 and 2017 ECA audits revealed discrepancies between the EFS and the Control 
Regulation  data  used  by  DG  MARE  for  managing  the  CFP.  The  audits  pointed  to  a 
longstanding  ‘structural  problem’  in  the  fisheries  data  system,  which  has  not  been 

41 

 
resolved  despite  the  Commission’s  efforts  (including  the  adoption  of  the  current  EFS 
regulations for catch statistics in 2009). 

In 2017, the ECA recommended35 that:  

‘the Commission establishes an information exchange platform to be used by the 
Member  States  to  send validated data  in  standard formats and contents, so that 
the information available to  the different  Commission services matches  with the 
Member States data.’  

The  Commission  (Eurostat)  regularly  checks  coherence  and, 
discrepancies, contacts the countries concerned and asks for data revisions. 

in 

the  event  of 

In order to evaluate external coherence, the evaluation looked closely at the EFS, Control 
Regulation  data,  DCF  EU  fleet  landings  data36  and  FAO  statistics.  They  were  first 
analysed from a design  point of view (e.g. purpose, coverage, data sources, etc.) under 
EQ 1.2. Under EQ 5.2, a more detailed comparison was carried out (see Table 6 and, for 
more detail, Annex 7).  

Table 6.   Total catches, 2016 (in FAO fishing areas covered by EFS) 

EFS 

Control 
Regulation 

DCF 

FAO 

Total catches 

5,014,961 t 

4,870,578 t 

4,917,135 t 

5,074,461 t 

Difference 
(EFS - source) 

in  value 

Difference in % 
(EFS - source) 

- 

- 

€144,383 

€97,826 

-€59,500 

+2.9% 

+2.0% 

-1.2% 

There  were  significant  discrepancies  between  EFS  and  Control  Regulation  data  for  a 
number of Member States, although at EU level they are relatively small. EFS showed a 
total  catch  2.9%  higher  than  the  Control  Regulation  data.  Most  of  the  difference  stems 
from  Greek  (+34%)  and  Italian  (+42%)  data.  Those  two  countries’  fishing  fleets  are 
composed  of  a  large  number  of  small  vessels.  As  such  vessels  do  not  normally  have 
detailed logbooks, statistical surveys are organised. The overall difference between EFS 
and Control Regulation data has decreased over time.  

The difference between EFS and DCF total catch data is 2%, with the EFS figure again 
higher. EFS figures are 1.2% lower than the FAO figures. The coherence between EFS 
and  FAO  statistics  is  deemed  relatively  good,  although  some  values  diverge  due  to 
different  revision  policies  and  discrepancies  in  individual  species.  The  main  difference 
concerns completeness: unlike Eurostat, FAO estimates missing/confidential data.  

The following factors explain the differences between the analysed datasets: 

35   ECA special report 8/2017 (EU fisheries controls: more efforts needed). 
36   https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dd/fleet  

42 

 
 
  
                                                 
  different  methods  –  nominal  catches  estimated  from  weighed  landings  and  sales 

notes (EFS) versus estimated catches on board in logbooks (Control Regulation); 

  differences in statistical population; 

  composition of fishing fleet (the greater the proportion of small vessels, the bigger 

the discrepancies); 

  different national organisations submitting the data; 

  different transmission deadlines; 

 

reporting  of  species  –  species  vs  genus,  systematic  species  classification  errors, 
unsynchronised implementation of species code list changes; 

  different validation procedures; and  

  different data revision policies. 

Another  matter  of  concern  with  regard  to  external  coherence  relates  to  procedures, 
definitions,  classifications  and  other  related  documentation.  For  many  years,  the 
Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP), managed by FAO, has served 
as  the  primary  international  forum  for  agreeing  on  common  definitions,  classifications 
and  standards  for  the  collection  of  fisheries  statistics.  It  has  developed  common 
procedures  to  streamline  processes,  provided  participating  organisations  with  technical 
advice  and  published  methodological  and  reference  documents.  However,  not  all 
fisheries  data  sources  rely  on  this  framework;  because  of  the  different  status  of  data 
collections,  e.g. Control  Regulation  and  DCF37  data  collections  are  not  statistical 
processes and are not fully in line with the CWP recommendations.   

Inconsistencies in the various Commission and Member State fisheries datasets may pose 
risks  for  CFP  management  and  the  Commission’s  credibility  and  reputation.  Member 
States’  multiple  obligations  to  report  to  the  Commission,  FAO  and  other  international 
organisations lead to statistical discrepancies, in addition to an unnecessary burden. 

5.6.  EU added value  

EU added value is  defined as the value resulting  from  applying policy measures  at  EU 
level  that  is  additional  to  the  value  that  would  have  resulted  from  public  authorities 
applying similar measures solely at national level. 

The  main  objective  of  EFS  is  to  support  the  CFP,  which  is  a  common  EU  policy 
designed to manage a common resource. The CFP gives all European fishing fleets equal 
access to EU waters and fishing grounds and allows fishermen to compete fairly38. It is 
therefore logical also to design and use statistics on these matters at EU level.  

37   The DCF data validation and quality requirements serve a different purpose and are thus not as broad 
and  systematic  as  those  for  EFS;  see  Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2016/1701  of  19 
August 2016 laying down rules on the format for the submission of work plans for data collection in the 
fisheries and aquaculture sectors (OJ L 260, 27.9.2016, p. 153). 

38   https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp_en  

43 

 
                                                 
The EU added value of EFS was assessed using EQs on:  

 

 

the added value resulting from EFS as EU-level statistics; and  

the consequences of discontinuing EFS. 

EQ  6.1:  What  is  the  added  value  resulting  from  the  European  Fisheries  statistics, 
compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  by  Member  States  at  national  and/or  regional 
level without any EU action? 

Users  see  EFS  as  bringing  significant  added  value  as  compared  with  action  at  national 
level.  Evidence  from  all  sources  confirmed  that  a  common  policy  requires  common 
statistics: harmonised, comparable statistics are an essential basis for supporting the CFP 
and cannot be achieved without EU-level action. The EU added value of EFS is not only 
in  the  statistics  themselves,  but  also  in  the  EFS  legal  acts  with  which  countries  must 
comply. The added value generated by the obligation to comply stems from the complete 
chain  from  common  (CFP  and  international)  user  needs,  definitions  and  requirements, 
through  the  coordinated  compilation  and  transmission  of  statistics  in  accordance  with 
shared quality criteria and a validation framework, to compliance monitoring. As a result, 
the whole user community has access to EFS covering the EU/EFTA countries.  

The public availability of long, comparable time-series in  a consolidated free-of charge 
database  accompanied  by  harmonised  metadata  could  not  be  achieved  by  individual 
countries  acting  alone.  The  use  of  separate  national  sources  would  be  much  more 
cumbersome and hampered by language barriers. 

EFS also create complementary added value when compared with other types of fisheries 
data/statistics.  The  following  characteristics  of  EFS  were  identified  as  adding  specific 
value in this respect: 

 

 

the independence of the statistical information – institutional users consider this to 
be fundamental to credible policy evaluation and analysis;  

the role of the ESS and Eurostat (as coordinating body) as guardians of statistical 
principles  –  this  ensures  application  of  the  statistical  code  of  practice, 
harmonisation of definitions and statistics, and updating of statistical laws; 

  enforcement of ESS statistical  quality principles through Eurostat validation and 
quality  reporting  –  users  value  these  principles  highly  and  other  institutions 
working with fisheries data use them as a reference; and 

  Eurostat’s  partnerships  with  other  international  statistical  bodies  –  these  ensure 
that  EFS  are  in  line  with  the  CWP’s  global  statistical  standards  and  create 
potential for further improvement of fisheries statistics worldwide.  

EQ 6.2: What would  be the most  likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the 
European fisheries statistics? 

The  major  consequence  of  discontinuing  EFS  would  be  the  loss  of  quality-reviewed 
independent statistics for the monitoring and further development of the CFP, one of only 
two common EU policies. This would create a reputational risk for the Commission and 

44 

 
in particular for the ESS and Eurostat. Eurostat is responsible for decisions on statistical 
methods, standards and procedures to be used for European statistics, in accordance with 
Regulation  (EC)  No 223/2009.  Moreover,  the  Commission  Decision  on  Eurostat39 
requires  its  Director-General  to  act  independently  when  carrying  out  statistical  tasks, 
neither  seeking  nor  taking  instructions  from  the  Union  institutions  or  bodies,  any 
Member State government or any other institution, body, office or entity. 

Institutional data users such as DG MARE (in particular EUMOFA), FAO, OECD, ICES 
and  the  RFMOs  (ICCAT,  NAFO  and  NEAFC)  would  need  to  find  alternative  data 
sources.  This  would  probably  have  a  negative  impact  on  market  monitoring,  the 
development  and  monitoring  of  the  CFP,  and  the  international  monitoring  of  fisheries. 
The  users  responsible  for  over  24,000  data  downloads  would  also  need  to  source 
statistics  from  elsewhere.  If  they  were  to  use  national  sources,  they  would  bear  the 
burden and cost of gathering the statistics necessary for calculating EU aggregates. The 
outcome  would  be  of  lower  quality,  as  the  coordination,  harmonisation  and  quality 
assurance provided by the EFS regulations and the ESS would no longer be in place.   

The other Commission services, mainly DG MARE and JRC, would be under pressure to 
publish more data on fisheries in a more accessible and user-friendly way.  

The  EU  and  EFTA  countries  would  have  to  continue  submitting  fisheries  statistics  to 
FAO and the OECD. The use of FAO and OECD statistics would probably increase.  

The  Commission  (Eurostat)  would  no  longer  contribute  to  the  development  of 
international fisheries statistics standards in the CWP. For the CWP, this would represent 
a loss of expertise and, for Eurostat, a lost opportunity to develop further standards.  

The savings in cost and burden would be small, as most of the source data would need to 
be collected in any case for other purposes. The estimated €1.7 million invested in EFS 
annually would be available for other statistical fields in the ESS. 

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

This  evaluation  concerns  the  functioning  of  the  five  EFS  regulations  (three  relating  to 
catches, one to landings and one to aquaculture), which came into force in 2006-2009. 

The  main  conclusion  is  that  EFS  collected  under  the  regulations  are  an  important 
independent source of information for a wide range of users serving several types of need 
linked to the CFP, market monitoring, international agreements and research.  

However, their relative added value to DG MARE, which is responsible for managing the 
CFP, is on a downward trend, as other data sources, such as the Control Regulation and 
the  DCF,  meet  management  needs  more  effectively.  In  addition,  EFS  are  handicapped 
by: 

39   Commission Decision 2012/504/EU of 17 September 2012 on Eurostat (OJ L 251, 18.9.2012, p. 49).  

45 

 
 
                                                 
  partial coverage of EU catches; 

  an unsatisfactory definition of ‘landings’; and  

 

the  fact  that  aquaculture  statistics  are  to  a  large  extent  confidential  due  to  the 
over-detailed cross-tabulation of statistical dimensions.  

It is important that good quality fisheries statistics continue to be available at EU level, 
that they serve a wide range of user needs as well as possible and that they fit better into 
the  Commission’s  overall  fisheries  data  ecosystem.  Currently,  information  sources 
overlap and are not always coherent.  

6.1.  Relevance 

The EFS datasets have been downloaded approximately 24,000 times a year, which is a 
lot compared with other similar datasets. The number of downloads almost tripled from 
2013 to 2017.   

The evaluation indicated that national authorities, NGOs, national fisheries organisations, 
international  organisations  and  research  institutions  have  been  the  main  user  groups  of 
EFS. The most common use is for national, EU or international fisheries policymaking, 
followed  by  research  and  commercial  purposes,  environment  policy,  blue  economy 
policy, other policies and media use. There is evidence that EFS have been serving their 
core purpose in providing relevant statistics to monitor and evaluate fisheries policy and 
to inform policymaking in a wider context (in particular as regards the environment and 
the  blue  economy),  market  monitoring  in  the  business  sector,  research  purposes  and 
media use.  

The relevance of EFS varies between user  groups, several  of  which prefer to  use other 
(often scientific or administrative) data sources and sometimes other statistics. However, 
where users get statistics from sources other than Eurostat (e.g. NSIs or the FAO), these 
are  actually  provided  pursuant  to  the  EFS  regulations.  Thus,  the  relevance  of  the 
regulations goes beyond the direct use of downloads from Eurostat’s online database.  

Most users reported that EFS have met their needs at least to some extent. Aquaculture 
statistics recorded the highest proportion of dissatisfied users, which is probably linked to 
the  fact  that  a  large  number  of  confidential  values  in  the  dataset  severely  restricts  its 
usability.  

It  is  important  to  keep  in  mind  the  Commission-level  fisheries-related  information 
ecosystem  of  which  EFS  form  part.  EFS  are  not  only  interlinked  with,  but  to  a  great 
extent also based on, other (Control Regulation and DCF) data collected in the context of 
the CFP.  

There  are  indications  that  the  EFS  have  become  less  relevant  vis-à-vis  their  overall 
objective,  as  the  development,  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  CFP  require  more  and 
more data and information, in particular since the 2013 reform. New goals have been set 
as  regards  the  sustainable  use  of  marine  resources  and  the  ecosystem  approach.  In 
parallel,  other  data  sources  (mostly  electronic  logbooks  and  vessel  tracking  systems) 

46 

 
have  been  developed  to  allow  close-to-real-time  data  submission  under  the  Control 
Regulation.  Targeted  data  calls  under  the  DCF  have  become  the  primary  source  of 
information for the CFP.  

The main role of EFS in this changing data ecosystem is to provide validated and reliable 
European  statistics  on  fisheries  at  aggregated  level.  They  show  major  trends  and  thus 
serve  as  an  official  reference  point  for  other  data  collections.  They  are  not  designed  to 
meet  short-term  administrative  needs,  policy  enforcement  needs  or  scientific  needs  on 
biological and social aspects of fisheries.  

The evaluation points to a need for the Commission to have a clear strategy to determine 
the role of EFS in the overall fisheries data architecture and to create as many synergies 
as possible between the various data collections. 

6.2.  Effectiveness 

The EFS regulations have been crucial for the availability and quality of statistics. They 
stipulate the variables to be provided, main definitions to be used, the reporting system, 
submission and assessment procedures, deadlines and geographical coverage. In addition, 
they ensure quality control mechanisms and the availability of metadata.  

Compliance with the regulations is a direct determinant of their effectiveness.  In recent 
years, Eurostat’s compliance monitoring system and countries’ reaction speed have both 
improved.  

The evaluation reveals that DG MARE’s use of EFS for CFP development, monitoring 
and  evaluation  is  limited,  as  more  detailed,  timelier  and  better-suited  data  sources  are 
available  (Control  Regulation  and  DCF  data).  However,  EFS  are  used  intensively  for 
EUMOFA market monitoring.  

EFS are an important source of information for FAO, OECD and ICES, which confirms 
that  they  meet  international  reporting  obligations.  The  RFMOs  (ICCAT,  NAFO  and 
NEAFC)  use  European  catch  and  fleet  statistics  for  validation  purposes  and  for 
country-level breakdowns (DG MARE reports EU aggregates). 

National fisheries statistics are preferred at national level, as they are often more detailed 
and broader in scope. National users use EFS when making international comparisons. 

Public  interest  in  fisheries  statistics  has  increased  recently,  as  the  sustainability  of  the 
fishing sector and marine ecosystems have come into the spotlight. This might be one of 
the factors explaining the increase in the number of downloads of EFS.  

In summary, we can say that the regulations are effective in the sense that EFS would not 
exist  in  their  current  form  without  a  legal  framework  and  the  compliance  enforced  by 
Eurostat.  Their  effectiveness  from  the  users’  perspective  is  more  mixed:  they  serve 
market  monitoring  relatively  well  and  usefully  complement  DG MARE’s  aggregated 
reporting  to  the  RFMOs,  but  they  are  not  used  to  the  extent  expected  for  their  main 
purpose, i.e. the development, monitoring and evaluation of the CFP. 

47 

 
6.3.  Statistical quality 

The quality of EFS is  considered ‘good’, as is  their  accuracy and reliability. However, 
some  case  studies  showed  that  pre-validation  at  Member  State  level  might  not  be 
working  efficiently  and  this  has  a  negative  impact  on  the  statistics.  The  accuracy  and 
reliability  of  EFS  catches,  landing  and  fleet  statistics  depend  to  a  large  extent  on  the 
quality of the administrative data sources (logbooks, landing declarations and sales notes, 
transhipment  declarations,  catch  certificates,  inspection  reports),  which  are  collected 
under the Control Regulation.  

Many stakeholders value Eurostat’s quality management and validation practices highly.  

In  general,  EFS  are  published  punctually  and  the  timeliness  is  assessed  in  general  as 
‘good’.  

The coherence and comparability are assessed positively. In aquaculture, the unit values 
are not fully comparable between installations and countries, as the Regulation requires 
unit values to be reported at first sale without further details on the degree of processing.  

In  general,  the  accessibility  and  clarity  of  catch,  landing  and  fleet  statistics  are 
considered  ‘good’  and  regular  users  reported  that  they  have  improved  in  recent  years. 
The  accessibility  of  aquaculture  statistics  poses  problems:  for  half  the  countries,  the 
highly  detailed  split  of  variables  and  their  cross-tabulation  combined  with  the  very 
specialised  structure  of  the  sector  give  rise  to  a  lot  of  confidential  values.  As  a  result, 
Eurostat can provide hardly any EU aggregates for aquaculture.   

Users appreciate the availability of metadata, but rarely consult them. They do not always 
find it easy to navigate in and download from Eurostat’s online database.  

A large majority of users rate EFS as being as good as, or better than, other data sources 
for catches and aquaculture.  

6.4.  Efficiency 

The total cost of producing EFS in the EU Member States was estimated at €1.5 million. 
The  relative  cost  is  up  to  6  times  higher  in  Mediterranean  countries  where  small-scale 
fishing fleets (<10 m vessels) account for a significant proportion of production (Greece, 
Italy, Cyprus, Malta and, to some extent, Croatia). This is due to two factors:  

 

 

the number of species to be reported to DCF for stock assessment is very limited 
in the Mediterranean; and  

the  fact  that  the  Control  Regulation  does  not  require  smaller  vessels  to  keep 
logbooks.  

The  total  cost  of  the  EFS  (about  €1.7 million)  represents  only  0.01%  of  the  total 
production value of the sector. This is very low compared, for example, with the cost of 

48 

 
the  agricultural  census40,  which  alone  is  about  0.6%  of  the  production  value  of  the 
agriculture sector.  

The  reason  behind  the  limited  cost  is  the  widespread  use  of  the  ‘single  collection, 
multiple use’ principle: in most countries, catch and landing statistics are compiled from 
Control Regulation  data, which are collected primarily for managing the CFP. Eurostat 
compiles  fleet  statistics  directly  from  the  EU  fishing  fleet  register,  without  further 
involving  the  Member  States.  In  most  countries,  the  source  data  for  the  aquaculture 
statistics are collected jointly with data needed for the DCF.  

Although the efficiency of EFS is very good, it could be improved further by: 

  simplifying the EFS legislation; and  

  streamlining the statistical system as a part of the overall fisheries data ecosystem 
at  national  level  (in  particular  in  countries  currently  carrying  out  separate 
statistical surveys for EFS), in the Commission and globally. 

The current legislation on aquaculture requires too much detail for variables. This leads 
to: 

  high costs, as some countries need a specific survey to collect the data; and 

  a significant number of confidential values and a consequent inability to produce 

most EU aggregates; this is a major inefficiency.  

The evaluation also indicated a need to simplify metadata reporting for aquaculture.   

The evaluation highlighted an important source of inefficiency in EU and global fisheries 
data systems. Each country has to report overlapping, slightly different datasets to several 
organisations  (Eurostat,  DG  MARE,  FAO,  OECD,  ICES,  RMFOs,  etc.).  Although  the 
source  data  are  the  same  in  most  cases,  each  organisation  has  slightly  different 
classifications,  aggregation  rules,  validation  procedures  and  data  transfer  formats.  This 
can  be  burdensome  for  the  countries,  but  (more  importantly)  can  lead  to  discrepancies 
between datasets and thus create confusion among users.  

The evaluation points to a need for the Commission (Eurostat) to deliver EFS, on behalf 
of  the  EU/EFTA  countries,  at  least  to  the  other  international  organisations  collecting 
fisheries statistics (FAO and OECD).  

6.5.  Coherence 

The  internal  coherence  of  the  EFS  legal  acts  was  assessed  as  ‘good’.  One  can  easily 
compare  catches  with  landings  and  link  them  to  fleets.  All  regulations  use  the  same 
species codes and are based on FAO fishing areas.  

40   This is the backbone of European agricultural statistics; it is organised every 10 years and partly funded 

by the Commission.  

49 

 
                                                 
The  evaluation  found  that  internal  coherence  has  improved  in  recent  years.  As  a 
coordinating  body  of  the  ESS,  Eurostat  has  a  close  and  constructive  relationship  with 
countries  (in  particular  through  regular  communication  and  annual  meetings  with 
national experts). This enables it to guide and support them, and to share best practices. 
One undeniable benefit of this guidance is more comparable EFS. 

The other European statistics linked to fisheries concern international trade, production, 
businesses and labour force working in the sector, and organic aquaculture statistics. The 
level  of  detail  of  these  other  sources  is  not  always  compatible  with  EFS,  e.g. the  trade 
and production statistics are not broken down by catches and aquaculture or by species. 
These  domains  complement  each  other  but  offer  a  less-than-ideal  basis  for  detailed 
analysis, e.g. of the blue economy.  

The ECA audits and the analysis carried out for this evaluation point to  a longstanding 
structural problem in the fisheries data system, which has not been resolved despite the 
Commission’s  efforts  (e.g. the  2009  adoption  of  EFS  regulations  on  catch  statistics).  A 
lack of coherence in the Commission’s various fisheries datasets continues to pose risks 
to CFP management and the Commission’s credibility and reputation. 

The  coherence  between  EFS  and  FAO  statistics  is  deemed  relatively  good,  although 
some  values  differ  due  to  different  revision  policies.  The  major  difference  concerns 
completeness: unlike EFS, FAO estimates missing/confidential data. Countries’ multiple 
obligations to report to the Commission, FAO and other international organisations have 
led to discrepancies in fisheries statistics, in addition to an unnecessary burden. 

6.6.  EU added value  

Evidence from  all sources confirmed that a common policy requires common statistics. 
Harmonised, comparable EFS are an essential basis for supporting the CFP and cannot be 
achieved  without  EU-level  action.  The  EU  added  value  of  EFS  lies  not  only  in  the 
statistics  themselves,  but  also  in  the  EFS  legal  acts  with  which  the  countries  must 
comply.  

The public availability of long, comparable time-series in  a consolidated free-of charge 
database  accompanied  by  harmonised  metadata  could  not  be  achieved  by  individual 
countries acting alone.  

EFS also create complementary added value when compared with other types of fisheries 
data/statistics.  The  following  characteristics  of  EFS  were  identified  as  adding  specific 
value in this respect: 

 

 

the  independence  of  statistical  information  –  the  institutional  users  consider  this 
fundamental to credible policy evaluation and analysis;  

the  role  of  the  ESS  and  Eurostat,  as  the  coordinating  body,  as  guardians  of 
statistical principles – this ensures the application of the European statistics code 
of  practice,  the  harmonisation  of  definitions  and  statistics,  and  updating  of 
statistical laws; 

50 

 
  enforcement of statistical quality principles of the ESS by Eurostat validation and 
quality  reporting  –  users  value  these  principles  highly  and  other  institutions 
working with fisheries data use them as a reference; and 

  Eurostat’s  partnerships  with  other  international  statistical  bodies  –  these  ensure 
that  EFS  are  in  line  with  the  CWP’s  global  statistical  standards  and  create 
potential for further improvement of fisheries statistics worldwide.  

The discontinuation of EFS would represent a reputational risk for the Commission and 
in  particular  for  the  ESS  and  Eurostat,  as  they  would  not  have  independent  baseline 
statistics to support the monitoring and further development of the CFP.   

The  institutional  users  and  organisations/individuals  responsible  for  around  24,000 
downloads  annually  would  need  to  source  the  statistics  from  elsewhere.  The  other 
Commission services, mainly DG MARE and JRC, would be under pressure to publish 
more data on fisheries in a more accessible and user-friendly way.  

The  EU  and  EFTA  countries  would  need  to  continue  submitting  fisheries  statistics  to 
FAO and the OECD. The use of FAO and OECD statistics would probably increase.  

The  Commission  (Eurostat)  would  no  longer  contribute  to  the  development  of 
international fisheries statistics standards in the CWP. For the CWP, this would represent 
a loss of expertise and, for Eurostat, a lost opportunity to develop further standards.  

The  savings  in  terms  of  cost  and  burden  would  be  small,  as  most  of  the  source  data 
would  need  to  be  collected  in  any  case,  for  other  purposes.  The  estimated  €1.7 million 
invested in EFS annually could become available for other statistical fields in the ESS. 

7.  LESSONS LEARNED 

In  the  last  decade,  the  amount  of  information  needed  to  manage  the  CFP  has  grown 
exponentially,  changing  dramatically  the  overall  framework  in  which  EFS  operate  and 
their  role  in  the  fisheries  data  ecosystem.  The  reporting  obligations  under  the  Control 
Regulation  have  made  available  a  wealth  of  information  that  is  useful  not  only  for 
monitoring quota uptake, but also as a building block for many other datasets, including 
EFS on catches and landings.  

In  the  last  decade,  DG  MARE  designed  the  DCF  where  data  are  collected  to  support 
scientific advice and data for policy needs through specific data calls. For fisheries, this 
entails variables not collected by EFS (such as effort and gear). Socio-economic data are 
also collected, as general European statistics on production, businesses and labour linked 
to the fisheries sector do not provide the required level of detail. 

The EFS regulations did not envisage the use of administrative data as source data, but 
rather  the  collection  of  data  via  sample  surveys.  This  had  a  strong  impact  on  their 
content.  There  are  clear  indications  that  EFS  have  become  less  relevant  vis-à-vis  their 
overall objective, both in the Commission and among external users. This is largely due 

51 

 
 
to the wealth of information available in the DCF and, for Commission users, also under 
the Control Regulation.  

The three audits that compared DCF data and EFS statistics helped harmonise concepts 
and  introduce  more  statistically  sound  practices  in  the  DCF.  One  under-appreciated 
function  of  EFS  is  therefore  to  act  as  the  indirect  guardian  of  statistical  soundness  in 
scientific areas and policymaking.  

Discrepancies  still  exist  between  data  produced  for  different  purposes  (even  if  the  raw 
data  are  the  same),  mainly  due  to  timeliness,  data  revision  policies,  data  collection 
arrangements and data sources.  

The biggest lesson that has been learned is that, where data aggregates are collected for 
different  purposes  (even  if  they  are  based  on  the  same  raw  data),  lists  of  codes  and 
species, and differences in implementation will inevitably lead to discrepancies and this 
can ultimately have an impact on political decisions.  

Another important lesson is that fisheries in the Mediterranean are different from those in 
the Atlantic. The fleets are made up of smaller vessels and fewer administrative data are 
available. In addition, fewer stocks are covered by scientific advice, which also restricts 
the availability of quality administrative data for the production of statistics. 

It would seem that the only way to avoid data collection duplications and discrepancies 
in published data would be a system in which data are collected only once and used for 
many  purposes.  That  being  the  case,  it  is  essential  to  determine  which  elements  are 
common and which are specific, while at the same time ensuring homogeneous, complete 
coverage.  It  is  also  important  to  determine  how  the  specific  elements  relate  to  the 
common ones, in order to ensure that the latter are re-used.  

An important additional finding is that there are many EFS users, which means that the 
objective  of  reaching  the  general  public  is  attained.  This  reinforces  the  role  of 
independent statistics, as they can address general as well as policy needs. 

Despite  the  well-known  technical  issues  (confidentiality  in  aquaculture,  EU  vessels’ 
landings in third countries and third country vessels’ landings in EU ports), landings and 
aquaculture  statistics  are  largely  sufficient  for  market  analysis  and  the  needs  of 
international  organisations  (FAO,  OECD  and  ICES).  In  addition  to  the  confidentiality 
issue, aquaculture statistics would need to be more timely to meet FAO requirements.  

The evaluation confirmed the importance of EFS to many users. Their added value lies 
in: 

  statistical practices, in particular quality assurance; 

 

the independence necessary for monitoring the CFP; and  

 

the  efficiency  stemming  from  the  use  of  administrative  data  as  the  main  data 
source.  

52 

 
The  evaluation  also  highlighted  that  the  current  legal  arrangements  no  longer  meet  the 
needs of the most important users. There is a need for: 

  global coverage for catches; 

  a vessel flag-country principle for landings; and  

 

total stocks for aquaculture, with fewer cross-tabulations to reduce the number of 
confidential values.   

53 

 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

Lead DG:  

Eurostat  

DeCIDE planning:   PLAN/2017/2358 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

An  ISG  made  up  of  representatives  of  the  following  Commission  Directorates-General 
and services with a policy interest in EFS followed and contributed to the evaluation: 

  DG MARE 

  DG ENV 

  DG TRADE 

 

JRC 

  Secretariat-General 

The ISG met six times (25 June 2018 and 28 September, 28 January, 8 April, 20 May and 
8 July 2019). 

The evaluation started in July 2018. The roadmap was publicly available between 17 July 
and  14 August 2018.  The  consultation  activities  took  place  between  October  2018  and 
April  2019,  with  the  public  consultation  conducted  from  18 January  to  12 April 2019. 
The conclusions of the evaluation were approved in September 2019. 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE ‘BETTER REGULATION’ GUIDELINES 

No exceptions. 

4.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB (IF APPLICABLE) 

Not applicable. 

5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

An  external  contractor  (consortium  led  by  Coffey  International)  assisted  Eurostat  in 
carrying out the evaluation tasks. The contract started in July 2018. The final deliverables 
were received on 31 August 2019.  

Work on the external evaluation study included refining the intervention logic, drawing 
up the evaluation questions and helping to identify main stakeholders. It involved a large 
number of consultation activities (see Annex 2), desk research and data comparisons.  

54 

 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

This annex provides detailed information on the consultation strategy and explains how 
the outcome of each consultation activity contributed to the evaluation.  

The objectives of the consultation strategy were to: 

  confirm the issues relating to EFS;  

  gather factual information, data and knowledge about the use of EFS;  

  elicit stakeholders’ views and opinions on the extent to which the EFS legal acts 

have met, or are on track to meet, their different objectives; and  

  elicit stakeholders’ opinions on new needs and trends in fisheries and aquaculture 

statistics.  

The  evaluation  began  with  an  identification  and  classification  of  stakeholders.  Specific 
consultation  activities were then selected to  cover different  stakeholder  groups.  In  each 
case,  the  general  principles  for  consultation  (participation,  openness,  accountability, 
effectiveness and coherence) were respected and the minimum standards met.  

1.  EFS STAKEHOLDERS  

The EFS stakeholders were identified and grouped by interest and influence as follows: 

 

 

institutional  users  are  directly  involved  in  EU  policymaking,  i.e. actual 
policymakers at EU level and those supporting and contributing to policymaking 
at  international  and  national  levels.  They  include  EU  bodies,  international 
organisations, national ministries, other fisheries authorities and national research 
institutes linked to the DCF. These users have the biggest influence on EFS and 
are thus the main focus of the evaluation;   

redistributors  are  users  who  depend  on  EFS.  They  create  and  publicly  share 
products based on EFS. EMODnet and EUMOFA are identified as redistributors. 
FAO, OECD and WTO are both institutional users and redistributors;  

  other  professional  users  contribute  occasionally  and 

to  EU 
policymaking  or  provide  regular  fisheries  information.  They  include  EU 
professional  fisheries  organisations,  advisory  councils,  NGOs  with  marine 
programmes,  sea  conventions,  specialised  fisheries  media,  universities,  research 
institutes, national fisheries organisations and private companies; and  

indirectly 

 

the  general  public  (including  schools)  and  media  have  a  limited,  often  passing 
interest in fisheries statistics and very limited influence. 

Figure  1  illustrates  the  typology  of  EFS  stakeholders  based  on  geographical  coverage 
(EU, international and national) and the above categories. Their knowledge and insights 
were crucial to achieving the goals of the evaluation.  

55 

 
Figure 1.  Typology of EFS stakeholders  

The organisations consulted in the stakeholder interviews were as follows: 

Redistributors 

  FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Information and Statistics Branch (FIAS); 

  OECD,  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development,  Trade  and  Agriculture 

Directorate, Natural Resources Policy Division, Fisheries; 

  EMODnet; and 

  Eurofish. 

Regular professional users 

  DG MARE; 

  EUMOFA (under DG MARE); 

 

JRC; 

  DG TRADE; 

  European Environment Agency (EEA); 

56 

 
 
 
 

ICES; 

  General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM); 

 

ICCAT; 

  NAFO; 

  NASCO; and 

  NEAFC. 

Only one of the planned interviews was not carried out (WTO), as the interviewees were 
unavailable.  

2.  CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

The  selection  of  the  most  appropriate  consultation  activities  considered  proportionality 
(the degree of involvement required of the stakeholders), accessibility of the activity and 
timing  requirements  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation.  Six  activities  were  undertaken  to 
collect the necessary information (see Figure 2).  

Figure 2.   Consultation activities  

Table  1  shows  the  participation  of  the  stakeholder  groups  by  consultation  activity 
(excluding the desk research, which did not involve stakeholders directly). 

Table 1.   Consultation activities by stakeholder group 

Consultation 
activity  

Institutional 
users 

Redistributors 

Other  professional 
users  

General 
public 

Workshop  with 
Member States 

In-depth 
interviews 

Online survey 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

57 

x 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public 
consultation 

Case studies 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

The following applied for each consultation activity involving stakeholders: 

  guidelines  for  the  in-depth  interviews,  case  studies  and  the  workshop  with 
Member States, and questionnaires for the online survey and public consultation 
were clear and concise, and included all necessary information; 

  all relevant stakeholders were given an opportunity to express their opinion; 

  participants in the in-depth interviews and case studies were met individually (or 
by organisation), a workshop with Member States was conducted personally with 
Member  State  experts,  targeted  stakeholders  were  invited  by  e-mail  to  complete 
the  online  survey,  adequate  awareness-raising  publicity  was  ensured,  and 
communication channels were adapted to the public consultation;   

  participants were given sufficient time to respond; and  

  acknowledgement and adequate feedback was provided. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION  

The  first  major  consultation  activity  was  a  workshop  with  Member  State  experts, 
which was held back to back with a meeting of the Fisheries Statistics Working Group on 
24-25 October 2018. It focused on the strengths and weaknesses of the current EFS and 
the future opportunities and threats from the point of view of national statistics providers 
(NSIs and ONAs). FAO, OECD and ICES also took part. The workshop took place over 
the course of two sessions on two days, including plenary  discussions and small  group 
sessions.  The  discussion  of  a  particular  group  of  questions,  comparing  and  contrasting 
between  the  countries  represented  in  a  given  group  allowed  every  country’s  expert  to 
express  opinions  and  ideas.  At  the  end  of  the  workshop,  key  take-away  points  were 
shared and discussed between the participants.  

The in-depth interviews with key stakeholders aimed to establish how and why they (do 
not)  use  EFS,  which  needs  were  not  covered  and  suggestions  for  improvement.  As 
Eurostat’s  strategic  objective  is  to  provide  statistics  for  policymaking,  in-depth 
interviews  targeted  policymakers  and  direct  contributors  to  the  CFP,  e.g. DG MARE, 
DG SANTE,  FAO,  OECD,  Eurofish  and  ICES.  In  total,  16  interviews  were  conducted 
with  representatives  of  EU  and  international  institutional  users  and  redistributors  (see 
Table 2).  All  interviewees  were  from  different  organisations,  which  contributed  to  a 
diversity  of  views.  The  interviews  were  conducted  over  the  phone  or  the  internet,  and 
each lasted about an hour. They were based on pre-prepared guides, which allowed for a 
semi-structured approach involving a mix of prepared questions and spontaneous queries 
depending  on  interviewees’  answers  and  expertise.  Unfortunately,  WTO  interviewees 
were unavailable.. 

58 

 
 
 
Table 2.   Stakeholders selected for in-depth interviews 

Stakeholders 

FAO 

Fisheries and Aquaculture Information and Statistics Branch (FIAS) 

OECD 

Economic  Cooperation  and  Development,  Trade  and  Agriculture 
Directorate, Natural Resources Policy Division, Fisheries 

EMODnet 

European Marine Observation and Data Network 

EUMOFA 

European Market Observatory for fisheries and aquaculture 

Eurofish 

International  Organisation  for 
Aquaculture in Europe 

the  Development  of  Fisheries  and 

ICES 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 

GFCM 

General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean 

NAFO 

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation 

NEAFC 

North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission 

ICCAT 

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 

DG MARE  Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

STECF 

EC Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 

JRC 

Joint Research Centre 

DG TRADE  Directorate-General for Trade 

WTO 

Not reached 

EEA 

European Environment Agency 

The general objectives of the case studies were to: 

  provide an overview on data collection approaches; 

  analyse them in a more detailed manner; and  

  understand how collaboration works in Member States on the collection and use 

of different fisheries-related data.  

Country  case  studies  were  conducted  in  Denmark,  Greece,  France,  Ireland,  Italy  and 
Poland. They  were complemented by a horizontal case study on  aquaculture, involving 
several countries. The case studies relied on desk research and semi-structured interviews 
with the main statistics-producing and -using organisations involved in EFS (five to nine 
interviews in each country). 

The  following  factors  were  taken  into  account  when  selecting  Member  States  for  case 
studies:  

 

size of fishing fleet; 

59 

 
  diversity of means of production; 

  geographical representativeness (in general and by sea basin); 

 

 

administrative organisation; and  

specific issues relating to fisheries statistics.  

Information  was  gathered  in  each  of  the  Member  States  concerned  and  supplemented 
with interviews with stakeholders in Germany. See Table 3 for an overview of the topics.  

Table 3.  

Overview of topics for case studies 

Producers of statistics 

Users of statistics 

Organisation of data  collection in Member States 
and organisations involved 

Dataset used (frequency of use, usefulness of level 
of detail of EFS) 

View  on  quality  of 
completeness, timeliness, etc.) 

statistics 

(reliability, 

Possible improvements of EFS  

Administrative  burden:  FTEs  involved  in  data 
collection 
different 
administrations 

submission 

and 

in 

Total  costs:  staff  costs  (FTEs  converted  into 
euros) 
e.g. for 
development  of  software  tools  or  outsourcing  of 
data collection 

and  other 

specific 

costs, 

Difficulties encountered in collecting data 

relating 

Issues 
(different regulations/institutions) 

inconsistent 

to 

requirements 

Possible improvements of EFS 

This  information  was  gathered  for  each  type  of  data  (catch,  landings,  aquaculture  and 
fleet).  

The  online  survey  targeted  experts,  who  were  asked  to  fill  in  an  online  questionnaire 
with  general  and  specific  questions  on  EFS.  It  was  open  from  13 December 2018  to 
28 January 2019. Eurostat and other involved DGs promoted it via expert networks and it 
was  circulated  to  a  contact  list  of  353  institutional  users,  redistributors  and  ‘other 
professional  users’.  A  total  of  132  EFS  users  and/or  producers  responded.  There  were 
142  questions,  of  which  each  respondent  was  asked  to  answer  at  most  82.  The 
questionnaire  was  sent  by  e-mail,  with  an  accompanying  cover  text  explaining  its 
purpose and how the results would be used. The initial e-mail asked experts to respond 
with their written contribution to the structured questionnaire within 4 weeks.  

The  public  consultation  was  open  from  18  January  to  12  April  2019.  The  aim  was  to 
gather  information  on  respondents’  professional  and  personal  experience  of  EFS,  thus 
complementing the other consultation activities. A questionnaire was addressed to private 
individuals  and  professional  EFS  users,  producers  and  other  stakeholders.  It  sought  to 
cover  the  stakeholder  groups  who  were  less  targeted  by  other  consultation  activities, 
e.g. national, regional and local occasional professional users, the general public and the 

60 

 
 
 
 
media.  The  public  consultation  was  based  on  a  single  questionnaire  addressing  all 
evaluation  criteria,  but  with  routing  that  allowed  for  tailored  consultation  of  EFS  users 
and producers. The questionnaire had a total of 38 questions, but each respondent had to 
answer at most 23. It was produced in English and later translated into French, German, 
Italian  and  Spanish.  It  was  implemented  though  EU  Survey,  the  Commission  website 
dedicated to public consultations.  

Desk research accompanied each consultation activity. It covered the legal acts, analysis 
of  background  documents  and  a  comparison  of  EFS  with  other  data  sources 
(e.g. DG MARE, FAO). 

4. 

FINDINGS  

4.1   Workshop  

The workshop participants carried out a SWOT analysis41 on EFS.  

Data sources and methods – strengths 

  Administrative  data:  most  fisheries  data  are  collected  this  way.  The  collections  are 
legal obligations for all and continuously maintained. They are often  not owned by 
NSIs, but by ministries or agencies. The data can be the basis of surveys. Examples 
are  logbooks  (very  detailed  and  the  basis  of  many  fisheries  data  collections)  and 
landing declarations. 

  Census: conducted for aquaculture in most Member States, as the sector is not large 

in many countries. The response rate is usually high. 

  ‘Single  collection,  multiple  use’  is  in  principle  possible.  The  owner  of  the 

administrative data can control the data for everyone to use. 

Data sources and methods – weaknesses 

  Access problems: in the Member States, there are many problems when it comes to 
accessing  and  influencing  administrative  data  collections  and  their  owners;  this  is 
despite many agreements and clear rules, e.g. in Regulation (EC) No 223/2009. 

  Different actors: frequently, different institutions (e.g. fisheries agencies or ministries 
and NSIs) collect and transmit fisheries data and statistics. This can lead to various 
transaction and overlap problems. 

  Data  differences:  different  thresholds  in  different  data  collections  or  different  data 
availability for small- and large-scale fisheries makes data incomparable and can be a 
problem for economic estimation, for example. 

  Data  availability:  it  can  be  difficult  to  collect  sales  notes  from  foreign  ports  or 
information on small-scale producers, for example. If there are only a few producers 
and they do not respond, this is also problematic. 

41   SWOT analysis is a useful  technique  for identifying and analysing current  strengths and  weaknesses, 

and future opportunities and threats.  

61 

 
                                                 
  Large  surveys:  these  are  sometimes  necessary  to  get  a  full  picture  of  a  sector,  but 

they can be costly. 

Cost, burden and efficiency – strengths 

  Administrative data reduce costs and burden, because they often already exist and are 

collected by actors other than NSIs. 

  Re-use possible: EFS are relevant to national needs in some Member States. 

  Good cooperation between institutions can help to reduce costs. 

  Proportionate  costs:  the  benefits  of  EFS  seem  to  outweigh  the  costs;  there  are  not 

many complaints from data providers. 

Cost, burden and efficiency – weaknesses 

  Double data collection (due to different mandates, goals, etc.) is burdensome. 

  Too  many,  too  few  or  unneeded  data  –  there  is  overcoverage  for  aquaculture,  but 
undercoverage for catch and landings, and sometimes different details are needed. 

  Poor cooperation between institutions in some Member States increases costs. 

  Asymmetrical burden for small- and large-scale fisheries. 

  Costs  and  burden  of  data  collection  and  treatment:  a  census  can  be  expensive, 
especially for small countries; quality and methodology reports, etc. are burdensome; 
ad hoc measures due to confidentiality problems can also be costly. 

  Resource  problems:  not  enough  personnel;  not  much  interest  in  funding  data 

collection in a small sector such as aquaculture. 

  Unknown  costs:  the  ESS  Resource  Directors  Group  is  developing  indicators  to 

improve the measurement of the costs of statistics. 

Quality of statistics – strengths 

  Useful metadata and reports: the quality and methodological reports, metadata, etc. 

are seen as useful. 

Quality of statistics – weaknesses 

  Administrative  data  owners  care  less  for  quality:  they  often  do  not  know  enough 
about  data  quality  and  do  not  produce  quality  reports  or  adhere  to  the  European 
statistics  code  of  practice;  consequently,  there  can  also  be  problems  with  the  data 
they send directly to DG MARE. 

  Difficulty in ensuring data quality: some fish species and prices are hard to determine 
exactly; small vessels have difficulty reporting their exact location and detailed FAO 
area; it is hard to validate or check administrative data; the non-significant flag can 
lead to underestimation. 

  Non-comparable data: discrepancies between catch species and landings species. 

62 

 
  Lack of consistency in the rules: the data quality rules should be more consistent, as 

they change too often. 

  Problems  with  confidentiality due to  over-detailed breakdowns, sometimes even for 

non-significant species, or due to too few producers. 

Probing questions 

Who are the users of EFS? 

The workshop participants listed the following EFS users: 

  policymakers, e.g. national and regional ministries and agencies, researchers and 

universities, international organisations such as FAO; 

 

countries  often  seem  to  use  DG MARE/STECF  data  for  their  national  needs 
instead of Eurostat statistics; landings statistics may be used to calculate country 
shares for DG MARE reports; 

 

commercial fisheries organisations; 

  media; 

  national sporting organisations (e.g. trout prices); and 

  general public. 

Several  countries  monitor  their  websites  and  databases  –  there  are  not  usually  many 
clicks  on  or  downloads  of  fisheries  data.  Some  countries  do  not  have  a  full  picture  of 
fisheries data users and their needs. 

What would happen without EFS? 

The participants could not readily give answers to this hypothetical question. 

What are proposals for good practice? 

The participants made several suggestions for good practice in fisheries statistics: 

  administrative  data  owners  should  be  urged  to  adhere  to  statistical  quality 
measures such as the European statistics code of practice before the data are used 
further, but they resist this idea; 

  Eurostat,  DG  MARE,  FAO,  etc.  should  agree  to  collect  data  only  once  in  a 
harmonised  manner  (e.g. as  regards  definitions  and  reporting  requirements),  so 
they do not need to be sent twice. The data should undergo statistical treatment. 
FAO should receive regular EU/EFTA data from Eurostat; 

 

 

to increase response rates, available measures or incentives (such as subsidies) for 
response could be investigated; and 

to  prevent  confidentiality  problems,  some  data  may  not  need  to  be  shown  at 
national level. 

63 

 
European aquaculture statistics – opportunities 

Confidentiality 

  There  should  be  less  disaggregation  and  fewer  breakdowns,  e.g. by  species, 
production method and type of water, as not all combinations may really be needed. 

  Only the 15-20 most important species or species groups could be covered. 

  The confidentiality flag should be removed from aggregates where individual values 

cannot be deduced. 

Data collection 

  Collection  should  be  proportional  to  the  limited  economic  importance  of  the 
aquaculture  sector,  but  annual  data  collections  should  probably  be  maintained. 
Eurostat should determine user needs and determine data collection accordingly. 

  There should be more coherence  and harmonisation  of definitions, deadlines, codes 
and reporting requirements with FAO, the DCF, national requirements, etc. to reduce 
double reporting, but the single data flow should undergo statistical treatment. 

  Thresholds should be revised and frequency, coverage, etc. relaxed. Some countries 
and  sectors  should  be  exempt  from  data  collection,  e.g.  if  they  do  not  have 
capture-based  aquaculture,  but  producers  below  the  threshold  should  still  be 
monitored. 

  Definitions  of  measurement  units  should  be  more  practice-oriented  and  have  a 
common  methodology  (e.g.  for  juveniles).  Conversion  factors  are  important.  In 
particular, unit values should be better defined; currently, they are a mixture of fresh 
and processed depending on the point of first sale in the process. Are prices then even 
comparable? 

  Validation at all levels is important – electronic questionnaires with inbuilt validation 

and cross-checks should be introduced. 

  Good handbooks help to solve measurement, coverage and other challenges. 

  There  should  be  more  flexibility  in  data  collection  for  this  evolving  sector,  e.g. by 

facilitating changes in regulations or allowing more data sources. 

  Perhaps preliminary and final figures can be introduced. 

  Data  should  be  collected  at  enterprise,  not  plant  level,  as  one  facility  may  stretch 

over multiple sites. 

  The Eurostat templates should be delivered earlier in the year. 

User needs 

  There are additional data needs as regards: 

o  molluscs; 

o 

stocks (important for forecasting); 

64 

 
o  mortality (which might already be collected in the DCF); 

o 

seaweeds for human consumption and other purposes; 

o  age classes of some species (e.g. carp); 

o  prices (at least for the main species); 

o 

o 

food losses; and  

(possibly) higher-resolution data at regional/sea basin level. 

  Aquaculture data are also important for environmental and ecosystem purposes. 

Dissemination 

  There  should  be  more  publications,  press  releases,  visualisations,  etc.  on  fisheries 
statistics,  for  which  new  IT  tools  should  be  used.  Some  users  have  difficulties  in 
finding data. 

European aquaculture statistics – threats 

Confidentiality 

  No  previous  proposal  for  handling  confidentiality  issues  found  a  majority,  but 
everyone is unhappy about the status quo (large amounts of confidential data despite 
only a few data being affected in the first place). New rules are needed. 

  The trend to fewer but bigger enterprises leads to more confidentiality issues. 

  An aquaculture production threshold of 500 t to solve some issues would be too high 

in many cases. 

  Compliance with the GDPR, the code of practice and other rules requires resources. 

Administrative data 

 

It  is  hard  to  influence  the  owners  of  the  data  or  to  correct  and  check  the  data,  so 
producing statistics on the basis of administrative data is also hard. 

Burden 

  There  is  a  high  reporting  burden  for  aquaculture  producers,  as  they  also  have  to 
report business  statistics,  employment  and income data,  etc. Double data  collection 
for different fisheries stakeholders is hard to justify. 

European catch and landings statistics – opportunities 

Quality 

  Electronic  validation  checks  and  cross-checks  (e.g.  with  Control  Regulation  data) 
should be used more; the Eurostat validation rules should be shared better [Eurostat: 
they are now in the handbook]. 

 

It should be possible to correct historical data and time series. 

65 

 
  Electronic logbooks for the entire fishing fleet, including <12 m vessels would make 

data collection and cross-checks (e.g. with sales notes) easier. 

Data collection 

  Logbooks should be adapted to report discards and bycatches better. 

  There should be fewer breakdowns of landings by presentation. 

Harmonisation 

  There should be a harmonised EU legal  framework for  fisheries data, so that  NSIs, 

ministries and agencies can work on the same basis. 

  There should be only one data flow for EFS and DG MARE. 

  Landings  should  be  reported  by  flag  country  and  not  landing  country,  as  for 
DG MARE; species reporting and areas should be adapted for Eurostat purposes; the 
approaches for inland fisheries should also be harmonised. 

  Countries should share good practices, e.g. on confidentiality. 

User needs 

  More data are needed on: 

o 

o 

fleet segments (length classes); 

recreational  fishing  (some  countries  already  provide  them  and  ICES  would 
like to know more about them); 

o  catches under 30 kg (currently excluded for catches outside the EU); and  

o  nominal  catches  by  non-EU  vessels  in  certain  areas  (to  know  how  much  is 
caught  in  a  given  area  in  total,  not  just  by  EU  vessels);  such  data  are  also 
important for biological and environmental purposes. 

Other 

  There should be alerts when the Eurobase fisheries tables are updated. 

European catch and landings statistics – threats 

Confidentiality 

Quality 

  There are not enough resources to fully ensure data quality. 

User needs 

  EFS may not be used much at national level. 

66 

 
Main takeaways  

In summary, these are the main points raised in the workshop: 

  Eurostat should harmonise fisheries data flows, definitions, etc. with DG MARE 
and  FAO  to  eliminate  double  reporting;  the  harmonised  flow  should  undergo 
statistical treatment to ensure high quality; 

  data  needs  should  be  analysed  better  to  reduce  confidentiality  issues  and 

eliminate the collection of unneeded or not cost-efficient data;  

  administrative data are a double-edged sword – they are available without extra 
cost,  but  frequently difficult to  influence, correct and validate, depending on the 
level of cooperation between institutions; and 

  more  IT  tools  to  automate  validation  and  cross-checks,  and  good  templates  and 

handbooks would be welcome. 

The  findings  from  the  workshop  provided  valuable  input,  confirmed  by  other 
consultation activities. They were used to answer several evaluation questions. 

4.2  

In-depth interviews 

The in-depth interviews with key EFS stakeholders were essential for the evaluation. The 
findings served to answer each evaluation question. The interviews gave insight into the 
use  of  different  types  of  fisheries/aquaculture  data  sources  and  the  role  of  EFS  for  the 
main stakeholders. In summary, respondents said that EFS are mostly coherent in terms 
of definitions with statistics from other sources. However, huge overlaps exist with DCF 
and Control Regulation data. The use by organisation is presented in Table 4.  

Table 4.  

Overview of topics for case studies 

Organisation 

EFS relevance 

Reasons 

Alternative 
sources 

DG MARE 

No  for  catches,  landings,  don’t  meet 
needs. Aquaculture to fill gaps 

Insufficient  level  of  detail, 
timeliness 

DCF 

DG TRADE 

No,  insufficient  details  (sometimes 
used for global trends) 

Need  data  also  on  product 
level 

EMODnet 

n.a. 

groups, 

higher-level 

Yes,  they  use  EFS  to  produce  their 
aggregates 
own 
(commodity 
main 
commercial  species),  relate  them  to 
fishing 
geo-referenced 
FAO 
statistical  areas  and  transmit  these 
data to NAFO, as per obligation 

Sometimes 
FAO 
global data 

for 

JRC  for  algae 
production 

EUMOFA 

Yes,  they  use  EFS,  process  and 
harmonise  them  according  to  their 
standards and redistribute them. 

Official  reference  statistics, 
harmonised 

MS, others 

67 

 
Organisation 

EFS relevance 

Reasons 

Alternative 
sources 

Eurofish 

FAO 

Yes,  for  sector  studies  and  specific 
services.  Mainly 
and 
aquaculture, less catches 

landings 

Yes,  catch  statistics  are  validated, 
complemented,  fed  into  the  FAO 
database and disseminated 
Yes  for  aquaculture  statistics,  which 
are used for validating FAO statistics 

GFCM 

Low 

ICES 

Yes, in particular nominal catch data. 
No for aquaculture statistics  

important  but  not 

EFS 
essential 

National, FAO 

National 
sources 

Rely on EFS data for EU 
Earlier  reporting  date  for 
than 
aquaculture  statistics 
EFS, 
receive  preliminary 
statistics  from  MS  and  use 
EFS for validation 

Have  own  database, 
to 
which members must report 

Own  database, 
members 

Main  source  for  catches, 
for 
relevant 
not 
economic 
for 
detailed 
biological analyses 

mainly 
analyses, 
enough 

DG MARE for 
DCF data 

ICCAT 

Yes, catch statistics 

Mainly to validate own data 

FAO, ICES 

NAFO 

Yes,  catch  statistics,  but  not  primary 
source 

Mainly  to  cross-check  own 
data, due to official status 

directly, 
catch 

MS 
VMS, 
reports, etc. 

The  majority  of  respondents  rely  on  Eurostat  quality  validation  and  do  not  implement 
additional  quality  processes  (mainly  for  lack  of  time  and  internal  resources).  A  few 
consider that EFS are affected by issues of coverage (e.g. not all production) and do not 
match  with  other  sources  of  information  (e.g. DCF).  Where  reporting  discrepancies  are 
found  between  EFS  and  other  sources  of  data,  institutions  prefer  to  use  the  alternative 
data  sources.  One  finding  is  that  the  accessibility  of  statistics  (IT  platform)  should  be 
improved, although some respondents (OECD, ICES) acknowledge improvement in the 
platform in recent years. 

Stakeholders  were  asked  to  indicate  the  most  likely  consequences  of  stopping  or 
withdrawing  EFS.  Their  replies  underlined  the  fundamental  importance  of  the 
independence of statistical information. Also, the fact that Eurostat compiles statistics for 
all Member States in one central database is very convenient. The use of national sources 
creates  language  barriers  and  it  is  sometimes  difficult  to  understand  where  data  are. 
Therefore, having a central European repository is very useful. 

4.3 

Case studies 

The  case  studies  gathered  information  on  EFS  at  national  level.  Their  outcome 
contributed  to  the  analysis  of  most  of  the  evaluation  questions  and  made  it  possible  to 
monetarise the cost as a part of the efficiency criteria. The case studies are summarised 
below. 

68 

 
Case study  

DENMARK 

Main findings  

The  data  flow,  coordination  and  data  collection  are  very  simple  for  catch  and  landing 
statistics, because of the availability of administrative data. The cost of delivering data to 
Eurostat is very low, as they represent only a fraction of what is required for the national 
statistics.  

Danish  authorities  use  mostly  national  data  sources,  as  they  are  easier  to  use.  Eurostat 
data are used for comparison with other countries. The high level of detail in aquaculture 
statistics  is  due  solely  to  Eurostat  requirements.  The  national  authorities  consider  it 
excessive; however, the aquaculture association prefers it. 

Suggested improvements  

  Eurostat  should  coordinate  its  data  requests  with  FAO  and  OECD  in  order  to 

avoid reporting the same data several times in different formats;  

  a better search function should be made available for the statistics on the Eurostat 

webpage; and 

 

the quality report should be made simpler and clearer. 

INTERVIEWEES  Auction Nord in Hirtshals  

Danish Aquaculture Association 

Danish Fisheries Agency 

Danish Fishers Association 

Statistics Denmark 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case study  

FRANCE  

Main findings  

The costs and burden associated with catch and landings statistics are very low. Eurostat 
requirements  are  seen  as  a  non-significant  part  of  the  workload  for  the  administration 
compared with DCF and Control Regulation requirements.  

Recently,  the  quality  of  fisheries  statistics  in  France  has  improved  greatly  thanks  to  an 
improved database and re-organisation.  

Several difficulties arise from data gaps and confidentiality for specific FAO sub-areas. 
For  aquaculture,  an  overlap  has  been  identified  between  the  national  questionnaire  and 
the production declaration by aquaculture farms in public marine areas. 

Most  fisheries  and  aquaculture  statistics  users  do  not  use  EFS  on  a  regular  basis. 
Research  institutes  rely  mainly  on  alternative  sources  such  as  JRC  and  FAO.  National 
users  use  mainly  national  data  and  the  fishery  data  exchange  system  (FIDES)  for 
European data.  

Due  to  separate  data  requests  by  international  organisations,  the  data  are  not  always 
coherent in Eurostat, FAO and OECD databases.  

Suggested improvements  

  reduce  the  level  of  detail  on  catch  areas:  moving  from  FAO  sub-divisions  to 
divisions should facilitate aggregation and address most confidentiality issues; 

  facilitate and clarify aggregation by categories of species in the Eurostat portal; 

  provide data on landings by flag and landings in third countries; and 

 

improve data on algae production. 

INTERVIEWEES  Brittany regional fishery organisation  

Direction des Pêches Maritimes et de l’Aquaculture 

FranceAgriMer  

Institut français de recherche et d’exploitation de la mer 

Service des Statistiques et de la Prospective 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case study  

GREECE 

Main findings  

In  Greece,  the  main  EFS  user  groups  are  students  and  independent  individuals 
(consultants, investors, etc.). EFS are used mainly for market and sectoral analysis. Other 
sources are preferred for scientific research and policymaking. 

To  comply  with  the  Eurostat  code  of  practice  on  statistical  quality,  the  Hellenic 
Statistical Authority works to specific quality guidelines, with all the necessary checks. 
The quality of Eurostat statistics is not disputed, even by researchers who use the catch 
and aquaculture statistics only occasionally. The sample size for catch statistics is robust 
compared with  the target  population  of  fishing  vessels, and the  aquaculture survey is  a 
census survey. 

Recently, the alternative data source providing statistics for the DCF faced problems and 
the  Hellenic  Statistical  Authority  could  not  use  it.  Since  the  procedural  problems  were 
settled in 2018, cooperation between the two data streams has improved steadily. There 
are still areas where this could be improved. This would contribute to saving human and 
financial resources, but also to reducing the burden on respondents. 

The  Greek  fleet  has  a  large  number  of  small  (<10 m)  boats.  It  is  difficult  to  keep  the 
national fleet registry up to date. 

No  problems  of  internal  coherence  have  been  identified,  but  there  are  overlaps  with 
similar  datasets  collected  by  the  Directorate-General  for  Fisheries  of  the  Ministry  of 
Rural Development and Food (DCF).  

The accessibility of EFS is considered perhaps their main strength. 

Suggested improvements  

User conferences and satisfaction surveys conducted by the Hellenic Statistical Authority 
did not provide any suggestions for additional or different datasets. 

INTERVIEWEES  Directorate-General  of  Fisheries  of  the  Ministry  of  Rural  Development 

and Food 
Hellenic Centre of Marine Research 

Hellenic Statistical Authority  

University of the Aegean 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case study  

IRELAND 

Main findings  

EFS were considered to have the added value of being more robust and of higher quality 
due  to  the  rigorous  Eurostat  validation  process.  Aquaculture  data  calls  usually  have  a 
good  response  rate  (80-90%),  indicating  a  good  level  of  data  completeness.  However, 
around  75%  of  Irish  vessels  are  under  10 m,  and  collection  of  robust  statistics  is 
questioned  given  the  reliance  on  sales  notes  rather  than  logbook  data.  A  further  issue 
relates to concerns about confidentiality in the reporting of aquaculture statistics.  

Interviewees did not regard the costs associated with EFS data collection as significant or 
disproportionate.  

In  Ireland,  Eurostat  data  are  relevant  for  longitudinal  analysis  and  multi-country 
comparisons.  However,  academic  and  national  stakeholders  prefer  to  use  data  sourced 
directly from the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority, mainly because it is more timely.  

Suggested improvements  

  more  frequent  release  of  EFS  to  inform  national  accounts  (e.g. trade  balance, 

GVA); 

  demand for landing breakdowns at port level to inform decision-making; and 

  simplify  data  collection  for  different  purposes  through  more  aligned  data 

collection to reduce duplication of effort.  

INTERVIEWEES 

Bord Iascaigh Mhara 

Central Statistical Office 

Sea Fisheries Protection Authority 

Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit / NUI Galway 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case study  

ITALY 

Main findings  

In Italy, the burden imposed by Eurostat for fisheries statistics is considered very low as 
compared  with  DCF  requirements.  However,  data  producers  found  it  very  difficult  to 
assess, as the same resources are involved in data collections for different institutions and 
organisations such as DCF, FAO and OECD.  

The  integrated  catch  and  landings  data  (sample  survey,  logbooks  sales  notes,  etc.) 
undergo several steps of quality control. The controls for aquaculture statistics are based 
on  time-series  analysis  and  analysis  of  coherence  with  other  sources  (e.g. processing 
statistics). In the event of errors, the data collectors contact firms again. 

Italian  experts,  scientists  and  stakeholders  consider  EFS  to  be  of  low  relevance  and 
practical utility, because the same information is available in other databases (DCF) with 
greater  level  of  detail.  Therefore,  the  major  gaps  in  EFS  in  relation  to  the  end  users’ 
needs relate to the level of aggregation (more disaggregated information at species level 
and fishing technique level, more disaggregated geographical data, monthly or quarterly 
data, etc.).  

Usually,  EFS  are  used  to  complement  data  from  other  sources,  for  international 
comparisons and longitudinal analyses. The aquaculture statistics are mainly used to get 
an overview of the aquaculture sector at international level.  

Suggested improvements  

  an  integrated  Eurostat/DCF  database  would  simplify  access  to  and  coherence 

between statistics; and 

  update  and  limit  the  statistics  to  some  main  species  by  country  and/or  region  in 

order to avoid discontinued time-series. 

INTERVIEWEES  Council for Agricultural Research and Economics  

ISPRA Ambiente 

Ministero  delle  politiche  agricole  alimentari,  forestali  e  del  turismo 
(MIPAAFT) 

NISEA (consortium of data collection work plan for the fishery sector) 

RETE  MARE  (consortium  of  data  collection  work  plan  for  the  fishery 
sector) 

UNIMAR (consortium comprising three producer organisations) 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case study  

POLAND 

Main findings  

The  burden  of  collecting  and  processing  data  for  Eurostat  is  low.  Analysing  data  and 
submitting them to Eurostat takes a few days. Collecting and collating data in the field of 
fishing  and  landings  from  sea  fishing  (especially  transferring  information  from 
fishermen’s paper forms to  the electronic form)  is  much more time-consuming. That  is 
why there is a need to increase expenditure for data collection. 

The  Ministry  of  Marine  Economy  and  Inland  Navigation  does  not  use  Eurostat  data  to 
analyse  the  Polish  market,  because  domestic  sources  are  more  accurate  and  broader  in 
scope. Eurostat data are used for comparisons with other EU countries. 

EFS producers (e.g. research institutes cooperating with the Ministry of Marine Economy 
and  Inland  Navigation)  are  also  EFS  users.  The  Sea  Fisheries  Institute  (a  national 
research  institute)  uses  EFS  to  publish  the  balance  of  the  fishing  fleet  segment.  The 
Inland  Fisheries  Institute  uses  aquaculture  data  from  statistical  surveys  for  popular 
scientific publications describing the state of Polish aquaculture. 

Cooperation  with  Eurostat  on  data  collection  is  very  good.  Preparation  of  the  metadata 
(quality) reports required by Eurostat regulations is not easy, because dozens of detailed 
open questions about data collection in Poland have still to be answered. 

Suggested improvements  

  automate fishing logs and digitalisation of data collection for smaller (<12 m, or 

even <8 m) vessels; and 

  simplify the Eurostat quality reports. 

INTERVIEWEES  Association of Salmon Fish Producers 

Fisheries Monitoring Centre of the Ministry of Marine Economy 

Inland Fisheries Institute 

Ministry  of  Marine  Economy  and  Inland  Navigation,  Department  of 
Fisheries 

National Maritime Fisheries Institute  

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case study 

AQUACULTURE 

Main findings  

The  statistical  quality  is  generally  judged  as  good.  There  is  a  satisfactory  or  high 
response  rate  in  most  case-study  countries.  Some  interviewees  assumed  a  degree  of 
under-reporting due to a large sector with many small-scale producers and the prevalence 
of paper questionnaires. 

Effectiveness  is  impeded  to  some  extent  by  confidentiality  issues,  which  result  in  the 
non-availability  of  certain  data.  Large  amounts  of  aquaculture  data  are  confidential, 
despite  only  a  small  amount  being  affected  in  the  first  place.  In  some  countries,  the 
confidentiality  is  due  to  the  cross-cutting  of  different  categories  and  reporting  on  all 
species; in others, it is due to large companies dominating the sector. Since 2011, several 
possible solutions have been proposed, but none of them found majority support. 

In the case-study countries, the effort and other costs of producing aquaculture statistics 
appear  to  be  acceptable  to  the  institutions  involved  and  are  marginal  given  other  data 
collections. 

Aquaculture  statistics  users  are  scientists,  students,  politicians  and  administrations, 
NGOs, consultants and policy advisors, the private sector and sectoral organisations. The 
users do not necessarily use data from Eurostat, but often prefer to use similar or more 
detailed  data  from  national  sources,  sometimes  also  from  international  sources  such  as 
the FAO. 

No significant incoherence between EFS and other statistics could be identified, although 
some production data appeared to be rather implausible in some Member States. 

The main added value of European aquaculture statistics is the availability of comparable 
data from different countries and the comprehensive quality assurance they undergo. 

Suggested improvements  

  simplify data to limit data confidentiality;  

  make greater use of online questionnaires in some countries; and 

  further harmonise the reporting obligations for Eurostat, FAO and OECD.  

INTERVIEWEES  Agricultural institutions (in charge of aquaculture data collection in most 
Member  States)  and  NSIs  in  Greece,  Ireland,  France,  Denmark,  Italy, 
Poland and Germany 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.4  Online survey 

The online survey targeted mainly EFS users, but to some extent also the providers. The 
main objective was to gather information on whether and how the main stakeholders use 
EFS.  

A  total  of  135  respondents  answered  the  questionnaire,  representing  38.2%  of  the 
identified  target  population.  The  respondents  were  from  33  of  the  36  countries  (EU, 
EFTA, candidate and potential candidate countries). Geographical mapping showed that 
significantly more answers were submitted by users and/or producers from the south and 
west of Europe than from the east and north. 

The  responses  highlighted  the  quality  of  EFS  as  compared  with  other  data  sources. 
Across categories, most respondents said that EFS are of the same quality as another data 
source  that  they  use.  They  pointed  to  completeness  (24.5%),  comparability  across 
countries and overall quality of the datasets (both 18.4%) as the aspects that are of better 
quality than the other source. On the other hand, 16.3% referred to timeliness as an area 
in which EFS are poorer than the other source. Users also pointed out that EFS give only 
a general  picture and that  they have to  resort to  other providers for more detailed data. 
Although quantitative feedback suggested that a majority of users of the catches (68.5%), 
landings (63.5%) and aquaculture (51.9%) datasets and many users (48.1%) of the fleet 
dataset  said  that  EFS  are  timely  to  some  or  a  large  extent,  qualitative  data  from  the 
interviews suggested otherwise. The perception of timeliness seems to depend heavily on 
the user’s expectations. 

The survey found that EFS were often used for comparisons between Member States and 
for a general overview of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Users referred to them as 
a  ‘one-stop  shop  for  reliable  information’  and  as  a  tool  that  ‘serves  to  understand  and 
compare the national situation in the European context’.  

The questionnaire highlighted differences in producers’ views on the burden that catch, 
landings  and  aquaculture  statistics  requirements  impose.  Catch  statistics  were  the  only 
dataset  that  more  producers  judged  to  be  cost-effective  (38.1%  said  it  is  to  some  or  a 
large extent cost-effective) than too burdensome (31.4% agreed with that claim to some 
or  a  large  extent).  As  regards  aquaculture  statistics,  37.5%  agreed  that  they  were  too 
costly, whereas 26.3% thought otherwise. On landings statistics, 31% agreed that the data 
collection process was too burdensome and 17.2% said it was cost-effective. The lack of 
data  harmonisation  among  different  organisations  was  most  burdensome  for  catch 
statistics  producers,  whereas  the  need  for  metadata  reporting  was  seen  as  most 
burdensome for landings and aquaculture statistics producers.  

At the end of the questionnaire, respondents made recommendations for improving EFS. 
In the section for all respondents, qualitative answers often provided conflicting insights. 
While  some  called  for  less  data  disaggregation,  some  wanted  more  detailed  insights  – 
judging  from  quantitative  feedback,  it  appears  that  users  want  more  detail,  whereas 
producers  want  more  aggregation.  Respondents  also  called  for  more  timely  data 

76 

 
reporting. Again, it was argued that the FAO should use EFS and not require inputs from 
the Member States.  

Many  respondents  agreed that a discontinuation  of EFS  would have  a negative impact: 
this  would  lead  to  ‘an  important  pillar  in  the  sector  statistics  being  missing’.  More 
specifically, this would mean the loss of a quality source, thus creating knowledge gaps 
relating  to  fisheries  and  aquaculture.  Some  responses  to  the  qualitative  questions  on 
future  recommendations  (presumably  from  users)  also  indicated  that,  in  the  absence  of 
EFS sources, respondents would resort more to FAO information. 

A  smaller  group  of  respondents  noted  that  the  disappearance  of  EFS  would  have  a 
negative impact on the sector, but would not affect their work directly.  

A  comparably  small  group  said  that  discontinuation  would  have  a  positive  impact, 
mainly in reducing the burden of data collection (e.g. ‘nothing would change, except we 
will send one report less’). Some respondents from this group said that it would be best 
to keep collecting EFS, but bring it under one roof with the DCF. 

4.5 

Public consultation 

The public consultation sought to reach occasional EFS users and the general public. In 
total,  there  were  24  respondents  from  13  different  countries:  seven  from  Spain,  three 
from  Greece, two each from  Latvia, Portugal and Germany  and one  each from  Poland, 
Sweden, Italy, Estonia, France, Croatia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. This is 
a  relatively  low  response  rate,  so  the  results  should  be  interpreted  and  analysed  with 
caution, as they are unlikely to be representative of all EFS stakeholders. Nevertheless, a 
wide  range  of  opinions  was  represented,  in  many  cases  by  people  or  organisations  not 
reached by other consultation activities, so the inputs were considered useful. 

Two  thirds  of  respondents  said  that  they  were  answering  the  questionnaire  in  a 
professional  capacity  or  on  behalf  of  an  organisation,  and  one  third  in  a  personal 
capacity. Seven said  they  represented an academic or research institution, six answered 
as  EU  citizens,  four  as  representatives  of  a  company/business  organisation,  three  as 
representatives of a public authority and two as members of a business association.  

Of the 24 respondents, 16 identified themselves as users and 8 as producers of statistics. 
Users  were  asked  to  judge  the  relevance,  accuracy  and  reliability,  timeliness  and 
punctuality,  coherence and comparability,  and  accessibility and clarity  of the EFS on  a 
five-point  Likert  scale.  Weighted  responses  suggested  that  timeliness  and  punctuality 
were  viewed  most  positively  (average  of  3.06,  where  5  meant  high  quality  and  1  no 
quality),  closely  followed  by  accuracy  and  reliability,  and  timeliness  and  punctuality 
(both  with  an  average  of  3).  Accessibility  and  clarity  recorded  a  score  of  2.86  and 
coherence  and  comparability  were  considered  the  worst,  receiving  an  average  of  2.62. 
Users overall rated the EFS higher than the four producers of statistics who answered the 
same  questions.  On  the  five-point  Likert  scale,  the  producers  gave  a  rating  of  2.75  for 
relevance,  accuracy  and  reliability,  timeliness  and  punctuality,  and  coherence  and 

77 

 
comparability.  The  difference  might  stem  from  worse  perceptions  of  the  EFS  among 
producers than among users overall, a trend confirmed in the online survey. 

Of the 16 users, 13 were aware of data sources for fisheries statistics other than the EFS; 
three  were  not.  FAO  fisheries  statistics  were  the  most  popular  alternative  source  used, 
followed by ICES fisheries statistics and the DCF. Users mentioned that they used eight 
other sources of fisheries and/or  aquaculture data. Most thought  the quality of the  EFS 
was similar to that of alternative sources, two respondents thought it was lower and one 
thought it was much higher.  

Further results of the public consultation are in Annex 8.  

78 

 
 
ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Online 
survey 

Case 
studies 

Desk 
research 

In-depth interviews 

Data 
users 

Redistributors 

Workshop 

Public 

consult. 

Relevance 

EQ1: To what extent are the Eurostat Fisheries Statistics (collected by Eurostat) under the current legislation relevant for data users? 

  To what extent are the current (and 
potential future) needs of data users 
captured in the current legislation? 
This will include needs in terms of: 
o  managing fish stocks using 

accurate data 

o  meeting obligations under the 

  Extent to which the current 
fisheries statistics match 
the current and potential 
needs of users 

  What data are missing from 
the EFS in terms of user 
needs and desires? 

CFP 

o  data being provided at the 
appropriate level of detail 

  Extent to which elements of 
Eurostat fisheries statistics 
are used by dataset and 
type of variable, and for 
what purpose 

  Documentary evidence 

and stakeholders’ 
views confirm that  
  the data meet 
current and 
emerging user 
needs 

  other sources are 
used to fill gaps 
  there are other 
data gaps to fill 

  Documentary evidence 

and stakeholders’ 
views confirm that 
intended users access 
and use statistics 
(client DGs, RFMOs, 
int. organisations, etc.) 

  To what extent is the current 
approach to data collection 
appropriate to meet user needs? 

  Extent to which the 

  Documentary evidence 

approach to data collection 
has the potential to 
produce relevant fisheries 
statistics 

and stakeholders’ 
views confirm that the 
approach to / design of 
data collection has the 
potential to produce 
fisheries statistics with 
high relevance 
(e.g. timeliness, 

79 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Online 
survey 

Case 
studies 

Desk 
research 

In-depth interviews 

Data 
users 

Redistributors 

Workshop 

Public 

consult. 

Statistical quality 

EQ 2: Do Fisheries statistics (collected by Eurostat) meet their statistical quality principles? 

accessibility, format, 
user satisfaction) 

  To what extent do Eurostat 

Fisheries Statistics meet statistical 
output quality principles (as defined 
by European Statistics Code of 
Practice)?  
Note: relevance of statistical 
outputs is covered under EQ 1. This 
question only includes statistical 
output principles 12 to 15 listed in the 
European Statistics Code of Practice.  

 

  Extent to which Eurostat 
Fisheries statistics meet 
their statistical quality 
principles of: 

 

  accuracy and 
reliability; 
timeliness and 
punctuality; 
coherence and 
comparability; and  

 

  accessibility and 

clarity  

  How do Eurostat Fisheries Statistics 

compare overall with other 
organisations producing fisheries 
statistics (e.g. FAO, DG MARE), in 
terms of their: 

  Extent to which European 
Fishery Statistics compare 
favourably to other 
organisations overall 

  institutional environment 

  statistical processes 

  Stakeholders’ 

feedback on the quality 
of the statistical 
outputs (on set or 
subset of principles 
depending on the 
stakeholder 
categories) confirm 
that statistical outputs 
meet the quality 
requirements 

  Documentary 
evidence, 
assessment/evaluation
s of statistical quality, 
etc. confirm that 
statistical outputs meet 
the quality 
requirements 

  Documentary evidence 

and stakeholders’ 
feedback on the 
performance of 
Eurostat Fisheries 
Statistics in terms of: 

  institutional 

environment 

80 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Online 
survey 

Case 
studies 

Desk 
research 

In-depth interviews 

Data 
users 

Redistributors 

Workshop 

Public 

consult. 

  statistical output  

  (as defined in the European 

statistics Code of Practice)? 

overall 
  statistical 

processes overall 

  statistical output 

overall 

confirm 
favourable 
comparison with other 
organisations  where 
possible 

Effectiveness 

EQ 3: How effective are the legal acts and the resulting fisheries statistics? 

  How effective are the legal acts in 

  See judgement criteria 

  See indicators related 
to statistical quality 

delivering quality statistics? 

  To what extent are fisheries 
statistics used to meet their 
specified/general objectives? 

related to statistical quality 
  See definitions and limits of 

ESTAT statistics (and 
discrepancies with 
DG MARE 

  Extent to which European 

  Documentary evidence 

fisheries statistics are used 
to support decision-making 
and policy follow-up42 
  Extent to which European 

fisheries statistics are used 
to monitor markets 
(including international 
trade) 

and stakeholders’ 
views confirm usage of 
statistics by intended 
users (client DGs, 
RFMOs, int. 
organisations, etc.) in 
line with original 
objectives where 
possible: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42   Taking into account the scientific advice procedure in the Commission and then the preparation of fisheries management decisions in the EU. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Sub-questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

  Extent to which European 

  fisheries statistics 

Online 
survey 

Case 
studies 

Desk 
research 

In-depth interviews 

Data 
users 

Redistributors 

Workshop 

Public 

consult. 

fisheries statistics are used 
to meet data provision 
requirements defined by 
international conventions 

are used in 
decision making 
and policy 
formulation 

  fisheries statistics 

are used to 
monitor markets  
  fisheries statistics 

meet data 
provision 
requirements 
defined by 
international 
conventions 

  fisheries statistics 

are used for 
scientific or 
fisheries 
management 
advice 

  Documentary evidence 

and stakeholders’ 
views confirm that the 
legal acts support the 
intended use of 
fisheries statistics 
(discussion of 
success/hindering 
factors related to legal 
provisions) 

82 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
Efficiency 

EQ 4: Are the Fisheries statistics collected by Eurostat (legal acts and the resulting data) deemed efficient? 

  To what extent is data collection 

  Extent to which the 

  Documentary evidence 

cost-effective?  

administrative burden of 
data collection is 
reasonable for Member 
States and Eurostat 

  Extent to which the 

administrative burden of 
data collections is 
reasonable for Member 
States 

and stakeholders’ 
views confirm that the 
cost of data collection 
is reasonable for 
Eurostat43 

  Documentary evidence 
and stakeholder views 
confirm that duplication 
of data requests and/or 
duplication of data 
collections and/or lack 
of harmonisation of 
approaches to data 
collections do not 
create a 
disproportionate 
administrative burden 

  Documentary evidence 

and stakeholders’ 
views confirm the cost 
of data collection is 
reasonable for MS 
overall 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Extent to which the ‘single 
collection, multiple use’ 
principle is followed 

  Number of recipient 

organisations per data 
item and number of 

 

 

 

 

43   This is further explored in the cost-effectiveness analysis.  

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Extent to which the 

regulatory burden of data 
collection overall is 
proportionate to the 
benefits of fisheries 
statistics 

instances where a data 
item is used 

  Benefits reported by 
the data users (see 
effectiveness) 

  Documentary evidence 

and stakeholders’ 
views confirm that data 
collection for fisheries 
statistics is cost-
effective overall 

  What are the possibilities of 

  Extent to which there is 

  Documentary evidence 

simplification of current legislation 
and/or streamlining the statistical 
systems? 

potential for simplification 
and/or streamlining of the 
statistical system in place 
for EFS 

and stakeholders’ 
views confirm that 
there is scope for 
legislative 
simplification, 
streamlining, reduction 
of burden / 
inefficiencies and 
recommendations 
identified 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coherence 

EQ 5: To what extent are Eurostat Fisheries Statistics (as collected by Eurostat) internally coherent? 

  To what extent do the legal acts 

  Extent to which there are 

  Evidence of 

framing Eurostat Fisheries 
Statistics complement / contradict / 
overlap / duplicate each other + 
other Eurostat statistics? 

complementarities, 
contradictions, overlaps 
and / or duplications 
between the legal acts  

complementarities, 
contradictions, 
overlaps, duplications 
and/or gaps of the 
coverage / scope of 
fisheries statistics 
(including in data 
dissemination) as 
provided for in the 

84 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EQ 6: Are Eurostat Fisheries Statistics (collected by Eurostat) coherent with other available data sources (external coherence)? 

  To what extent do Eurostat 

  Extent to which there are 

  Evidence of 

legal acts 

Fisheries Statistics complement / 
contradict / overlap / duplicate other 
EU and international fisheries 
statistics initiatives? 

complementarities, 
contradictions, overlaps 
and / or duplications 
between Eurostat and CFP 
frameworks  

complementarities, 
contradictions, 
overlaps, duplications 
and/or gaps between 
Eurostat and CFP 
frameworks 

  Evidence of 

contradictions and 
differences in EU 
fisheries statistics 
(Eurostat, DG MARE) 
leading to loss of 
credibility and potential 
Commission 
reputational risks 
among key users 
(such as RFMOs) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Extent to which there are 

  Evidence of 

complementarities, 
contradictions, overlaps 
and / or duplications 
between EFS and other 
data sources at MS or 
international level 

complementarities, 
contradictions, 
overlaps, duplications 
and/or gaps between 
MS or international 
level 

EU added value 

EQ 7: What is the EU Added Value of Eurostat Fisheries Statistics (collected by Eurostat)? 

  What is the added value resulting 

from the European Fisheries 
statistics, compared to what could 
be achieved by Member States at 
national and/or regional level?  

  Extent to which EFS are 
additional to what would 
otherwise have occurred at 
the EU level or by Member 
States acting individually 

  Consensus among 

stakeholders that the 
identified results / 
outcomes would not 
have been achieved 

85 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  What would be the most likely 
consequences of stopping or 
withdrawing the European fisheries 
statistics? 

Note:  The  response  on  EU  added 
value  will  also  include  a  synthesis  of 
evaluation  questions  on  relevance, 
statistical 
effectiveness, 
efficiency, and coherence  

quality, 

  Extent to which the 

without EFS  

objectives of the EFS 
regulations continue to 
require action at EU level 

  Extent to which the 

  Views of key 

withdrawal of EFS would 
impact on policymaking, 
fisheries control and other 
uses at EU and national 
level 

informants on the 
benefits of EFS in 
terms of:  

  statistical coverage 

/ aggregation 
  promotion of best 

practices 
(e.g. statistical 
quality principles) 

  avoidance of 
coordination 
and/or information 
failures (such as 
lack of comparable 
fisheries statistics) 

  User views on the 

positive and negative 
implications of 
withdrawal of the EFS 

86 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: DATA FLOWS FOR FISHERIES  

A. CATCHES AND LANDINGS 

*Other candidate countries may join the data submission system. 

87 

 
 
B. FISHING FLEET 

88 

 
C. AQUACULTURE 

89 

 
 
ANNEX 5: DETAILED REQUIREMENTS OF EFS REGULATIONS 

CATCH STATISTICS 

NW Atlantic (21A 
catch data) 

Geographical coverage 

NE Atlantic 

NW Atlantic (21B 
catch data) 

NW Atlantic (21B 
effort data) 

Certain areas other than 
those in the North 
Atlantic 

Frequency of report 

Reference period 

Annual 

Year 

Annual 

Annual 

Month/Year 

Month/Year 

Declaring country 

ISO Alpha-2 

ISO Alpha-2 

ISO Alpha-2 

Fishing area 

Main species sought 

Fishing gear category 

Vessel size class 

Species 

Subdivisions covered 
by FAO major areas: 
21, 27, 34, 37, 41, 47, 
51 

Subdivisions in FAO 
major area 21 

Subdivisions in FAO 
major area 21 

- 

- 

- 

FAO ASFIS 
Alpha-3 

FAO ASFIS 
Alpha-3 

ISSCFG standard 
abbreviations 

ISSCFG standard 
abbreviations 

ISSCFV code 

ISSCFV code 

FAO ASFIS 
Alpha-3 

FAO ASFIS 
Alpha-3 

- 

3 categories 

- 

- 

- 

Effort category 

- 

Unit 

Tonnes live weight 

Observation value 

Volume of catches 

Average gross tonnage 

Average engine power 

Percentage effort 
estimated 

Status 

Confidentiality 

- 

- 

- 

Volume of catches 
(tonnes live weight) 

Fishing effort (number) 

Tonnes (optional) 

Tonnes (optional) 

kW (optional) 

kW (optional) 

Percentage (optional) 

Percentage (optional) 

SDMX flag (optional) 

SDMX flag (optional) 

90 

 
 
Variables 

Frequency of report 

Reference period 

Declaring country 

Vessel nationality 

Species 

Presentation 

LANDINGS STATISTICS 

Landings 

Annual 

Year 

ISO Country Alpha-2 

ISO Country Alpha-2 

FAO ASFIS Alpha-3 

SDMX code list 

  Fresh (several) 

  Frozen (several) 

  Salted (several) 

  Smoked 

  Cooked (several) 

  Dried (several) 

  Claws 

  Eggs 

  Whole 

  Unknown 

Intended use 

SDMX code list 

Volume of landings 

Unit value of landings 

Currency 

Observation status 

Confidentiality status 

  Human consumption 

 

Industrial use 

  Withdrawn from the market 

  Bait 

  Animal feed 

  Waste 

 

Intended use unknown 

Quantity (tonnes product weight) 

Price per tonne in national currency 

ISO Currency Alpha-3 

SDMX flag (optional) 

SDMX flag (optional) 

91 

 
 
Variables 

Frequency  of 
report 

Reference 
period 

Declaring 
country 

FAO  major 
fishing area 

Production 
method 

Species 

in 
Stage 
lifecycle 

the 

Unit 

Observation 
value 

Unit value 

AQUACULTURE STATISTICS 

Production 
(excl. 
hatcheries and 
nurseries) 

Production of 
fish eggs for 
human 
consumption 

Input to 
capture-based 
aquaculture 

Production 
from 
hatcheries and 
nurseries 

Structural 
statistics 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Annual 

Every 3 years 

Year 

Year 

Year 

Year 

Year 

ISO Alpha-2 

ISO Alpha-2 

ISO Alpha-2 

ISO Alpha-2 

ISO Alpha-2 

1, 5, 27, 34, 37 

1, 5, 27, 34, 37 

Production 
environment 

Fresh/sea and 
brackish water 

Fresh/sea and 
brackish water 

9 methods 

9 methods 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1, 5, 27, 34, 37 

Fresh/sea and 
brackish water 

9 methods 

FAO ASFIS 
Alpha-3 

FAO ASFIS 
Alpha-3 

FAO ASFIS 
Alpha-3 

FAO ASFIS 
Alpha-3 

5 groups of 
species 

- 

- 

- 

Tonnes live 
weight 

Tonnes live 
weight 

Tonnes live 
weight 

Eggs/ 
Juveniles 

Millions 

Quantity 

Quantity 

Quantity 

Number 

- 

1,000 m3, ha or 
m 

Potential 
capacity 

Price/tonne in 
national 
currency 

Price/tonne in 
national 
currency 

Price/tonne in 
national 
currency 

Currency 

ISO Alpha-3 

ISO Alpha-3 

ISO Alpha-3 

Intended uses 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

For on- 
growing/releas
e to the wild 

- 

- 

- 

Status 

Confidential 

SDMX flag (optional) 

SDMX flag (optional) 

92 

 
 
ANNEX 6: COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS 

I. Overview of costs identified in the evaluation 

Citizens/consumers  

Businesses – ship operators, ship owners and 
aquaculture facilities 

Administrations 

Qualitative  Quantitative / 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / monetary   Qualitative 

monetary 

Quantitative / 
monetary  

None 

0 

Negligible 

N/A 

Low 

€1.7 million 

Total 
yearly 
costs 

Total direct costs for 
producing EFS (catches, 
landings, aquaculture 
and fishing fleet): 
personnel, IT, survey, 
administrative costs 

Data required under 
Control Regulation; 
where sample surveys 
are required, they are 
run by enumerators 
from NSIs or ONAs 

As source data are 
required under Control 
Regulation and/or DCF 

The overall cost of producing EFS represents about 0.01% of the overall yearly production of the sector. This is very low when compared with the 
cost of statistics supporting the CAP, where the cost of the most expensive set of statistics (agricultural census) accounts for 0.6% of the production 
value of the sector. 

The cost is estimated on the basis of national cost declarations to the ESS, cross-checked with evidence gathered in the case studies. That evidence 
indicates that the administrative cost  is  significantly (5 to  6 times) higher in  Mediterranean countries, where most landings are by small (<10 m) 
vessels. This is due to two factors: the limited number of species in the Mediterranean to be reported to the DCF for stock assessment, and the fact 
that the Control Regulation does not require smaller vessels to keep logbooks. This widens the scope of EFS for those countries and entails a higher 
cost. 

93 

 
 
II. Overview of benefits identified in the evaluation 

Citizens/consumers  

Businesses – ship operators, ship owners 
and aquaculture facilities 

Administrations 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / monetary   Qualitative 

Quantitative 
monetary  

/ 

Decision-making 
support benefits 

EFS support for 
analysis and 
decision-making 

Support market 
analysis 

N/A 

Support market 
analysis 

N/A 

Support stakeholder 
advice with data 

N/A 

Make it possible to 
explore past trends with 
long time-series 

Support market analysis 

N/A 

Provide a general 
overview among 
countries and a European 
overview that allows 
comparative analysis and 
benchmarking 

General 
overview benefit 

N/A 

Provide a general 
overview among 
countries and a 
European overview  

EFS provide an 
overview of the 
complete sector 
for the EU (+ 
Norway and 
Iceland) 

N/A 

Provide a 
general 
overview 
among 
countries and a 
European 
overview 

Service benefit: 
statistics 

Benefits from the 
availability of EFS 

Confidence in 
statistics 

N/A 

Confidence in 
statistics 

N/A 

Added value in data 
quality verification 

N/A 

Easy and free 

Easy and free 

Timely and reliable data 

94 

 
 
II. Overview of benefits identified in the evaluation 

access 

One-stop shop 

Official source of 
information 

access 

One-stop shop 

Official source 
of information 

with continuity over time 

Comparative analysis with 
other data sources and 
gap filling 

95 

 
ANNEX 7: RESULTS OF DATA COMPARISON 

Total catches (tonnes), 2016 (in FAO fishing areas covered by EFS) 

Source 

Absolute difference  
(source: EFS) 

Relative difference 
(source: EFS) 

Main causes of differences 
if relative difference <-1% or >1% 
(species and tonnes) 

EFS 

CR 

DCF 

FAO 

26,860 

26,929 

26,915 

26,687 

8,627 

8,568 

6,953 

8,562 

CR 

69 

-59 

DCF 

FAO 

CR 

DCF 

FAO 

55 

-173 

0.3% 

0.2% 

-0.6%  No major differences. 

-1,674 

-65 

-0.7%  -19.4% 

1,482 

1,359 

1,456 

1,487 

-123 

-26 

5 

-8.3% 

-1.8% 

240,570 

228,494 

218,307 

240,575 

-12,076 

-22,263 

5 

-5.0% 

-9.3% 

670,213 

655,777 

666,822 

670,207 

-14,436 

-3,391 

-6 

-2.2% 

-0.5% 

72,422 

72,810 

60,524 

72,816 

388 

-11,898 

394 

0.5%  -16.4% 

74,588 

49,386 

74,889 

75,422 

-25,202 

301 

834  -33.8% 

0.4% 

859,745 

853,946 

855,113 

856,694 

-5,799 

-4,632 

-3,051 

-0.7% 

-0.5% 

164,833 

156,452 

157,322 

162,868 

-8,382 

-7,511 

-1,965 

-5.1% 

-4.6% 

-1.2% 

FR 

524,829 

538,528 

540,222 

552,442 

13,699 

15,394  27,613 

2.6% 

2.9% 

5.3% 

72,865 

72,767 

72,324 

71,895 

-98 

-542 

-970 

-0.1% 

-0.7% 

-1.3% 

230,273 

230,458 

239,326 

259,772 

185 

9,053  29,499 

0.1% 

3.9%  12.8% 

192,603 

112,130 

192,356 

194,330 

-80,473 

-246 

1,727  -41.8% 

-0.1% 

0.9% 

105,739 

102,220 

102,381 

105,735 

-3,519 

-3,358 

-4 

-3.3% 

-3.2% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.4% 

-0.7% 

DCF: Bluefish (-712 t) and sand gaper (-584 t).  
Rest is composed of 13 species, showing differences of 1-74 t. 
CR:  Albacore  (-43  t),  common  octopus  (2-6  t),  common 
cuttlefish (-26 t) and picarel (-18 t).  
DCF: surmullet (-15 t) 
CR: blue mussels (-8,073 t), E. pilchard -(1,942 t)  
DCF: blue mussels (-22,242 t) 
CR: Norway pout (-12,879 t) 
DCF: Northern prawn (-4,320), E. sprat (3,159) 
DCF:  N.  prawn  (-6,954  t),  redfish  (-1,656  t),  Gr.  halibut  (-
1,092), Am. plaice (-1,067 t) 
CR:  Marine  fished  nei  (-4,425  t),  marine  crabs  nei  (-2,836  t), 
common  octopus  (-2,656  t)  and  large  number  of  other 
differences. 
-0.4%  No major differences. 

0.0% 

0.5% 

1.1% 

CR: perch (-2,208 t), whitefish (-1,695 t), N. pike (-1,121 t) 
DCF: similar differences to CR 
CR: yellowfin (5,928 t), skipjack (4,764 t) 
DCF: tangle (11,662 t) 
FAO:  yellowfin  (13,552  t),  skipjack  (9,207  t),  Bigeye  tuna 
(3,474 t), frigate and bullet tunas (1,200 t) 
FAO: pilchard (-503 t), Atl. chub mackerel -(227 t), E. anchovy 
(-114 t) 
DCF: Whelk (3,611), edible crab (2,290 t) 
FAO: Atl. rockweed (28,000), kelp (1,400 t) 
CR: E. anchovy (-16,974), E. pilchard (-15,087), striped venus 
(-5,876  t),  deep  water  shrimp  (-4,606  t),  red  mullet  (-3,438  t), 
and many other small differences 
CR: various (horse) mackerels 
DCF: various (horse) mackerels 

MS 

BE 

BG 

CY 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

HR 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

114,655 

114,650 

59,965 

114,563 

-5 

-54,690 

-92 

0.0%  -47.7% 

-0.1%  DCF:  Atl  horse  mackerel  (-28,722  t).  Atl  mackerel  (-8,626  t), 

96 

 
 
 
 
Source 

Absolute difference  
(source: EFS) 

Relative difference 
(source: EFS) 

Main causes of differences 
if relative difference <-1% or >1% 
(species and tonnes) 

MS 

EFS 

CR 

DCF 

FAO 

CR 

DCF 

FAO 

CR 

DCF 

FAO 

3,556 

3,585 

2,302 

2,420 

28 

-1,254 

-1,136 

0.8%  -35.3%  -31.9% 

queen crab (-5,237 t), pelagic fishes nei (-4,181 t), E pilchard (-
3,360 t) 
DCF: Pandalus shrimp (-1,046 t) 
FAO: Pandalus shrimp (-1,046 t) 

368,349 

360,857 

367,519 

368,359 

-7,492 

-830 

10 

-2.0% 

-0.2% 

0.0%  CR: Blue whiting (-1,871 t), various horse mackerels 

196,928 

195,867 

195,604 

196,830 

-1,060 

-1,323 

-98 

-0.5% 

-0.7% 

0.0%  No major differences. 

180,691 

182,381 

171,674 

184,994 

1,690 

-9,017 

4,303 

0.9% 

-5.0% 

2.4% 

7,174 

6,840 

6,839 

6,840 

-334 

-335 

-334 

-4.7% 

-4.7% 

-4.7% 

DCF: Blue shark (-7,954 t), cod (-1,394 t), swordfish (-562 t) 
FAO: red seaweed (2,328 t), Atl redfish (929 t), Atl cod (600 t) 
CR: whelk (-334 t) 
DCF: whelk (-335 t) 
FAO: whelk (-334 t) 

197,973 

197,417 

197,671 

197,972 

-556 

-302 

-1 

-0.3% 

-0.2% 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

UK 

Total 

0.0%  No major differences. 
CR: E. pilchard (-9 t) 
DCF: various differences <1 t 
FAO: various small differences 

146 

139 

152 

166 

-7 

6 

20 

-5.0% 

4.3%  13.6% 

699,842 

-823 
5,014,963  4,870,579  4,917,132  5,075,696  -144,385 

700,496 

699,019 

704,060 

655 

4,218 
-97,828  60,733 

-0.1% 
-2.9% 

0.1% 
-2.0% 

0.6%  No major differences. 
1.2% 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 8: RESULTS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION  

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  purpose  of  the  public  consultation  was  to  collect  evidence  for  the  evaluation  of  EFS. 
Under  the  Commission’s  ‘Better  Regulation’  guidelines,  this  is  a  mandatory  step  for  every 
evaluation. 

2.  BACKGROUND  

EFS are the official  European statistics provided by  Eurostat  on the production volume and 
value of fisheries products caught from the sea and cultivated in aquaculture facilities across 
the EU. They support the sound management of fisheries resources and economic analysis of 
fisheries product markets, and they contribute to the management and further development of 
the CFP. 

The  Commission  (Eurostat)  conducted  the  evaluation  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  the 
statistics under the current regulations meet their original objectives and continue to be fit for 
purpose. The public consultation was one of the consultation activities for the evaluation. 

The  aim  of  the  public  consultation  was  to  gather  information  on  people’s  professional  and 
personal  experience  with  EFS.  It  targeted  private  individuals  and  professional  EFS  users, 
producers  and  other  stakeholders.  It  was  preceded  and  complemented  by  other  actions 
specifically targeting other stakeholders, such as NSIs, international organisations and various 
EU institutional users. 

The public consultation was conducted from 18 January to 12 April 2019 on the Have Your 
Say  website  for  consultations  (making  use  of  the  EU  Survey  tool)  and  in  line  with  the 
Commission’s  general  principles  and  standards  for  consultation.  The  link  was  distributed 
through  Eurostat’s  website  and  Facebook  account  to  the  general  public  and  specific  groups 
linked  to  the  fisheries  sector  (https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-
2018-3790936/public-consultation_en). 

People were encouraged to respond to the questionnaire. Anyone with an interest in the topic 
was invited to express their views on the questions identified in the evaluation design, and to 
present their opinions on the current situation of EFS. 

3.  QUESTIONNAIRE 

The  consultation  sought  to  elicit  opinions  on  EFS  in  general  and  more  specifically  the 
opinions of users and producers as to the quality of EFS, why they use them and the extent to 
which  they  meet  their  needs.  A  dynamic  questionnaire  was  developed  to  allow  tailored 
consultation.  There  were  38  questions  in  all,  but  respondents  were  routed  depending  on 
whether they were users or producers; as a result, each respondent had to answer at most 23 
questions. Although only  three languages are mandatory in  such cases,  but  the Commission 
(Eurostat)  decided  to  publish  the  questionnaire  in  English,  French,  German,  Spanish  and 
Italian in order to cover a majority of respondents in the sector.    

4.  RESULTS 

4.1.  Overview of respondents  

In  total  24  respondents  answered  the  questionnaire.  Respondents  were  from  13  different 
countries: seven from Spain, three from Greece, two each from Latvia, Portugal and Germany 
and  one  each  from  Poland,  Sweden,  Italy,  Estonia,  France,  Croatia,  Netherlands  and  the 
United  Kingdom.  This  is  a  relatively  low  response  rate;  therefore,  all  results  should  be 

98 

 
interpreted and analysed with caution, as they are unlikely to be representative of the totality 
of  stakeholders  of  European  Fishery  Statistics.  Fisheries  is  a  very  specialised  sector  and 
statistics even more so, so the public has only a very limited interest in the field of fisheries 
statistics.  Many  fisheries  stakeholders  had  also  already  been  covered  by  other  consultation 
activities  during  the  evaluation.  Nevertheless,  a  wide  range  of  opinions  was  represented,  in 
many cases by persons or organisations that were not reached by other consultation activities. 
Therefore, these inputs were considered useful. 

Two thirds of respondents claimed to answer the questionnaire in their professional capacity 
or on behalf of an organisation, and one third provided responses in their personal capacity. 
Providing  more  detail,  seven  said  they  represented  an  academic  or  research  institution,  six 
answered as EU citizens, four as representatives of a company/business organisation, three as 
representatives of a public authority, and two as members of a business association.  

Figure 1: Respondents to the public consultation  

4.2.  Replies 

Out of 24 respondents, 16 identified themselves as users and 8 as producers of statistics. The 
users  were  asked  for  which  purposes  they  use  EFS.  Most  users  referred  to  more  than  one 
purpose.  The  summarised  results  are  shown  in  Figure  2.  The  most  common  purposes  were 
linked to the Common Fisheries Policy at either national or international level and academic 
research. Fisheries management was the third most common use followed by environmental 
and commercial research and media use. 

99 

 
 
 
Figure 2: ‘For what purposes do you use EFS?’  

Respondents who are users of European Fishery Statistics were asked to judge the relevance, 
accuracy  and  reliability,  timeliness  and  punctuality,  coherence  and  comparability  as  well  as 
the  accessibility  and  clarity  of  European  Fishery  Statistics  on  a  five-point  Likert  scale. 
Weighted responses suggested that relevance was viewed most positively (with an average of 
3.07 where 5 meant high quality and 1 no quality) closely followed by accuracy and reliability 
as  well  as  timeliness  and  punctuality,  both  with  an  average  of  3.  Accessibility  and  clarity 
recorded  a  score  of  2.86,  and  coherence  and  comparability  were  considered  least  good, 
receiving an average of 2.62.  

Table 1: EFS users’ assessments 

It  is  worth  noting  that  users  overall  rated  European  Fishery  Statistics  higher  than  the  four 
producers  of  statistics  who  answered  the  same  questions.  The  five-point  Likert  scale  means 
for  producers’  answers  were  at  2.75  for  relevance,  accuracy  and  reliability,  timeliness  and 
punctuality and for accessibility and clarity. The coherence and comparability were judged at 
2.5.  The  difference  might  stem  from  better  perceptions  of  EFS  among  users  than  among 
producers overall, a trend seen in the analysis of the findings of another consultation activity 
during the evaluation. 

100 

3113313331566364334321101Average3.073.003.002.622.86RelevanceTimeliness and punctualityCoherence and comparabilityAccessibility and clarityAccuracy and reliability 
 
 
Table 2: EFS producers’ assessments 

Thirteen  users  claimed  that  they  are  aware  of  the  existence  of  data  sources  of  fisheries 
statistics other than EFS, three said otherwise. Out of the thirteen users, seven said they use an 
alternative  international  source,  and  two  an  alternative  national  source  (two  users  indicated 
using both national and international sources). FAOfisheries statistics were the most popular 
alternative  source  used,  followed  by  International  Council  for  the  Exploration  of  the  Sea’s 
(ICES)  fisheries  statistics  and  the  European  Commission’s  Data  Collection  Framework 
(DCF).  

Figure 3: ‘Do you use an alternative data source?’ 

Users also mentioned eight other sources of fisheries and/or aquaculture data they use. Most 
users thought the quality of the European Fishery Statistics was similar to that of alternative 
sources, two respondents thought it was lower, and one thought it was much higher.  

In their qualitative responses on how EFS differ from other sources,  users said that EFS are 
often old and values are not always disaggregated to the desired level, e.g. one producer said 
that aquaculture statistics do not  provide accurate figures for imports of species by  country. 
Another  respondent  preferred  FAO  data,  as  they  can  be  downloaded  and  interrogated  with 
different queries.  

5.  CONCLUSIONS 

The  public  consultation  elicited  only  24  replies.  Although  this  is  a  low  response  rate,  they 
came  from  individuals  and  organisations  who  were  not  reached  by  other  consultation 
activities. 

101 

0101010212321110111100000Average2.752.752.752.502.75RelevanceTimeliness and punctualityCoherence and comparabilityAccessibility and clarityAccuracy and reliability 
 
 
The  16  EFS  users  and  8  EFS  producers  rated  the  relevance,  accuracy  and  reliability, 
timeliness and punctuality, coherence and comparability, and accessibility and clarity of the 
statistics between 2.50 and 3.07 on a five-point Likert scale. The majority use alternative data 
sources. 

All  respondents’  concerns,  needs  and  preferences  have  been  fully  analysed  and  given  due 
weight in the staff working document on the EFS evaluation, which is expected to be released 
in autumn 2019. 

102