Fisheries Dependent Information – FDI (STECF-19-11).
Date: 2020-02-03
Institutions: Joint Research Centre, Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
Subjects: conservation of fish stocks, data collection, fishery management, fishery research, fishing fleet, research report

Scientific, Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 
- 
Fisheries Dependent Information 
– FDI 
(STECF-19-11) 

Edited by Willy Vanhee, Arina Motova & Antonella Zanzi 

EUR 28359 EN 

 
This  publication  is  a  Science  for  Policy  report  by  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC),  the  European 
Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support 
to  the  European  policymaking  process.  The  scientific  output  expressed  does  not  imply  a  policy 
position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on 
behalf  of  the  Commission  is  responsible  for  the  use  that  might  be  made  of  this  publication.  For 
information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which 
the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced 
source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the 
expression  of  any  opinion  whatsoever  on  the  part  of  the  European  Union  concerning  the  legal 
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of 
its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information  

Name: STECF secretariat 

Address: Unit D.02 Water and Marine Resources, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra VA, Italy 

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

Tel.: +39 0332 789343 

EU Science Hub 

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC119066 

EUR 28359 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-14096-2 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/230618 

STECF 

ISSN 2467-0715 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020  

© European Union, 2020 

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 
2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, 
p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative 
Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided 
appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or 
other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright 
holders. 

All content © European Union, 2020 

How  to  cite  this  report:  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  – 
Fisheries Dependent -Information – FDI (STECF-19-11).  Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-14096-2, doi:10.2760/230618, JRC119066 

Abstract 

Commission  Decision  of  25  February  2016  setting  up  a  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic 
Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may consult 
the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries 
economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines. 
The  STECF  reviewed  the  report  of  the  EWG  on  Fisheries-dependent  Information  during  its  winter 
2019 plenary meeting. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Authors: 

STECF advice:  

Ulrich,  C.,  Abella,  J.  A.,Bastardie,  F.,  Borges,  L.,  Casey,  J.,  Catchpole,  T.,  Damalas,  D., 
Daskalov, G., Döring, R., Gascuel, D., Grati, F., Ibaibarriaga, L., Jung, A.,Knittweis, L., Kraak, 
S., Ligas, A., Martin, P., Motova, A.,  Moutopoulos, D.,  Nord, J., Prellezo, R., Raid, T., Rihan, 
D.,  Sampedro,  P.,  Somarakis,  S.,  Stransky,  C.,  Uriarte,  A.,  Valentinsson,  D.,  van  Hoof,  L., 
Vanhee, W., Villasante, S., Vrgoc, N. 

EWG-19-11 report:  

EWG chairs Vanhee W. and Motova A.  

Experts:  Adamowicz,  M.,  Cano,  S.,  Carlshamre,  S.,  Casey,  J.,  Demaneche,  S.,  Dixon,  S., 
Egekvist,  J.,  Gonzalez  Herraiz,  I.,  Gomez  Suarez,  F.,  Gibin,  M.,  Jakovleva,  I.,  Kavadas,  S., 
Kempf,  A.,  Kovsars,  M.,  Mannini, A., Molla  Gazi,  K.,  Moore,  C.,  Nicheva,  S., Nimmegeers,  S., 
Raid,  T.,  Reilly,  T.,  Reis,  D.,  Ribeiro  Santo,  A.,  Russo,  T.,  Sabatella,  E.,  Helmond  van,  A., 
Vermard, Y., Zanzi, A. 

3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SCIENTIFIC,  TECHNICAL  AND  ECONOMIC  COMMITTEE  FOR  FISHERIES  (STECF)  –  FISHERIES 
DEPENDENT INFORMATION (STECF-19-11) ....................................................................... 6 

REQUEST TO THE STECF .................................................................................................. 6 

STECF OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................... 6 

STECF CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 11 

CONTACT DETAILS OF STECF MEMBERS ............................................................................... 13 

EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG-19-11 REPORT ...................................................................... 17 

1 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 18 

1.1  TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR EWG-19-11 ..................................................................... 18 

2  DATA PROVISION AND CHECKS ....................................................................................... 21 

2.1  DATA CALL ........................................................................................................ 21 

2.2  DATA CHECKS ON UPLOADS AND DATA EVALUATIONS BEFORE EWG 19-11 MEETING ................... 22 

3  RESPONSES TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE ..................................................................... 26 

3.1  REVIEW AND DOCUMENT COMPLETENESS OF THE DATA SET AND FEEDBACK FROM MEMBER STATES ON 

APPROACHES USED AND PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN RESPONDING TO THE DATA CALL .................. 26 

3.1.1  As a matter of priority, the EWG is requested to ensure that all unresolved data 
transmission (DT) issues encountered prior to and during the EWG meeting are 
reported on line via the Data Transmission Monitoring Tool (DTMT) available at 
https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/dcf/dtmt.  Such issues should be 
reported in full within 2 weeks of the end of the EWG ......................................... 26 

3.1.2  Review outputs of ad hoc contract that provides a methodology to partition data 

(number at length) from Tables C and D (aggregations according to sampling 
programs) to Table A (detailed catch table), discuss and agree future methodology 
to be applied ....................................................................................................... 26 

3.1.3  Review outputs of ad hoc contract that provides the catches, landings and 

discards, at a level of aggregation corresponding to the fleet, area and gear type 
as specified in each exemption of each discard plan for 2020 .............................. 27 

3.1.4  Review data quality checks and produce National methodological chapters ......... 28 

3.2 

IN THE INTERESTS OF ESTABLISHING COMMON BEST PRACTICES, IDENTIFY ANY ASPECTS TO ANSWERING 
TO THE DATA CALL THAT STILL NEED A COMMON APPROACH TO BE ESTABLISHED ......................... 28 

3.2.1 

Propose and agree practice for use of confidential data records. This includes 
treatment and presentation of data on the data dissemination site ..................... 28 

3.2.2  Review MS methodology applied when deriving Table A from biological sampling 

programs ............................................................................................................ 41 

3.2.3  Discuss other issues that are relevant to the FDI data call and where possible 

conclude on a common approach to be used ........................................................ 44 

3.3  TEST THE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE DATA COLLECTED IN THE FDI DATABASE AND THE DATA 

COLLECTED IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AND BLACK SEA DATABASE .......................................... 46 

3.4 

PRODUCE MAPS OF SPATIAL EFFORT AND LANDINGS BY C-SQUARES ........................................ 49 

3.4.1  Discuss and agree possible format of dissemination tables based on FDI data 

collected (considering confidentiality issues) ...................................................... 49 

4 
 
 
 
3.4.2 

Produce maps of effort and landings by c-square for the following regions (as 
defined in COM-2016-134 for areas other than ‘distant waters’) and major gear 
types (as defined in the data call) ....................................................................... 51 

3.5 

PROVIDE CATCHES, LANDINGS AND DISCARDS DATA FOR EXEMPTIONS IN DISCARD PLANS AS WELL AS 
INFORMATION ON THE PERCENTAGE OF FISH BELOW AND ABOVE MCRS ................................... 78 

3.5.1  Discard estimates by exemption – (General – Methodology – Shortcommings – 

Extraction procedure) ......................................................................................... 78 

3.5.2  Discard estimates by exemption – (Result) ......................................................... 81 

3.5.2.1  Baltic Sea region .................................................................................................... 81 

3.5.2.2  North Sea region .................................................................................................... 82 

3.5.2.3  North Western Waters ............................................................................................ 94 

3.5.2.4  South Western Waters .......................................................................................... 105 

3.5.2.5  Mediterranean Sea ............................................................................................... 115 

3.5.3 

Estimation of the percentage of fish above and below MCRS.............................. 151 

4 

5 

CONTACT DETAILS OF EWG-19-11 PARTICIPANTS ........................................................ 155 

LIST OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS .............................................................................. 158 

6  ANNEXES ....................................................................................................................... 159 

ANNEX 1 - DTMT GUIDANCE VERSION .............................................................................. 159 

ANNEX 2 – MEMBER STATES SECTIONS ON METHODOLOGY, DATA AVAILABILITY, COVERAGE, PROBLEMS 

ENCOUNTERED AND OTHER COMMENTS ...................................................................... 174 

ANNEX 3 - DATA ASSOCIATED WITH ANTICIPATED EXEMPTIONS AGGREGATED AT SPECIES AND SUB REGION 

LEVEL ............................................................................................................ 216 

ANNEX 4 – MED&BS AND FDI CALLS COMPARISON (ELECTRONIC) .............................................. 296 

ANNEX 5 – MAPS OF EFFORT AND LANDINGS (ELECTRONIC) ...................................................... 296 

5 
 
 
 
SCIENTIFIC,  TECHNICAL  AND  ECONOMIC  COMMITTEE  FOR  FISHERIES  (STECF)  – 
FISHERIES DEPENDENT INFORMATION (STECF-19-11) 

Request to the STECF 

STECF is requested to review the report of the STECF Expert Working Group meeting, evaluate 
the findings and make any appropriate comments and recommendations. 

The EWG-19-11 report was reviewed during the plenary meeting held in Brussels, Belgium, 11-
15 November 2019. 

STECF observations 

The EWG addressed all the Terms of Reference. Below the main observations from STECF, for 
each ToR. 

ToR  1:  Review  and  document  completeness  of  the  data  set  and  feedback  from 
Member States on approaches used and problems encountered  in responding  to the 
data call 

1.1 - As a matter of priority, the EWG is requested to ensure that all unresolved data 
transmission (DT) issues encountered prior to and during the EWG meeting are reported on 
line via the Data Transmission Monitoring Tool (DTMT) available at 
https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/dcf/dtmt.  Such issues should be reported in full 
within 2 weeks of the end of the EWG. 

STECF  observes  that  the  data  provided  by  Member  States  in  response  to  the  2019  FDI  data 
call,  and  incorporated  into  the  FDI  database  hosted  by  the  JRC,  represent  the  most 
comprehensive  data  set  currently  available,  and  a  significant  improvement  compared  to  last 
year.  All  data  transmission  issues  identified  by  the  EWG  were  reviewed  during  the  meeting. 
Numerous  issues  of  technical  nature  were  identified  in  the  checking  process.  Many  of  the 
issues were adequately explained. In some cases they could be resolved and re-uploaded with 
correct data during the EWG meeting. 

Yet, a variety of shortfalls remain, largely because Member States’ agreed national work plans 
are not designed specifically to collect and provide data at the disaggregation level requested 
in the FDI data call.   

STECF  notes  that  all  major  unresolved  data  transmission  issues  requiring  an  explanatory 
comment  from  Member  States  have  been  recorded  in  the  Data  Transmission  Monitoring  Tool 
(DTMT) by EWG 19-11.  

1.2 - Review outputs of ad hoc contract that provides a methodology to partition data (number 
at  length)  from  Tables  C  and  D  (aggregations  according  to  sampling  programs)  to  Table  A 
(detailed catch table), discuss and agree future methodology to be applied. 

STECF notes that the EWG19-11 reviewed the methodology and outputs of the ad hoc contract 
(1949)  awarded  to  estimate  the  proportions  of  discards  in  number  below  and  above  MCRS 
aggregated corresponding to the metier level.  

STECF  notes  that  the  methodology  used  in  the  ad  hoc  contract  is  appropriate,  some  checks 
were  performed  by  the  EWG.  The  output  provides  a  valuable  overview  of  the  number  of  fish 
above and below the MCRS by country, year, area, metier, species and catch fraction. It meets 
the level of aggregation specified in discard plans and therefore adds value to the FDI data set 
by  providing  discard  estimates  which  may  be  used  to  assess  any  potential  impacts  of  the 
exemptions from landing obligation.  

STECF  also  acknowledges  that  the  JRC  undertook  extensive  additional  checks  to  the  ones 
undertaken  last year (e.g. domain  names  comparison  between tables)  on the data  submitted 

6 
 
 
by  Member  States  in  response  to  the  2019  FDI  data  call.  The  achievements  made  by  the 
contractor would not have been possible without such extensive checks.   

STECF notes that the results in terms of discards in numbers at length above and below MCRS 
were used to provide estimates of the weights of discards above and below MCRS by applying, 
in  a  first  step,  the  length/weight  parameters  obtained  from  ‘Fishbase’  (www.fishbase.org). 
STECF  notes  that  for  the  next  year  data  call  the  EWG  suggested  to  include  a  column 
MEAN_WEIGHT_AT_LENGTH  in  Tables  D  and  F  (landings  and  discards  by  length)  that  will 
improve  the  quality  of  the  estimated  fractions  and  allow  estimation  without  using  ICES 
database.  

1.3 - Review outputs of ad hoc contract that provides the catches, landings and discards, at a 
level  of  aggregation  corresponding  to  the  fleet,  area  and  gear  type  as  specified  in  each 
exemption of each discard plan for 2020.  

STECF  observes  that  the  ad  hoc  contract  (1948)  was  reviewed  and  the  methodology  used  to 
provide  catches,  landings  and  discards  (catch  fractions),  at  a  level  of  aggregation 
corresponding to the fleet, area and gear type as specified in anticipated exemptions of discard 
plans  for  2020  is  appropriate.  Nevertheless,  in  some  cases,  the  discards  estimates  for 
exemptions  were  based  on  only  a  small  number  of  discard  samples  or  in  the  absence  of 
appropriate samples, were derived by extrapolation (so-called ‘fill-ins’) from samples obtained 
by other countries within the same fisheries definitions (as reported by the EWG). STECF notes 
though that the EWG considered the estimates of catch fractions for all anticipated exemptions 
for 2020 to be sufficiently robust to be informative for DGMare. 

STECF further observes that two sets of estimates were computed: i) estimates for exempted 
fleets  for  which  discard  estimates  were  provided  by  Member  States  and  ii)  estimates  for 
exempted  fleets  for  which data  was  not provided  by Member States  but  estimated within  the 
FDI  database  following  the  standardised  routine  developed  in  2018  (“fill-ins”).  In  addition,  a 
measure  of  coverage  was  computed  for  the  discard  estimates  (as %  of  landings  with  discard 
information available divided by total landings within the same exemption and fleet).  

STECF agrees with the EWG that in some cases due to low sampling effort, the results may at 
the  best  be  imprecise  or  may  not  be  representative  of  the  true level  of  discards  of  the fleets 
fishing under each exemption.  

STECF acknowledges the need for a similar ad hoc contract also in 2020. This contract should 
generate the FDI codes needed to extract the 2021 exemptions from Table A of the FDI data 
call  and  calculate  the  landings  and  discards,  at  a  level  of  aggregation  corresponding  to  the 
fleet,  area  and  gear  type  as  specified  in  each  exemption  of  each  discard  plan  for  2021  as 
requested by DGMARE.  

1.4 - Review data quality checks and produce National methodological chapters. 

STECF observes that a detailed review of the data submitted and of the methodology used by 
Member States answering the data call, together with an overview of the quality of such data, 
is given in Annex 2 of the EWG 19-11 report. 

STECF agrees with the EWG opinion that in general, the collection of data under  the EU data 
Collection Framework DCF is in accordance with Member States’ National work plans, which are 
not  specifically  designed  to  provide  representative  sample  data  at  the  level  of  aggregation 
requested under the FDI data call and specifically for the LO exemptions.  

Consequently, the estimates of catch fractions at the fine level of disaggregation requested by 
the  FDI  data  call,  cannot  be  calculated  in  a  scientifically  robust  way.  STECF  notes  that  while 
Member States  are  primarily  responsible  for providing  checked  and  validated data, numerous 
issues and errors in transmission will inevitably arise for various reasons e.g. misinterpretation 
of  what  is  being  requested,  coding  misspecification  between  different  databases  in  Member 
States and simple human error. Hence, there will always be a requirement for Expert checks to 
be  undertaken.  Therefore  STECF  supports  the  opinion  of  the  EWG  19-11  that  an  additional 

7 
 
 
dedicated Expert Group meeting to check the data provided by Member States in response to 
the FDI data call should be convened.  STECF is of opinion that two Expert Working groups are 
convened in 2020. First, DATA EWG-FDI would be solely dedicated to compiling and checking 
the data submitted through the FDI data call and the second, Advice EWG-FDI, would respond 
to any advice requested by the Commission dependent on FDI data.  

Such  an  EWG  would  permit  a  comprehensive  review  of  the  quality  and  completeness  of  the 
database and provide a platform to explore and develop methodologies used to estimate and 
disseminate scientifically robust information, e.g. discard and biological (age and length) data. 
Any  advice  requested  by  the  Commission  dependent  on  FDI  data,  would  be  best  provided 
during a second, separate EWG meeting (Advice EWG-FDI). 

ToR 2: In the interests of establishing common best practices, identify any aspects to 
answering to the data call that still need a common approach to be established 

2.1 - Propose and agree practice for use of confidential data records. This includes treatment 
and presentation of data on the data dissemination site. 

STECF observes that EWG 19-11 proposed the following approach regarding the dissemination 
of data marked as confidential: 

  EU data that are aggregated across Member States can be published without removing 
the data marked as confidential as it will be impossible to isolate the confidential data. 

  When publishing data at Member State level, data marked as confidential by the    

Member State in question are not displayed. 

  Before disseminating data on the data dissemination site, it should be approved by the 

STECF plenary, and MS should be informed by DG MARE. 

2.2 - MS methodologies applied when deriving Table A from biological sampling programs.  

STECF  observes  that  the  methods used to  estimate  discards data from biological  sampling  to 
Table A vary between Member States. STECF agrees that in using different approaches there is 
the  potential  to  generate  biased  estimates  of  catch  fractions  for  different  fleet  components. 
STECF  further  observes  that  EWG  19-11  proposed  the  following  approach,  regarding  the 
dissemination of such estimates: 

  Dissemination Disclaimer: the EWG agreed that the discards data presented in Table A 

 

 

could be made publicly available in the dissemination tool. However, the group 
recommended adding a disclaimer at the top of the “EU Catches” tab in the dissemination 
tool highlighting the limitations of the data. 
Investment in quality control: the current level of complexity of the FDI database as a 
central repository for all European fishing effort requires dedicated expert time to ensure 
that intra- and inter-annual quality control is maintained, and quality is improved. 
Therefore, EWG 19-11 recommended to have two annual FDI meetings. The first meeting 
would be dedicated to the review of data quality and completeness. This first meeting 
would also provide a platform to explore and develop the methodologies used to estimate 
and disseminate scientifically robust information, e.g. discard and biological (age and 
length) data. Therefore, the second meeting would be convened to answer the ToRs set out 
by the Commission.  
Investment in data dissemination techniques: to increase efficiency and ensure that the 
data made available are disseminated properly, the EWG proposed an ad-hoc contract to 
develop a suite of methodologies for dissemination. These methodologies will provide a 
visual and numerical indication of estimated robustness and coverage. These 
methodologies can then be discussed and reviewed during the first FDI meeting in 2020. 

8 
 
 
STECF notes that due to limited resources and time during the EWG 19-11, it was not 
possible to achieve this objective.  

2.3 - Discuss other issues that are relevant to the FDI data call and where possible conclude on 
a common approach to be used. 

STECF  observes  that  several  issues  arose  in  responding  the  2019  FDI  data  call  described  in 
EWG19-11 report. The main issues relate to: 

i) The reporting of discards in Table A;  

ii) Inconsistencies in domain1 definitions and hence how to link Tables C-F to Table A;  

iii) How to deal with zero landings with discards estimates.  

STECF also observes that EWG 19-11 suggested 3 improvements in future data calls:  

i) In order to improve the data provided for the Nephrops stocks, the data should distinguish 
the different Functional Units (FUs), ), in Tables A, C, D, E and F. To capture this information it 
is suggested to add an extra column called “NEP_SUB_REGION” to the Tables A, C, D, E and F. 
The statistical rectangles, which identify the FU’s, are outlined in Section 3.2.3 of the EWG 19-
11 report and should be made available for MS during the data call.  

ii)  To  estimate  the  weight  of  discards  and  landings  above  and  below  Minimum  Conservation 
Reference Size (MCRS), include a column in Tables D and F with MEAN_WEIGHT_AT_LENGTH 
and WEIGHT_UNIT (g = gram). 

iii)  It  would  be  useful  to  add  a  table  to  the  data  call,  with  discards  amounts  by  domain.  The 
rationale for such a proposal is described in Table 3.2.3.1 of the EWG 19-11 report. 

The STECF supports all EWG proposals as those are considered to improve the data quality and 
usefulness. 

ToR 3. Test the compatibility between the data collected in the FDI database and the 
data collected in the Mediterranean and Black Sea database 

STECF  observes  that  although  the  two  data  sets  are  still  not  fully  matching,  the  level  of 
homogeneity greatly increased in the 2018 data, submitted in response to the 2019 data calls. 

STECF agrees that the two data sets require some of the same data. STECF acknowledges thus 
that  requesting  MSs  to  send  the  same  information  twice  in  the  same  period  of  the  year  in 
different  formats  for  two  different  data  calls  is  not  an  optimal  situation,  and  a  discussion  on 
options to avoid this is needed. STECF notes, however, that although technically it is possible 
to transfer the data from one database to the other, it is not clear who would be tasked with 
performing this transfer and would take responsibility for the data quality. 

STECF observes that EWG 19-11 highlighted a number of issues in potential switching from the 
Mediterranean and Black Sea data call to the FDI data call: 

in  order  to  run  stock  assessments  at  the  beginning  of  September,  the  final  dataset 

1. 
must be available by the end of August 
2.  STECF handling procedures (legal and operational deadlines) should be reviewed and 
revised accordingly.  
3.  If  FDI  data  (including  biological  data)  are  to  be  published  they  will  be  treated  as 
“official”  and  available  to  be  used  by  any  end  user.  However,  during  stock  assessment 
EWGs  the  quality  checks  are  performed  at  higher  details  (stock  level)  compared  to  FDI 

1 A domain refers to the group of vessels used to calculate estimates (discards, numbers at age, number at length). A 
domain may or may not be equivalent to a métier. Domain labels used in Tables C, D, E and F need to be present 
also in Table A. 

9 
 
 
                                                 
checks. This different approach in quality checks (FDI more global and stock assessment 
checks focusing on the particular stocks to be assessed) may result in mismatch in terms 
of data issues that are reported in the DTMT. 
4.  If  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  data  call  would  not  call  for  fishery  dependent 
information,  there  is  a  need  for  another  EWG  to  quality  check  the  Mediterranean  and 
Black  Sea  biological  data.  Should  it  be  the  FDI  group?  If  yes,  when  does  it  have  to  be 
scheduled (see point 1)? 
5.  If  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  data  call  would  not  call  for  fishery  dependent 
information,  a  lot  of  scripts  and  tools  already  developed  in  the  framework  of  DGMare 
(funded)  projects  (e.g.  STREAM,  RECFISH)  or  at  MS  level  to  check  Mediterranean  and 
Black  Sea  data  according  to  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  format  could  become 
redundant. 
6.  To avoid that experts have to deal with 2 different datasets during stock assessment 
EWGs,  FDI  data  should  be  reshaped  according  to  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea 
format.  
7.  Currently  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  call  asks  data  for  the  year  before  the 
data  call.  However,  MSs  can  still  re-upload  previous  years  on  the  express  authority  of 
DGMARE. In such cases, should MSs re-upload using FDI or Mediterranean and Black Sea 
data call format? 

In order to deal with these issues EWG proposed two alternative approaches: 

Proposal 1 - drop from the FDI call the Mediterranean and Black Sea biological data (Table C, 
D,  E,  F  in  FDI  data  call).  FDI  should  call  for  Table  A,  B,  G,  J  and  spatial  data  (tables  H  &  I) 
while Mediterranean and Black Sea would be kept as it is, avoiding to call effort data (Table D 
from the Mediterranean and Black Sea). 

Proposal  2:  pending  all  the  issues  listed  above,  drop  commercial  data  and  effort  from 
Mediterranean and Black Sea (it will call survey and biological parameters only). This proposal 
could only become effective if points listed above will be solved. In addition, the EWG suggests 
that, before deleting biological data from the Mediterranean and Black Sea data call, detailed 
checks  at  stock  level  (priority  species)  should  be  ensured,  for  example  comparing  length 
distributions at stock level. 

These  proposals  may  be  discussed  further  between  DG  Mare,  STECF  and  the  relevant  end-
users. STECF suggests a specific ToR for the STECF 20-01 Plenary on this topic. 

ToR 4. Produce maps of spatial effort and landings by c-squares 

4.1  -  Discuss  and  agree  possible  format  of  dissemination  tables  based  on  FDI  data  collected 
(considering confidentiality issues):  

STECF  observes  that  the  EWG  19-11  had  thorough  discussions  on  a  possible  format  of  FDI 
data  for  dissemination  and  provided  respective  data  for  publication  on  the  JRC  data 
dissemination site. STECF agrees with the opinion of the EWG that a second meeting earlier in 
the  year  (possibly  July)  or  a  workshop  dedicated  to  develop  and  agree  on  a  methodology  on 
the  best  way  to  have  the  data  provided  to  the  FDI  data  call  (effort,  landings,  discards  and 
biological and capacity) publicly available in the dissemination tool. The aim of such a meeting 
would  be  to  maintain  the  scientific  robustness  of  the  estimates,  maintain  confidentiality,  but 
taking  into  account  the  utility  of  the  data  for  the  different  end-users  needs.  STECF 
acknowledges  that  in  order  to  have  the  best  quality  sampling  data  (discards  and  biological 
data) publicly available, extensive work needs to be done and agreement needs to be reached 
across the experts. STECF acknowledges that due to limited resources and time is not possible 
to achieve this having one meeting a year. 

10 
 
 
Therefore  STECF  stresses  the  need  for  ad  hoc  contract  in  2020  to  develop  a  suite  of 
methodologies for the dissemination of FDI data. Such methodologies will provide a visual and 
numerical indication of estimate robustness and coverage (in particular for discards estimates). 
These methodologies can then be discussed and reviewed in the first FDI meeting and finalised 
during  the  second  FDI  meeting  in  2020.  STECF  stresses  that  the  output  of  this  contract  may 
also be useful in a broader context of data dissemination of scientific information. 

4.2 - Produce maps of effort and landings by c-square for the following regions (as defined in 
COM-2016-134  for  areas  other  than  ‘distant  waters’)  and  major  gear  types  (as  defined  in 
appendix 4 of the data call):  

STECF observes that maps of spatial effort and landings by c-squares were created for all main 
fishing  regions  and  gear  categories  and  available  in  the  report.  The  EWG  also  developed  the 
dissemination tool to make EU level data available for public. 

ToR 5. Provide catches, landings and discards data for exemptions in discard plans as 
well as information on the percentage of fish below and above MCRS 

STECF observes that the EWG was able to deliver the best available estimates for the discards. 
However the discard estimates are sometimes unavailable, because discards are not sampled, 
and  for  those  fleets  where  discards  have  been  sampled,  the  achieved  sampling  rate  is  often 
much lower than required to provide a robust estimate of the true discard fractions for many 
fleets with exemptions. Additionally, discards registered in logbooks are also believed to be an 
unreliable  source  of  information  and  therefore  are  not  requested  by  the  FDI  data  call.  STECF 
observes  that  the  EWG  was  able  to  compute  the  best  possible  discard  estimates  for  un-
sampled  métiers  using  the  standardised  routine  developed  in  2018  to  populate  un-sampled 
discard cells (“fill-ins”). 

STECF  observes  that  for  the  first  time,  the  weight  of  fish  above  and  below  MCRS  was 
estimated.  This  was  carried  out  by  converting  numbers  at  length  from  data  submitted  by 
Member States to weight at length applying length/weight parameters obtained from ‘Fishbase’ 
(www.fishbase.org) for each species and then summing the weights at length above and below 
MCRS. However, STECF realizes that this approach could be improved by using average weight 
at  length  by  species  and  fractions  (landings  and  discards).  Therefore  STECF  suggests  that  in 
the next data calls, Member States should be requested to provide mean weights at lengths by 
fractions  in  addition  to  the  numbers  at  length  in  order  to  obtain  better  estimates  of 
percentages  below  and  above  MCRS.  STECF  agrees  that  such  information  is  potentially 
informative in the context of exemptions from the landing obligation. 

STECF notes that the EWG 19-11 has adopted the same selection criteria set out by the EWG 
18-11 to populate gaps in discard estimates (“fill-ins”). 

The criteria used to apply the “fill-ins” are as follows: 

For all areas apart from the Mediterranean Sea (outside area 37) 

year,  quarter,  species,  sub_region,  gear_type,  mesh_size_range, 
specon_tech 

target_assemblage, 

For the Mediterranean Sea (area 37) 

year, quarter, species, sub_region, metier, specon_tech 

Such “fill-ins” increased discards coverage from 22% to 30% of landed weight in 2018, or 2% 
in  number  of  records  provided  by  MSs  for  the  same  year  and  therefore  discards  are  still 
missing for most of the landings provided for the FDI data call.  

STECF conclusions 

STECF concludes that the EWG 19-11 addressed all ToRs appropriately, although STECF notes 
that these were very comprehensive.  

11 
 
 
If  the  information  provided  by  the  Member  States  for  the  FDI  data  call  2019  is  to  be  made 
publicly  available,  STECF  supports  the  formats  for  tables  and  maps  agreed  and  proposed  by 
STECF EWG 19-11 which respect various constraints in terms of  confidentiality, accuracy and 
transparency. 

STECF concludes that the estimated discards in Table A are split in categories smaller than the 
ones  used  for  sampling  discards  (including  e.g.  vessel  size  or  mesh  size).  This  implies 
assuming that discard rates are the same across sub-categories within a métier, which might 
not be the case in reality. As such, the accuracy of these estimates remain uncertain but they 
represent the best available estimates at that level of EU-wide coverage. STECF notes also that 
the general methodology used to estimate discards is consistent with what was used in the old 
FDI. 

STECF  concludes  that  the  methodology  used  to  calculate  the  percentages  below  and  above 
MCRS  of  landings  and  discards  is  appropriate  and  useful  to  inform  on  trends  in  size 
composition  in  the  context  of  the  landing  obligation.  STECF  suggests  to  include  a  column  in 
Tables  D 
respectively)  with 
(landings 
MEAN_WEIGHT_AT_LENGTH which will improve the estimates.  

discards 

length 

and 

and 

by 

F 

To ensure the best data quality and continue building a common methodology addressing the 
data call creating the EU level FDI database, STECF suggests that two Expert Working groups 
are  convened  in  2020.  First,  DATA  EWG-FDI  would  be  solely  dedicated  to  compiling  and 
checking  the  data  submitted  through  the  FDI  data  call  and  the  second,  Advice  EWG-FDI,  to 
respond to any advice dependent on FDI data requested by the Commission.  

STECF  also  concludes  that  in  order  to  i)  increase  efficiency,  ii)  improve  the  homogeneity  of 
methodologies  used  by  Member  States  to  estimate  discards  for  Table  A  using  biological 
sampling results and iii) incorporate quality indicators of discard estimates provided in Table A 
when  disseminating  results,  two  ad-hoc  contracts  should  be  issued  prior  to  the  EWG-FDI 
meeting(s) in 2020: 

  Contract 1 to develop a suite of methodologies for dissemination of FDI data.  
  Contract 2 to generate the FDI codes needed to extract the 2021 exemptions from table A 

of the EWG and to calculate the landings and discards, at a level of aggregation 
corresponding to the fleet, area and gear type as specified in each exemption of each 
discard plan for 2021.  

In addition STECF also proposes to add table to the 2020 data call, with discards amounts by 
domain  and  number  of  sampled  trips  as  suggested  in  the  EWG  19-11  report  to  collect 
information on sampling intensity to be used when disseminating results. 

STECF  agrees  with  the  EWG  proposal  to  add  an  extra  column  called  “NEP_SUB_REGION”  to 
tables A, C, D, E and F in order to distinguish the different Nephrops Functional Units (FUs).  

Based on a comparison between the FDI and Mediterranean and Black Sea databases, STECF 
concludes that while the two data sets are still not fully compatible, the level of homogeneity 
has  greatly  improved  due  to  the  improvements  made  in  the  2019  data  call  on  the  reference 
codes  and  on  the  variables  requested.  STECF  acknowledges  the  issue  of  excess  workload  for 
Member  States  while  responding  to  multiple  data  calls.  In  order  to  ease  these  issues  STECF 
envisage  harmonisation  of  FDI  and  Med&BS  datacalls/data  bases.  STECF  suggests  a  specific 
ToR  for  the  STECF  20-01  Plenary  on  this  topic,  with  preliminary  analyses  to  be  performed  in 
advance of this discussion.  

Similar investigations could be conducted regarding the compatibility of the FDI with the AER 
data call. 

12 
 
 
 
Contact details of STECF members 

1 - Information on STECF members’ affiliations is displayed for information only. In any case, 
Members  of  the  STECF  shall  act  independently.  In  the  context  of  the  STECF  work,  the 
committee members do not represent the institutions/bodies they are affiliated to in their daily 
jobs.  STECF  members  also  declare  at  each  meeting  of  the  STECF  and  of  its  Expert  Working 
Groups  any  specific  interest  which  might  be  considered  prejudicial  to  their  independence  in 
relation  to  specific  items  on  the  agenda.  These  declarations  are  displayed  on  the  public 
meeting’s  website  if  experts  explicitly  authorized  the  JRC  to  do  so  in  accordance  with  EU 
legislation 
information: 
http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/adm-declarations 

For  more 

protection 

personnel 

data. 

the 

on 

of 

Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Abella, J. Alvaro 

Independent consultant 

Bastardie, Francois 

Technical University of Denmark, 
National Institute of Aquatic 
Resources (DTU-AQUA), Kemitorvet, 
2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark 

aabellafisheries@gmail.co
m 

fba@aqua.dtu.dk  

Borges, Lisa 

FishFix, Lisbon, Portugal 

info@fishfix.eu 

Casey, John 

Independent consultant 

Catchpole, Thomas 

Damalas, Dimitrios 

Daskalov, Georgi 

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

Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, 
Institute of Marine Biological 
Resources & Inland Waters, 576 
Vouliagmenis Avenue, Argyroupolis, 
16452, Athens, Greece 

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

blindlemoncasey@gmail.c
om  

thomas.catchpole@cefas.c
o.uk  

shark@hcmr.gr 

Georgi.m.daskalov@gmail
.com 

13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Döring,  Ralf 
chair) 

(vice-

Thünen Institute [TI-SF] Federal 
Research Institute for Rural Areas, 
Forestry and Fisheries, Institute of 
Sea Fisheries, Economic analyses 
Herwigstrasse 31, D-27572 
Bremerhaven, Germany 

ralf.doering@thuenen.de 

Gascuel, Didier  

Grati, Fabio 

Ibaibarriaga, Leire  

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

Didier.Gascuel@agrocamp
us-ouest.fr 

National Research Council (CNR) – 
Institute for Biological Resources 
and Marine Biotechnologies (IRBIM), 
L.go Fiera della Pesca, 2, 60125, 
Ancona, Italy  

AZTI. Marine Research Unit. 
Txatxarramendi Ugartea z/g. E-
48395 Sukarrieta, Bizkaia. Spain. 

fabio.grati@cnr.it  

libaibarriaga@azti.es  

Jung, Armelle 

DRDH, Techopôle Brest-Iroise, BLP 
15 rue Dumont d’Urville, Plouzane, 
France 

armelle.jung@desrequinse
tdeshommes.org  

Knittweis,  Leyla  (vice-
chair) 

Department of Biology, University of 
Malta, Msida, MSD 2080, Malta 

Leyla.knittweis@um.edu.
mt  

Kraak, Sarah  

Ligas, Alessandro 

Martin, Paloma  

Motova, Arina  

Thünen Institute of Baltic Sea 
Fisheries, Alter Hafen Süd 2, 18069 
Rostock, Germany.  

CIBM Consorzio per il Centro 
Interuniversitario di Biologia Marina 
ed Ecologia Applicata “G. Bacci”, 
Viale N. Sauro 4, 57128 Livorno, 
Italy 

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

sarah.kraak@thuenen.de 

ligas@cibm.it; 
ale.ligas76@gmail.com  

paloma@icm.csic.es 

Sea Fish Industry Authority, 18 
Logie Mill, Logie Green Road, 
Edinburgh EH7 4HS, U.K 

arina.motova@seafish.co.
uk 

Moutopoulos, Dimitrios  Department of Animal Production, 
Fisheries & Aquaculture, University 
of Patras, Rio-Patras, 26400, Greece 

dmoutopo@teimes.gr 

14 
 
 
 
Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Nord, Jenny  

Prellezo, Raúl  

O’Neill, Barry 

Raid, Tiit  

The Swedish Agency for Marine and 
Water Management (SwAM)  

Jenny.nord@havochvatten
.se 

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

rprellezo@azti.es 

DTU  Aqua,  Willemoesvej  2,  9850 
Hirtshals, Denmark 

barone@aqua.dtu.dk  

Estonian Marine Institute, University 
of Tartu, Mäealuse 14, Tallin, EE-
126, Estonia 

Tiit.raid@gmail.com  

Rihan, Dominic 

BIM, Ireland 

rihan@bim.ie  

Sampedro, Paz 

Somarakis, Stylianos  

Stransky, Christoph  

Spanish Institute of Oceanography, 
Center of A Coruña, Paseo Alcalde 
Francisco Vázquez, 10, 15001 A 
Coruña, Spain 

Institute of Marine Biological 
Resources and Inland Waters 
(IMBRIW), Hellenic Centre of Marine 
Research (HCMR), Thalassocosmos 
Gournes, P.O. Box 2214, Heraklion 
71003, Crete, Greece 

Thünen Institute [TI-SF] Federal 
Research Institute for Rural Areas, 
Forestry and Fisheries, Institute of 
Sea Fisheries, Herwigstrasse 31, D-
27572 Bremerhaven, Germany 

paz.sampedro@ieo.es  

somarak@hcmr. gr 

christoph.stransky@thuen
en.de 

Ulrich, Clara (chair) 

IFREMER, France 

Clara.Ulrich@ifremer.fr  

Uriarte, Andres 

Valentinsson, Daniel 

van Hoof, Luc 

AZTI. Gestión pesquera sostenible. 
Sustainable fisheries management. 
Arrantza kudeaketa jasangarria, 
Herrera Kaia - Portualdea z/g. E-
20110 Pasaia – GIPUZKOA (Spain) 

Swedish University of Agricultural 
Sciences (SLU), Department of 
Aquatic Resources, Turistgatan 5, 
SE-45330, Lysekil, Sweden 

Wageningen Marine Research 
Haringkade 1, Ijmuiden, The 
Netherlands 

auriarte@azti.es 

daniel.valentinsson@slu.s
e 

Luc.vanhoof@wur.nl 

15 
 
 
 
Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Vanhee, Willy  

Independent consultant 

wvanhee@telenet.be 

Villasante, Sebastian 

University of Santiago de 
Compostela, Santiago de 
Compostela, A Coruña, Spain, 
Department of Applied Economics 

sebastian.villasante@usc.
es 

Vrgoc, Nedo 

Institute of Oceanography and 
Fisheries, Split, Setaliste Ivana 
Mestrovica 63, 21000 Split, Croatia 

vrgoc@izor.hr 

16 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG-19-11 REPORT 

REPORT TO THE STECF 

EXPERT WORKING GROUP ON  
Fisheries Dependent Information – “FDI” 
(EWG-19-11) 

Ispra, Italy, 16-20 September 2019 

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

17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

The STECF EWG 19-11 met during 16 – 20 September 2019 at Ispra, Italy. The meeting 
was  opened  at  9  am  on  16  September  and  was  adjourned  at  13.00  on  20  September 
2019. Working conditions provided were considered good. 

1.1 

Terms of Reference for EWG-19-11 

DG Mare focal person: Evelien Ranshuysen and Jonathan Shrives 

Chairs: Willy Vanhee and Arina Motova 

Background 

An  STECF  Expert  Working  Group  on  Fisheries  Dependent  Information  will  be  convened 
from 16– 20 September 2019 in Ispra, Italy to review the data transmitted by Member 
States under the 2019 New-FDI data call to judge:  

i)  If data submitted is complete in terms of areas of fishing, types of fleet segment 

and gear operated and species identified.  

ii)  If data submitted is complete in terms of type of data requested: capacity 

metrics, effort metrics, landings, unwanted catch and spatially disaggregated 
landings and effort. 

iii)   The level of compatibility between the effort data in the FDI database and that 

submitted to the Mediterranean and Black Sea data call. 

iv)   The level of compatibility between the landings data in the FDI database and that 
submitted to the Mediterranean and Black Sea data call for those species listed in 
the latter call.   

In addition, the EWG is asked to map the data on fishing effort obtained from the call for 
spatially disaggregated data. 

In  considering  the  completeness  of  the  data  submitted  the  EWG  is  entitled  to  use 
external sources of data where necessary, as well as expert judgement. 

One of the motivations behind a comprehensive transversal database was the possibility 
to  rationalise  the  DCF  data  call  process.  The  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  data  call 
requests  data  for  a  considerable  number  of  tables  specifically  aimed  at  allowing  stock 
assessments  but  the  ‘fisheries’  tables  of  catch  and  effort  in  principle  should  be  directly 
comparable to those from the FDI. A reduction in the number of tables requested under 
the Mediterranean and Black Sea data call and reduction in workload for Member States 
is possible if true compatibility between databases can be demonstrated. 

Terms of Reference: see annex 

18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex – Terms of Reference  

1  –  Review  and  document  completeness  of  the  data  set  and  feedback  from 
Member States on approaches used and problems encountered in responding to 
the data call. 

1.  As  a  matter  of  priority,  the  EWG  is  requested  to  ensure  that  all  unresolved  data 
transmission  (DT)  issues  encountered  prior  to  and  during  the  EWG  meeting  are 
reported  on  line  via  the  Data  Transmission  Monitoring  Tool  (DTMT)  available 
issues  should  be 
at https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/dcf/dtmt. 
reported in full within 2 weeks of the end of the EWG. 

 Such 

2.  Review  outputs  of  ad  hoc  contract  that  provides  a  methodology  to  partition  data 
(number  at  length)  from  Tables  C  and  D  (aggregations  according  to  sampling 
programs) to Table A (detailed catch table), discuss and agree future methodology to 
be applied. 

3.  Review outputs of ad hoc contract that provides the catches, landings and discards, 
at a level of aggregation corresponding to the fleet, area and gear type as specified 
in each exemption of each discard plan for 2020. 

4.  Review data quality checks and produce National methodological chapters. 

2 – In the interests of establishing common best practices, identify any aspects 
to  answering  to  the  data  call  that  still  need  a  common  approach  to  be 
established.  

1.  Propose  and  agree  practice  for  use  of  confidential  data  records.  This  includes 

treatment and presentation of data on the data dissemination site. 

2.  Review  MS  methodology  applied  when  deriving  Table  A  from  biological  sampling 

programs. 

3.  Discuss  other  issues  that  are  relevant  to  the  FDI  data  call  and  where  possible 

conclude on a common approach to be used. 

3  –  Test  the  compatibility  between  the data  collected  in  the  FDI  database  and 
the data collected in the Mediterranean and Black Sea database. 

1.  For data from 2017 and 2018 and FAO area 37, compare 

a.  Codes used in the FDI and Med&BS data calls (e.g. gear type, vessel length, 

metier, etc.). 

b.  Sums  of  effort  (kWdays-at-sea,  GTdays-at-sea,  fishing  days)  at  the  level  of 
country-year-GSA  area-gear  type.  The  comparison  is  to  be  made  between 
data  held  in  Table  G  ‘Effort  summary’  of  the  FDI  database  and  the  Table  D 
‘Fisheries  effort  data’  of  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  database  (as 
described in Annex 1, Appendix 2.4 of the Med&BS data call).  

c.  Sums  of  landings  (tonnes)  and  sum  of  discards  (tonnes)  at  the  level  of 
country-year-GSA  area-gear  type.  The  comparison  is  to  be  made  between 
data held in Table A  ‘Catch summary’ of the FDI database and the Tables B 
‘Fisheries landings at length data’ and C ‘Fisheries discards at length data’ of 
the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  database  (as  described  in  Annex  1, 
Appendix  2.2  and  2.3  of  the  Med&BS  data  call).  Comparison  to  be  restricted 
to the species contained in Annex 1, Appendix 1.7 of the Med&BS data call.  

19 
 
 
d.  Conditional  on  successful  matching  of  the  total  landed  weight  and  discards 
weight  totals,  compare  numbers  at  length  at  the  level  of  country-year-GSA 
area-gear type. The comparison is to be made between data held in Tables F 
MBS  ‘Landings  length  data’  and  D  MBS  ‘Discards  length  data’  of  the  FDI 
database  and  Tables  B  ‘Fisheries  landings  at  length  data’  and  C  ‘Fisheries 
discards  at  length  data’  of  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  database  (as 
described  in  Annex  1,  Appendix  2.2  and  2.3  of  the  Med&BS  data  call). 
Comparison to be restricted to the species contained in Annex 1, Appendix 1.7 
of the Med&BS data call. 

4 - Produce maps of spatial effort and landings by c-squares 

1.  Discuss  and  agree  possible  format  of  dissemination  tables  based  on  FDI  data 

collected (considering confidentiality issues). 

2.  Produce maps of effort and landings by c-square for the following regions (as defined 
in  COM-2016-134  for  areas  other  than  ‘distant  waters’)  and  major  gear  types  (as 
defined in appendix 4 of the data call): 

a.  Baltic;  North  Sea;  North  Western  Waters;  South  Western  Waters; 

Mediterranean and Black Sea; Distant waters2  

b.  Trawls  (except  beam  trawls)  with  mesh  <  100mm;  trawls  (except  beam 
trawls) with mesh ≥ 100mm; beam trawls with mesh < 120mm; beam trawls 
with mesh ≥120mm; seine nets; gillnets and entangling nets; dredges; hooks 
and lines; surrounding nets; pots and traps. 

5 –Provide catches, landings and discards data for exemptions in discard plans   

STECF  is  asked  to  provide  figures  for  landings  and  discards  in  2018,  at  a  level  of 
aggregation  corresponding  to  the  fleet,  area  and  gear  type  as  specified  in  each 
exemption of each of the discard plans for 2020. 

STECF  is  asked  to  assess  and  if  possible,  provide  percentages  of  discards  estimates 
below  and  above  MCRS  at  a  level  of  aggregation  corresponding  to  the  fleet,  area  and 
gear type as specified in each exemption of each of the discard plans for 2020.  

Where there is insufficient discard data for the above task, the STECF is asked to provide 
estimated catches (landings + discards3 ) for 2018, if possible and enough data provided 
during data call. 

2 Defined here as waters not covered by the previously listed areas. 
3 Discards are defined here as the fish/crustaceans thrown overboard. 

20 
 
 
 
                                                 
2 

DATA PROVISION AND CHECKS 

2.1 

Data call 

The DCF FDI data call 2019 opened on 25 June 2019 and the legal deadline was initially 
set  to  24  July  2019;  afterwards,  following  a  request  that  DG  MARE  received  from  the 
Regional Coordination Group for the Baltic, the legal deadline was extended to 8 August 
2019. 

The 2019 FDI data call is consistent with the comments and suggestions from the EWG 
18-11 (see the STECF report of the EWG 18-11). 

official 

The data format to be used to answer the data call was detailed in the annex sent with 
the 
JRC  DCF  website 
is  documented 
(https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/data-calls).  The  data  call  specified  14  tables, 
among which 4 were for Mediterranean and Black Sea regions (GFCM GSAs) only. 

letter 

and 

the 

on 

it 

Data  were  requested  for  4  years  (from  2015  to  2018)  for  all  the  tables  except  table  H 
and  table  I  that  contain  spatial  information.  For  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  regions 
(GFCM GSAs), spatial data were requested for years 2017 and 2018 only; data for years 
2015 and 2016 were welcomed if available, but the submission was not compulsory.  

Declaration 

In the context of the confidential data used during the EWG 19-11 meeting, the experts 
signed the following declaration at the beginning of the meeting:  

In  order  to  answer  the  term  of  reference  of  the  EWG  19-11,  the  Fisheries  Dependent 
Information 
(FDI) data provided by Member States in the context of the DCF FDI 2019 data call will 
be used. 
The  FDI  data  call  requests  data  at  a  detailed  level;  for  this  reason  it  is  possible  for 
Member States to 
mark data as confidential.  

I hereby declare that I was informed by the STECF secretariat and the chairs of the EWG 
19-11 that 
the dataset used during the EWG contains some confidential data and that access to and 
use of the 
dataset  is  only  permitted  in the EWG  context.  Consequently,  all  DCF  FDI  datasets  shall 
be removed 
all the electronic supports used (e.g. hard disk, memory stick, etc.), and no electronic or 
paper 
copies of the data shall be kept by experts after completion of the EWG 19-11 report. 

Signing the present declaration, I acknowledge that I was informed on the above. 

21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2 

Data  checks  on  uploads  and  data  evaluations  before  EWG  19-11 
meeting 

Timeliness and coverage 

Most  Member  States  submitted  data  by  the  legal  deadline  of  the  data  call.  Greece  and 
Netherlands  submitted  most  of  the  data  after  the  legal  deadline,  while  Spain  provided 
only one table before the legal deadline and the rest of the data during the EWG 19-11. 

As  shown  in  Figure  2.1,  many  Member  States  reuploaded  data  after  the  legal  deadline 
and also during the EWG 19-11 because the extensive checks conducted by JRC from the 
data  call  legal  deadline  until  the  EWG  19-11  meeting,  revealing  many  errors  in  the 
uploaded data and/or missing data. The results of these checks form the basis for most 
of the data corrections by the Member States. 

Figure  2.1:  Uploading  progress:  the  graph  shows  the  number  of  datasets  (i.e.,  files 
Excel) uploaded over the time during the FDI data call and the EWG 19-11.  

About the coverage of the data, Member States (with few exceptions) submitted data for 
most  of  the  variables  and  for  all  the  years  requested.  Notably  among  the  exceptions, 
Greece did not provide data for year 2017 in tables A, C, D, E and F. 

The coverage of discards data in table A is generally poor: on a total of 1779582 rows, 
there  are  226416  entries  with  discards  greater  than  0;  121965  entries  with  discards 
equal  to  0;  1431201  entries  with  discards  not  known  (NK  code)  (see  for  details, 
conclusions in section 3.5). Only Estonia did not provide any discard data in table A. 

Concerning  the  refusal  data  information  requested  in  table  B:  Estonia,  Finland,  France, 
Italy,  and  Netherlands  did  not  provide  this  table  (see  Figure  2.2).  In  addition,  Greece 
and  Romania  submitted  an  empty  table,  and  Lithuania  provided  data  with  all  the 
variables set to not known (NK value). Information about the number of rows provided 
for table B with values different from NK are provided in Figure 2.3. 

22 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.2: Timeliness overview: data sets uploaded by Member States during the FDI 
data call with the date of the first successful upload. 

Figure 2.3: Number of rows provided in table B with the refusal rate or trips sampled on 
board variables different from NK (not known). 

Checks during the upload of the data  

The majority of the checks performed during the upload of the data concerned the use of 
valid codes referred to the various appendixes of the data call and the type of the data 
entered (numeric or text).  

23 
 
 
 
 
In  particular,  the  upload  tool  verified  the  format  of  the  provided  files  and  checked  the 
codes  used  to  specify  the  following  information:  country,  fishing  technique,  vessel 
length,  gear  type,  target  assemblage,  mesh  size  range,  metier,  species,  supra-region, 
sub-region,  geographical  indicator,  EEZ  indicator,  deep  fisheries,  specific  conditions 
related to technical measures (variable name: specon tech). In addition, the consistency 
between  the  following  couples  of  variables  were  verified:  sub-region  codes  and  EEZ 
indicator codes; sub-region codes and mesh size range codes. 

In the upload tool, the following check among different tables was provided: during the 
upload  of  tables  C,  D,  E  and  F,  a  control  was  performed  on  the  presence  of  domain 
landings and domain discards codes in table A for the same country, year and species. 

Post-upload data checks 

After the upload of the data by Member States, JRC carried out quality checks for:  

  Consistency between the data submitted and the specification of the data call 
  Consistency between the data submitted in the different tables of the FDI data 

call 

  Data comparison among years 
  Cross checks with another data source (EUROSTAT data) 

In more detail, the following checks were performed and visualized with Tableau: 

  Comparison of any given metric over the time series (2015-2018). 
  Using  the  total  weight  landings  and  total  value  landings  fields  from  table  A,  an 
average price per species and year were calculated and compared to the average 
price calculated per country. 

  Using  the  information  provided  in  table  C  and  E,  an  average  mean  weight  per 
species, age and year were calculated and compared to the average mean weight 
calculated per country.  

  Using  the  information  provided  in  table  C  and  E,  an  average  mean  length  per 
species, age and year were calculated and compared to the average mean length 
calculated per country. 

  Validation of the age value in the range [min age - max age] (tables C and E). 
  Validation  of  the  length  value  in  the  range  [min  length  -  max  length]  (tables  D 

and F). 

  Comparison  between  discards  [tonnes]  and  the  sum  of  products  [tonnes]  = 

no_age [number in thousand]*mean_weight [kg] (tables C and D). 

  Comparison between totwghtlandg [tonnes] and the sum of products [tonnes] = 

no_age [number in thousand]*mean_weight [kg] (tables E and F). 

  Where domain landings codes match between tables A, E and F, the sum of total 
weight  landings  values  in  table  A  for  the  given  domain  name  was  check  against 
the total weight landings value in tables E and F. 

  Where domain discards codes match between tables A, C and D, the sum of total 
weight  landings  values  in  table  A  for  the  given  domain  name  was  check  against 
the total weight landings value in tables C and D. 

  Comparison  between 

total  weight 

landings  and 

total  value 

landings: 

totwghtlandg>0 and totvallandg=0 in table A. 

  Comparison  between  weight  landings  and  effort:  totwghtlandg>0  in  table  A  and 

effort (totfishdays and totseadays) not present or NK in table G. 

24 
 
 
  Comparison  between  spatial  weight  landings  in  table  H  and  weight  landings  in 

table A: totwghtlandg>0 in table H and totwghtlandg not present in table A. 

  Comparison between spatial effort in table I and effort in table G: totfishdays>0 

 

in table I and totfishdays not present or NK in table G. 
Identification  of  the  inconsistencies  among  the  spatial  components  of  effort  and 
weight landings, which is the cases when the provided coordinates do not belong 
to the specified sub-region (tables H and I). 

  Average length vessels compatibility with the vessel length category (table J). 
  Comparison  of  number  of  vessels  from  table  J  and  table  G:  totves>0  in  table  G 

and totves in table J is not present or NK. 

The most relevant issues highlighted by the data checks implemented at JRC are listed in 
the following: 

  Data provided with different unit of measures (in tables A, C, D, E, F, G, H and I). 
  Row data provided instead of data raised to the total production (in tables C, D, E 

and F). 

  For the same domain landings, different values of total weight landings (in tables 

E and F). 

  For the same domain discards, different values of discards (in tables C and D). 
  For the same domain discards, different values of total weight landings (in tables 

 

C and D). 
Inconsistencies between the sub-region code and the spatial coordinates (latitude 
and longitude) provided in tables H and I. 

Cross checks with EUROSTAT data 

The purpose of cross checks with an external data source was to check for completeness 
of submitted data sets. EUROSTAT datasets have been downloaded from: 

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/fisheries/data/database 

Results  of  the  checks  were  made  available  to  national  correspondents  (with  access 
credentials that restricted them to seeing information about their own country only) and 
the  EWG  19-11  experts  (with  access  credentials  that  allowed  them  to  see  information 
about all countries). 

25 
 
 
 
 
3 

RESPONSES TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE 

3.1 

Review and document completeness of the data set and feedback from 
Member  States  on  approaches  used  and  problems  encountered  in 
responding to the data call 

3.1.1  As a matter of priority, the EWG is requested to ensure that all 

unresolved data transmission (DT) issues encountered prior to and 
during the EWG meeting are reported on line via the Data Transmission 
Monitoring Tool (DTMT) available at 
https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/dcf/dtmt.  Such issues 
should be reported in full within 2 weeks of the end of the EWG 

The  data  provided  by  Member  States  in  response  to  the  2019  FDI  data  call  and 
incorporated  into  the  FDI  database  hosted  by  the  JRC,  represents  the  most 
comprehensive  data  set  currently  available.    However,  a  variety  of  shortfalls  in  data 
collection  and  provision  inevitably  remain,  largely  because  Member  States’  agreed 
national  work  plans  are  not  designed  specifically  to  collect  and  provide  data  at  the 
disaggregation level requested in the FDI data call.   

All unresolved data transmission issues which the EWG considers require an explanatory 
comment from Member States have been recorded in the Data Transmission Monitoring 
Tool  (DTMT).  As  far  as  was  practically  possible,  such  issues  have  been  reported  in 
accordance with the guidelines available (Annex 1).  

In the majority of cases, the issues raised are errors as opposed to omissions in the data 
transmitted  and  such  issues  are  raised  in  the  DTMT  in  order  to  inform  Member  States 
that they should strive to correct such errors and avoid similar errors in any future data 
calls.  Nevertheless,  there  are  a  small  number  of  issues  that  are  data  transmission 
omissions which require an explanation from the relevant Member State as to why such 
issues have arisen.  

States 

at 
Member 
https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/dcf/dtmt,  and  respond  to  any  issues  raised 
regarding data transmission. Filtering on the columns year (=2019) and data call = FDI 
will reveal the relevant issues.  

requested 

consult 

DTMT 

the 

are 

to 

3.1.2  Review  outputs  of  ad  hoc  contract  that  provides  a  methodology  to 
partition  data  (number  at  length)  from  Tables  C  and  D  (aggregations 
according  to  sampling  programs)  to  Table  A  (detailed  catch  table), 
discuss and agree future methodology to be applied 

The EWG reviewed the methodology and outputs of the ad hoc contract (1949) awarded 
to estimate the proportions of discards in number below and above  MCRS  at  a  level  
of aggregation  corresponding  to  the  fleet,  area  and  gear  type  hereby anticipating 
exemptions in discard plans for 2020.  

The methodology used is appropriate and the output provides a valuable overview of the 
number  of  fish  above  and  below  the  MCRS  by  country,  year,  area,  metier,  species  and 
catch fraction. It meets the level of aggregation specified in discard plans and therefore 
adds  value  to  the  FDI  data  set  by  providing  discard  estimates  which  may  be  used  to 
assess any potential impacts of the landing obligation on discarding. Furthermore, it may 

26 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
prove  useful  to    DGMARE  to  assess  future  proposals  for  exemptions  from  the  landing 
obligation. 

The JRC undertook extensive additional checks on the data submitted by Member States 
in response to the 2019 FDI data call. The achievements made by the contractor would 
not have been possible without such extensive checks.   

During the EWG 19-11 meeting, the proportions in weight of discards above and  below 
MCRS  were  estimated.  Given  the  absemce  of  information  on  Mean  weight  at  length  in 
Tables D and F from the FDI database, the EWG chose to convert numbers at length to 
weight  at  length  using  the  von  Bertalanfy  growth  parameters  obtained  from  ‘Fishbase’ 
(www.fishbase.org).  

Within  the  contract  additional  data  quality  control  output  was  provided.  Duplicated 
entries  for  the  numbers  at  length  (D  and  F)  and  age  (C  and  E)  were  listed  and  the 
correspondence  between  table  A  and  the  tables  with  biological  data  (C-F)  was  also 
provided. 

The methodology and results are presented in section 3.5.3. 

3.1.3  Review  outputs  of  ad  hoc  contract  that  provides  the  catches,  landings 
and  discards,  at  a  level  of  aggregation  corresponding  to  the  fleet,  area 
and  gear  type  as  specified  in  each  exemption  of  each  discard  plan  for 
2020 

The EWG reviewed the ad hoc contract (1948) awarded to provide catches, landings and 
discards (catch fractions), at a level of aggregation corresponding to the fleet, area and 
gear  type  as  specified  in  anticipated  exemptions  of  discard  plans  for  2020.    The 
methodology  used  is  appropriate  although  in  many  cases,  the  estimates  from 
exemptions were based on only a small number of discard samples or in the absence of 
any appropriate samples, were derived by extrapolation (so-called ‘fill-ins’) from samples 
obtained for other exemptions.  

The  EWG  recognises  that  this  output  is  a  valuable  planning  tool  for  DGMARE,  and  the 
EWG endeavoured to provide estimates of catch fractions for all anticipated exemptions 
for  2020.  However,  catch  fractions  could  not  be  provided  for  exemptions  containing 
operation-specific information such as engine power (kW), tow duration (≤90 mins) and 
proximity to the shore (within 12 nautical miles), as such information is not available in 
the FDI database.  

Member State-specific catch fractions were provided for the majority of anticipated 2020 
exceptions.  Two  sets  of  estimates  were  computed;  i)  estimates  for  exempted  fleets  for 
which discard sample data were provided and ii)  estimates for exempted fleets for which 
no  sample  data  were  available,  so-called  ‘fill-ins’.  A  rudimentary,  but  much-needed 
measure of quality and sampling coverage was computed for the discard estimates (‘% 
of total landings’). The value for ‘% of total landings’ represents the weight of landings 
from which the discard samples were taken, divided by the total landings from the fleet 
operating under each exemption.  

The  results  are  presented  in  section  3.5.2.  Although  the  table  of  results  provides  the 
requested descriptions of discarding by exemption, in some cases, such may at best be 
imprecise or may not be representative of the true level of discards of the fleets fishing 
under  each  exemption.  The  catch  fractions  are  estimated  from  sampling  plans  that  are 
not  designed  to  answer  these  specific  exemption  questions.  As  a  result,  to  ‘fill-in’ 
estimates  for  fleets  that  are  not  sampled  for  discards,  sample  data  are  necessarily 
aggregated  across  strata.  In  doing  so,  many  untested  assumptions  have  to  be  made, 
such  as  Member  State-specific  variation  in  species  naming  (i.e.  HOM/JAX),  and  spatial 

27 
 
 
 
aggregations (i.e. Neprops Functional units). Consequently the estimated catch fractions 
cannot be considered robust, but may provide a useful overview for DGMARE. 

3.1.4  Review  data  quality  checks  and  produce  National  methodological 

chapters 

The EWG discussed the objective of the FDI database. While the “Classic FDI” data call 
and  database  was  designed  with  a  clear  objective  to  support  fishing  effort  regimes 
evaluations, the purpose and objectives for creating and maintaining the current FDI are 
still  to  be  defined.  The  EWG  requests  that  DG-MARE  explicitly  clarify  the  purpose  and 
objectives of creating and maintaining the FDI database and in particular which data and 
how  they  should  be  disseminated  to  the  public.  While  the  group  agrees  and  sees  the 
benefits of having a database publicly available, there are concerns on how the data will 
be  used  by  third  parties,  particularly  the  sampling  data  (discards  and  biological 
estimates).  We  emphasise  that  there  is  a  need  to  manage  expectations  of  end-users 
based  on  the  resolution  of  the  sampled  data  (discards,  length-  and  catch-at-age 
distributions): to request data at such high levels of aggregation requires an estimation 
procedure  that  respects  the  sampling  design  and  the  samples  available  in  the  targeted 
aggregation level. Under most, present sampling designs and sampling efforts currently 
in  place,  the  quality  of  the  estimates  uploaded  cannot  be  assured,  at  the  high  level  of 
disaggregation  the  STECF-FDI  data  call  specifies.  This  is  an  extremely  important  point 
and  needs  to  be  understood  by  all  potential  users  of  the  data.  The  EWG  therefore 
proposes  to  investigate  possible  disaggregation  from  the  sampled  data  by  Member 
States  to  the  detailed  Table  A  by  means  of  a  designated  contract  issued  before  next 
year’s EWG (see section 3.2.2 Recommendations from EWG).   

The  EWG  suggests  that  if  the  FDI  database  is  indeed  required,  in  future,  a  dedicated 
Expert  Group  meeting  needs  to  be  convened  simply  to  check  the  data  provided  by 
Member States in response to the FDI data call. While the EWG recognises that it is the 
responsibility of Member States to provide checked and validated data, there are issues 
that  will  inevitably  arise  for  numerous  reasons  e.g.  misinterpretation  of  what  is  being 
requested,  coding  misspecification  between  different  databases  in  Member  States  and 
simple human error. Already numerous automatic checks have been implemented during 
and  post-upload.  However,  there  will  always  be  a  requirement  for  Expert  checks  to  be 
undertake.  Hence,  the  Terms  of  Reference  for  such  a  dedicated  meeting  should  be 
restricted to aspects of checking the integrity of the database and should not include any 
requests for advice. Once the database has been cleared for interrogation, such requests 
for advice from the STECF can be put to a different Expert Group or to a follow-up to the 
dedicated  data  checking  EWG.  Either  way,  it  is  highly  desirable  that  experts  with  an 
intimate knowledge of the database participate in such a EWG. 

Member  States  sections  on  Methodology,  Data  availability,  Coverage,  Problems 
encountered and other comments are listed in Annex 2. 

3.2  In  the  interests  of  establishing  common  best  practices,  identify  any 
aspects to answering to the data call that still need a common approach to 
be established 

3.2.1  Propose  and  agree  practice  for  use  of  confidential  data  records.  This 
includes  treatment  and  presentation  of  data  on  the  data  dissemination 
site 

The FDI data call requests data at a detailed level, therefore a field has been introduced 
in tables A, G, H and I that makes it possible to mark rows as confidential. 

28 
 
 
 
 
 
In Annex 1 of the FDI data call 2019 following is stated about confidentiality: 

“Confidentiality: Tables A, G, H and I contain a field called CONFIDENTIAL. In general, it 
would  be  very  difficult  to  identify  an  individual  vessel  activity  as  soon  as there  is  more 
than one vessel contributing to the data of a given row. As a suggestion, data that relate 
to less than 3 vessels could be considered confidential.” 

The  EWG  is  of  the  opinion  that  in  general  the  following  approach  can  be  used  for 
presenting data on the data dissemination site: 

  Data that are aggregated across Member States can be published without 

removing the data marked as confidential as it will be impossible to isolate the 
confidential data. 

  When publishing data at Member State level, data marked as confidential by the 

Member State in question should be redacted. 

  Before disseminating data on the data dissemination site, it should be approved 

by the STECF plenary, and MS be informed by DG MARE. 

Data  submitted  by  Member  States  in  response  to  the  2019  FDI  data  call  were  marked 
confidential for a variety of reasons. These are summarised in Table 3.2.1.1. 

Table  3.2.1.1:  Criteria  applied  to  confidentiality  in  response  to  2019  FDI  data  call  by 
Member States. 

Country 

Confidential 
data was 
indicated in 
submitted 2015-
2018 data 
(Yes/No) 

France 

Yes 

Denmark 

Yes 

Finland 

Yes 

Description of the criteria applied to 
confidentiality in response to 2019 FDI data 
call 

So far, only very few data have been highlighted 
as  being  confidential  because  a  common 
approach  is  missing.  However,  there  are  many 
issues  related  to  these  data  where  certain  lines 
hold  information  for  less  than  3  vessels.   Before 
any  data  are  published  (e.g.  in  dissemination 
tools),  a  further  check  is  needed  to  identify 
issues  based  on  a  common  agreed  approach  in 
line  with  European  law. In  addition,  often not all 
variables  are  regarded  as being  problematic.  For 
example, information on the value of landings or 
discards is more sensitive than landings. Options 
are  missing  to  define  in  more  detail  what  is 
confidential and what not. 

If  less  than  three  vessels  within  the  aggregation 
level, it is marked as confidential. 

includes 

call  material 

Data 
confidential 
information  and  it  is,  therefore,  forbidden  to 
reveal  or  publish  the  data  outside  the  original 
purpose,  i.e.  the  FDI  data  call.  Natural  Resource 
Institute Finland (LUKE) is the national statistical 
authority.  LUKE  is  authorized  to  respond  to  data 
calls  and  submit  the  requested  data  for  the  EU 

29 
 
 
 
expert  groups.  The  GDPR  has  to  be  considered 
when  the  data  are  summarized  and  published. 
This  is  relevant  in  Finland,  because  the  amount 
of  fishery  operators  is  small  and  classification 
into subgroups may violate confidentiality.  

The  fundamental  principle  of  official  statistics  is 
data  protection,  by  which  the  availability  of 
reliable  basic  data  and  the  confidence  of  data 
suppliers  is  ensured.    To  be  able  to  produce 
reliable statistics, the basic data obtained for the 
compilation of statistics must be as exhaustive as 
possible.  This  can  be  achieved  when  the  data 
suppliers  can  be  confident  that  data  concerning 
them  will  be  treated  appropriately  taking  data 
protection needs into account. 

Belgium 

Yes 

Data  were  marked  as  confidential  if  the  data 
relate to less than 3 vessels.  

Latvia 

Yes 

Lithuania 

Yes 

Portugal 

Yes 

Ireland 

Yes 

Poland 

Yes 

for  distant 

All  data 
fleet  was  marked  as 
confidential.  Where  less  than  3  vessels  or  less 
than  2  companies  within  area  mark  of 
confidentiality was applied. 

Where  less  than  three  vessels  within  area  and 
the  vessels  segment  mark  of  confidentiality  is 
applied 

All the data that relate to less than 3 vessels was 
considered Confidential 

less 

than 

If 
(year+quarter+area+gear+vesselLength) 
marked as confidential 

three  vessels 

in  a  strata 
then 

In  the  period  2015-2018  Poland  had  3-5  vessels 
fishing outside the Baltic Sea. Additionally, these 
vessels  operate  in  different  subregions.  Due  to 
the national statistical law it was decided to mark 
the  data  about  their  activity  as  confidential  to 
avoid the risk of identifying a single vessel. 

Netherlands 

Yes 

Data  that  relate  to  less  than  3  vessels  are 
considered confidential. 

Italy 

Confidentiality is 
set only in table A 
for value of 
landings in FAO 51 
(IOTC) 

Only  one  vessel  is  fishing  in  area  51.  Weight  of 
landing  is  not  confidential.  Value  of  landing  is 
confidential. 

The same approach is used in the AER 

Great Britain 
(Eng, NIR, 
SCO, GBG, 

No 

If  data  disclose  personal  information  that  can 
identify a living individual then this data would be 
considered  as  confidential.  A  vessels  are  not 

30 
 
 
GBJ, IOM) 

Bulgaria 

Sweden 

Spain 

Germany 

Italy 

Greece 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

is  not 
people  the  data  requested  by  FDI 
confidential  and  can  be  published  even  at  vessel 
level  as  long  as  it  does  not  contain  vessel 
identifiers. 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Each  Member  State  was  free  to  define  which  data  to  mark  as  confidential  in  tables  A 
(catch data), G (effort data), H (landings by rectangle) and I (effort by rectangle). In the 
2019  FDI  data  call,  10  countries  have  marked  data  as  confidential.  Compared  to  the 
2018  FDI  data  call  there  were  three  adittional  countries  that  marked  some  data  as 
confidential.  Mostly,  confidential  data  were  indicated  for  long-distance  fisheries.  To 
clarify  the  criteria  used  by  a  Member  State  to  flag  some  data  as  confidential,  a 
questionnaire  was  established  during  the  meeting.  The  criteria  set  out  in  table  3.2.1.1 
above  shows  that,  in  most  cases,  the  countries  which  marked  data  as  confidential  in 
response  to  the  2019  FDI  data  call,  used  a  less  than  three  vessel  approach,  indicating 
that national regulations are not so varied between Member States.  

The EWG discussed the meaning of indemnification of confidentiality that shall apply only 
to  a  living  individual.  However,  Article  3  "Deﬁnitions"  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  223/2009 
deﬁnes  "conﬁdential  data"  in  the  following  way:  “Conﬁdential  data’  means  data  which 
allow a statistical unit (i.e. the person, company or organisation to which the data refers) 
to  be  identiﬁed,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  thereby  disclosing  individual  information. 
Also, in accordance with that Regulation, statistical unit means "a basic observation unit, 
namely  a  natural  person,  a  household,  an  economic  operator  and  other  undertakings, 
referred to by the data”. 

Following  comments  from  the  Member  States  that  not  all  the  variables  are  equally 
sensitive,  and  currently  the  confidential  mark  is  assigned  to  all  variables  within  the 
aggregation level, the EWG agree that it should be possible to specify which variable is 
confidential.  This  applies  to  table  A  and  H  where  the  weight  of  landings  are  often  not 
considered  confidential,  while  the  value  if  landings  can  be  confidential.  It  can  be  done 
either  by  adding  extra  confidentiality  fields  relating  to  the  variable,  or  by  allowing 
different  codes  in  the  confidentiality  field  to  indicate  what  is  confidential,  e.g.  all  (A), 
none (N), weight (W) or value (V). 

In  table  3.2.1.2  below,  the  amount  of  confidential  and  non-confidential  data  are 
summarized  for  key  variables  in  the  data  submitted  in  response  to  the  FDI  datacall 
2019. The high values of confidentiality of Days at Sea and Fishing days in 2018 are due 
to data from Greece marked as confidential in 2018. 

31 
 
 
 
Table 3.2.1.2: Showing the amount of confidential and non-confidential data in key variables for FDI 2019: total for all Member States. 

UnitsClassificationValue% ConfidentialValue% ConfidentialValue% ConfidentialValue% ConfidentialValue% ConfidentialNot confidential4,836,5116,260,7454,112,1084,042,74519,252,109Confidential54,18758,959136,0001,875,0822,124,228Not confidential704,957,433847,099,644724,316,432859,185,9793,135,559,488Confidential72,775,16291,919,07893,531,135116,799,994375,025,369Not confidential327,699,121375,755,687346,054,509350,186,3631,399,695,680Confidential60,134,15679,984,08968,960,49557,226,741266,305,481Not confidential4,905,1906,439,4554,213,6514,271,22819,829,524Confidential94,389101,155168,4091,915,0142,278,967Not confidential874,912,5571,095,328,217909,684,0181,125,492,6964,005,417,488Confidential213,986,704265,689,218169,269,970218,834,672867,780,564Not confidential480,774,209375,755,687346,054,509350,186,3631,552,770,768Confidential200,138,03679,984,08968,960,49557,226,741406,309,361Not confidential40,815,37041,257,48842,762,29048,636,615173,471,763Confidential829,593946,888906,565855,0303,538,077Not confidential13,525,404,62714,203,948,55714,169,346,40017,504,083,65559,402,783,239Confidential1,516,009,6311,926,130,1231,500,198,6201,140,204,8396,082,543,212Not confidential4,496,893,1585,245,037,1585,122,700,8317,234,666,69322,099,297,840Confidential1,314,572,9151,745,023,5681,343,859,216948,461,4845,351,917,183Not confidential4,742,9414,675,9044,807,3214,902,86419,129,031Confidential442,961435,256560,400400,8991,839,515Not confidential5,406,369,4275,897,753,3015,682,086,0816,477,568,03723,463,776,846Confidential376,806,688482,278,595477,551,586414,592,6661,751,229,535Not confidential206,169202,476181,847221,895812,387Confidential6,1764,85317,25530,39858,6817.46%Discards tonnes3.00%2.40%9.49%13.70%7.22%9.34%9.31%11.66%8.18%9.62%Landings value (EUR)6.97%8.18%8.40%6.40%10.24%11.21%13.56%10.59%6.51%29.23%33.27%26.23%13.11%24.22%41.63%21.29%19.93%16.34%26.17%2.03%2.30%2.12%1.76%2.04%1.92%1.57%4.00%44.84%11.49%24.46%24.26%18.61%19.44%21.67%10.32%10.85%12.91%13.59%11.96%18.35%21.29%19.93%16.34%19.03%1.12%0.94%3.31%46.38%11.03%2015 - 20182018201720162015Fishing DASGt*DASkW*DASDays at Sea (DAS)VariablesLandings tonnesGt* Hours at seakW* Hours at seaHours at seaGt* Fishing DASkW* Fishing DAS32 
 
 
 
In table 3.2.1.3 below, the sub-regions where more than 50 percent of the landings are marked 
as  confidential  are  listed.  In  table  3.2.1.4  the  sub-regions  where  more  than  50  percent  of  the 
value of landings are marked as confidential are listed.  

Table 3.2.1.3: Areas where confidential data exceed 50 percent of total by weight of landings. 

Table 3.2.1.4: Areas where confidential data exceed 50 percent of total by value of landings. 

The figures 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.8 below show that a substantial part of the data submitted have been 
marked as confidential.  

Area201520162017201847.161.0661.8158.1851.750.8887.264.9887.399.9727.14.A93.0927.5.B57.6556.0160.4927.7.K50.434.1.356.8174.3270.6GSA1468.3498.24GSA1570.2871.59GSA2151.33GSA557.3860.8266.09Areas where confidential data exceeded 50 percent of total by landingsArea201520162017201827.1210092.8452.6241.210010084.141.310010010047.110010010051.410051.510051.754.5251.810010052.857.310010010071100771001001008110010010087.110010010087.210010010021.6H10027.14.A10027.8.E58.572.2334.1.199.5210010034.1.367.6287.673.3134.2.065.6483.9634.3.155.581.634.3.210034.3.310034.3.410034.4.110010034.4.210047.A10010010047.B92.9210010047.C100GSA1477.5159.64GSA1569.6267.4950.455.83GSA2158.4678.72GSA2468.02GSA559.467.5368.5671.28Areas where confidential data exceeded 50 percent of total by value33 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.2.1.1: Weight of landings (tonnes) from table A marked as confidential (red bars) and 
not confidential (blue bars) by region and year for the period 2015-2018. 

34 
 
 
 
 
+

Figure 3.2.1.2: Value of landings (EUR) from table A marked as confidential (red bars) and not 
confidential (blue bars) by region and year for the period 2015-2018. 

35 
 
 
Figure  3.2.1.3:  Number  of  c-squares  from  table  H  marked  as  confidential  (red  bars)  and  not 
confidential (blue bars) by region and year for the period 2015-2018. 

36 
 
  
 
Figure  3.2.1.4:  Number  of  records  from  table  H  marked  as  confidential  (red  bars)  and  not 
confidential (blue bars) by region and year for the period 2015-2018. 

37 
 
 
 
Figure  3.2.1.5:  Weight  of  landings  from  table  H  marked  as  confidential  (red  bars)  and  not 
confidential (blue bars) by region and year for the period 2015-2018. 

38 
 
 
 
Figure  3.2.1.6:  Number  of  c-squares  from  table  I  marked  as  confidential  (red  bars)  and  not 
confidential (blue bars) by region and year for the period 2015-2018. 

39 
 
 
 
Figure  3.2.1.7:  Effort  (fishing  days)  from  table  I  marked  as  confidential  (red  bars)  and  not 
confidential (blue bars) by region and year for the period 2015-2018. 

40 
 
 
 
Figure  3.2.1.8:  Number  of  records  from  table  I  marked  as  confidential  (red  bars)  and  not 
confidential (blue bars) by region and year for the period 2015-2018. 

3.2.2  Review MS methodology applied when deriving Table A from biological sampling 

programs 

Methods used for partitioning of discards and landings into Table A 

The length and age distributions for landings (Tables E and F) and discards (Tables C and D) are 
based on scientific estimations carried out at National level, based on the data collected under the 
Data Collection Framework.  The discards estimations were then partitioned across the categories 
in Table A, by each MS. Each MS were free to choose the criteria used to perform the partitioning 
and  Table  3.2.2.1  summarises  the  different  methodologies  used  by  each  MS  for  partitioning  the 
discards across categories.   

Table 3.2.2.1. Summary table with how MS do the partition 

41 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Method 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Poland 

Portugal 

The discard ratio (discards/catch) were applied to the landings for 
the combination of year, metier, sub-region and species. 

Only  official  discards  were  provided  in  Table  A  (only  zeros 
provided). 

No methodologies were provided 

No methodologies were provided 

Partitioning  of  discards  proportionally  to  the 
for 
combination  of  year,  quarter,  vessel  length  category,  metier, 
domain_discards,  sub-region  and  species.  When  no  landings  are 
reported, the partitioning of discards are proportionally proportion 
of effort (days at sea). 

landings 

Only official discards were provided in Table A. 

No methodologies were provided 

Partitioning of unwanted catches proportionally to the landings for 
combination domain and species. 

Partitioning  of  discards  proportionally  to  the 
combination domain and species. 

landings 

for 

The  discard  ratio  (expressed  as  discards/catch)  were  applied  to 
the landings for combination of year, sub-region, quarter, métier, 
vessels length category and species. 

The  discard  rate  (kg/h)  were  applied  across  selected  strata 
(vessel_length;  mesh,  fishery;  specon)  based  on  the  effort 
(fishing hours) in each of these strata. 

Partitioning  of  discards  proportionally  to  the 
combination domain and species. 

landings 

for 

Partitioning of unwanted catches proportionally to the landings for 
combination domain and species. 

Partitioning  of  discards  proportionally  to  the 
combination domain and species. 

landings 

for 

No methodologies were provided 

Partitioning of unwanted catches proportionally to the landings for 
combination domain and species. 

Partitioning  of  discards  proportionally  to  the 
combination domain and species. 

landings 

for 

Romania 

No methodologies were provided 

Slovenia 

No methodologies were provided 

42 
 
The Netherlands 

Partitioning  of  discards  based  on  the  number  of  unique  rows 
within the domain. 

UK - Scotland 

Partitioning  of  discards  proportionally  to  the 
combination domain and species.  

landings 

for 

UK  –  England 
and Wales 

Partitioning  of  discards  proportionally  to  the 
for 
combination domain and species. When no landings are reported, 
the partitioning of discards are proportionally proportion of effort 
(days at sea). 

landings 

Spain 

Sweden 

Partitioning  of  discards  proportionally  to  the 
combination metier and species. 

landings 

for 

Partitioning  done  proportionally  to  the  variable  used  for  the 
raising  (i.e.  landings  of  target  species  in  the  fishery  or  fishing 
hours,  depending  on  the  fishery).  Proportion  of  landings  of  the 
same species was not used for the partitioning of unwanted catch 
unless the species was a target species. 

When responding to the 2019 STECF-FDI data call Member States (MS) encountered a number of 
issues  while  trying  to  populate  Table  A  with  discard  information.  This  process  require  the 
partitioning  of  unwanted  catches  from  Tables  C  and  D  to  Table  A.  Several  MS  were  unable  to 
perform  the  partition,  while  others  provided  only  official  unwanted  catches,  and  in  some  case  a 
combination  of  official  and  scientific  estimates.  Consequently,  the  discard  amounts  in  Table  A 
were  missing  and/or  not  comparable  across  MS  or  fisheries.  The  EWG  tackled  this  issue  by 
clarifying the language in the data call, and providing examples of the methodology applied by MS 
who succeded in populating Table A. As a result, most of the Member States were able to perform 
the partition of discards from Tables C and D to Table A for the 2019 data call.  

However,  the  EWG  continues  to  emphasise  the  risks  for  serious  bias  during  this 
partitioning  process,  which  can  result  in  statistically  unsound  and  erroneous  discard 
estimates.  The  sampling  data  reported  in  Table  C  and  D  is  collected  under  sampling  schemes 
designed  for  other  purposes,  and  are  not  designed  to  provide  estimates  at  the  level  of 
disaggregation  required  in  Table  A.    Therefore,  calculating  discard  estimates  for  Table  A  in  this 
manner  may  be  impossible,  or  worse,  could  produce  estimates  which  are  biased  or  statistically 
unsound. The EWG understands the value in data dissemination, however emphasises the need to 
manage the expectations of the data users by stating clearly that the high level of disaggregation 
in Table A is not supported by the data collection schemes in place.  

Recommendations from EWG: 

  Dissemination Disclaimer:  

The  EWG  extensively  discussed  if  and  how  the  discards  from  Table  A  should  be  made 
publicly available through the STECF dissemination tool. Despite the major concern raised 
by  the  experts  and  national  data  submitters,  the  group  understands  that  the  discards 
information available in Table A are of major importance for the EWG, DG-MARE 
and STECF. Therefore, the group agreed that despite the limitations of this year’s 
data, the discards data presented in Table A should be made publicly available in 
the  dissemination  tool.  However,  the  group  recommended  to  add  a  disclaimer  at  the 
top  of  the  “EU  Catches”  tab  in  the  dissemination  tool  highlighting  the  limitations  of  the 
data (see Table 3.4.1.1 in Section 3.4.1). 

43 
 
 
 
  Investment in quality control:  

The EWG recognises the value of the FDI database as a central repository for all European 
fishing effort. However, this level of complexity requires dedicated expert time and effort 
to  ensure  that  intra  and  inter-annual  quality  control  is  maintained,  and  improved.  This 
work  cannot  be  done  in  isolation  at  a  MS  level.  To  be  effective,  this  work  must  be 
completed  by  fisheries  experts  once  all  MS  data  is  combined,  providing  a  European  level 
overview  of  quality  and  trends.  Only  then,  can  bias  be  identified,  and  major  issues 
resolved.  

The  EWG  strongly  recommends  that  annually  two  FDI  meetings  are  held.  The 
first meeting would be dedicated to the review of data quality and completeness. 
This  first  meeting  would  also  provide  a  platform  to  explore  and  develop  the 
methodologies  used  to  estimate  and  dissemination  scientifically  robust 
information,  i.e.  discard  and  biological  (age  and  length)  data.  Therefore  leaving 
the second meeting to answer the ToRs set out by the Commission.  

  Investment in data dissemination techniques:  

Annually much of the EWGs limited time is consumed with tackling the ever-growing issue 
of  data  dissemination,  and  the  utility/usability  for  varying  end-users  needs.  The  EWG  is 
dedicated  to  the  dissemination  of  data  for  which  the  quality,  origin  and  coverage  are 
evident.  Therefore,  affording  the  end  user  (commission/MS/public)  every  opportunity  to 
utilise the data in a way that is fitting and reflective of the nature of fisheries. To ensure 
that  the  EWG  can  achieve  this  annual  dissemination  goal  in  an  effective  way  there  is  a 
need  for  intersessional  work,  which  can  inform  and  direct  discussion  on  the  subject. 
Ultimately providing a mechanism that can improve data dissemination and alleviate EWG 
and MS concerns about data quality and misuse.  

To increase efficiency and ensure the objectives are delivered, the EWG proposes 
an ad-hoc contract to develop a suite of methodologies for dissemination. These 
methodologies  will  provide  a  visual  and/numerical  indication  of  estimate 
robustness  and  coverage.  These  methodologies  can  then  be  discussed  and 
reviewed during the first FDI meeting in 2020. Due to limited resources and time, 
it was not possible to achieve it at this year’s meeting.  

3.2.3  Discuss  other  issues  that  are  relevant  to  the  FDI  data  call  and  where  possible 

conclude on a common approach to be used 

During this year meeting the EWG raised several issues that need to be addressed for next year 
data  call,  in  order to  improve the  data, clarity  and  completeness  of the  data  call.  Bellow  we  list 
the recommended changes and recommended fields to next year data call: 

1.  In  order to  improve  the  data  and  information  for  the  Nephrops  stocks,  the  group  agreed 
that  the  data  should  distinguish  the  different  Functional  Units  (FUs),  in Tables A, C, D,  E 
and  F.  To  capture  this  information  it  is  suggested  to  add  an  extra  column  called 
“NEP_SUB_REGION”  to  tables  A,  C,  D,  E  and  F.  The  statistical  rectangles,  which  identify 
these FU’s, are outlined in the table below.  

2.  One  of  the  objectives  of  ToR5  was  to  calculate  the  discards/landings  under  and  above 
Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS). However, due to the lack of information on 
Mean weight at length in Tables D and F was only possible to provide the percentages in 
number. To overcome the immediate need to answer ToR 5 this year, the LW parameters 
were obtained from Fishbase.  The EWG recommends to add a column in Tables D and F 
with MEAN_WEIGHT_AT_LENGTH and WEIGHT_UNIT (kg = kilogram, g = gram). 

44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  The  group  agreed  that  it  would  be  useful  to  add  a  table  to  the  data  call,  with  discards 
amounts by domain, as proposed below. The rationale for requesting an extra table for the 
FDI  data  call,  is  that  all  discards  estimates  should  be  provided  at  the  domain  level 
(DOMAIN_DISCARDS).  Tables  C  and  D  only  hold  discards  estimates  for  which  length 
and/or  age  data  are  provide.  However,  some  MS  have  discards  estimates  for  which  no 
biological  sampling  is  done  and  are  provided  to  Table  A.    If  the  proposed  table  is  not 
feasible,  it  has  to  be  made  clear  on  next  year  datacall,  that  discard  estimates  should  be 
added to tables C and D even no sampling is performed, with the sampling related fields 
as "NK. 

Table 3.2.3.1. Proposed table to summarise Discards estimated by Domain. 

COUNTRY 

YEAR 

According with code list 

Four digits 

DOMAIN_DISCARDS 

Text in format specified in Appendix 8 

SPECIES 

Discards 

NO_TRIPS_SAMPLED_WITH_SPECIES 

According to the FAO 3 alpha code list 

Estimated  discards  in  tonnes  [precision 
to 3 digits after decimal] 

trips 
Number  of 
sampled/observed 

the  species  was 

NO_TRIPS_SAMPLED 

Number of trips sample at this level 

Suggested addition to appendix 9 of the data call: Area coding   

Nephrops sub-regions: 

NEP_ 
SUB_REGION 
27.3.a.FU3 

27.3.a 

SUB_REGION 

FU 

Statistical Rectangles  

27.3.bc.FU3 

27.3.bc 

27.3.a.FU4 
27.3.bc.FU4 
27.4.b.FU5 
27.4.c.FU5 
27.4.b.FU6 
27.4.a.FU7 

27.4.b.FU8 
27.4.a.FU9 
27.4.a.FU10 
27.6.a.FU11 
27.6.a.FU12 
27.6.a.FU13 
27.7.a.FU14 
27.7.a.FU15 

27.3.a 
27.3.bc 
27.4.b 
27.4.c 
27.4.b 
27.4.a 

27.4.b 
27.4.a 
27.4.a 
27.6.a 
27.6.a 
27.6.a 
27.7.a 
27.7.a 

3 

3 

4 
4 
5 
5 
6 
7 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

44F7, 45F7, 43F8, 44F8, 45F8, 43F9, 44F9, 45F9, 46F9, 45G0, 46G0, 47
G0, 48G0, 46G1,  

46F8, 47F9, 47G1 

44G0, 45G1 
41G1,43G2 
42G0, 43G0, 42G1, 43G1, 44G1, 41G2, 42G2 
36F1, 37F1, 36F2, 37F2, 36F3, 37F3, 36F4, 37F4 
35F2, 35F3, 
38E8, 39E8, 40E8, 37E9, 38E9, 39E9, 40E9 
45E8, 46E8, 44E9, 45E9, 46E9, 47E9, 48E9, 49E9, 44F0, 45F0, 46F0, 47
F0, 48F0, 49F0,  
44F1, 45F1, 46F1, 47F1, 48F1, 49F1 
41E6, 40E7, 41E7 
44E6, 45E6, 44E7, 45E7, 44E8 
47E6 
44E3, 45E3, 46E3, 44E4, 45E4, 46E4 
41E2, 42E2, 43E2, 41E3, 42E3, 43E3, 41E4, 42E4, 43E4 
39E4, 40E4, 39E5, 40E5 
38E5, 35E6, 36E6, 37E6, 38E6 
36E3, 35E4, 36E4, 37E4, 38E4, 35E5, 36E5, 37E5 

45 
 
 
 
 
27.7.k.FU16 
27.7.c.FU16 
27.7.j.FU16 
27.7.b.FU17 
27.7.j.FU19 
27.7.g.FU19 
27.7.a.FU19 
27.7.g.FU2021 

27.7.k 
27.7.c 
27.7.j 
27.7.b 
27.7.j 
27.7.g 
27.7.a 
27.7.g 

27.7.h.FU2021 

27.7.h 

27.7.g.FU22 
27.7.a.FU23 
27.7.a.FU24 
27.7.b.FU24 
27.8.c.FU25 
27.9.a.FU26 
27.9.a.FU27 
27.9.a.FU28 
27.9.a.FU29 
27.9.a.FU30 
27.8.c.FU31 
27.4.a.FU32 

27.4.b.FU32 
27.4.b.FU33 
27.4.b.FU34 
27.4.OUTFU 

27.7.g 
27.7.a 
27.7.a 
27.7.b 
27.8.c 
27.9.a 
27.9.a 
27.9.a 
27.9.a 
27.9.a 
27.8.c 
27.4.a 

27.4.b 
27.4.b 
27.4.b 
27.4 

16 
16 
16 
17 
19 
19 
19 
20-
21 
20-
21 
22 
23 
24 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 

31D5, 32D5, 33D5, 31D6, 32D6, 33D6, 32D7, 33D7, 34D8, 35D8 
34D5, 35D5, 34D6, 35D6, 34D7, 35D7 
32D8, 33D8 
34D9, 35D9, 34E0, 35E0 
31D9, 32D9, 33D9, 31E0, 32E0, 33E0  
31E1, 32E1, 32E2 
33E2, 33E3 
28E1, 29E1, 30E1, 29E2, 30E2, 31E2, 30E3 

28E2 

31E3, 32E3, 31E4, 32E4 
22E5, 23E5, 24E5, 22E6, 23E6, 24E6, 22E7, 23E7, 24E7 
21E6, 21E7, 21E8 
20E7, 19E8, 20E8 
15E0, 15E1, 16E1 
13E0, 14E0, 13E1, 14E1 
06E0, 07E0, 08E0, 09E0, 10E0, 11E0, 12E0, 09E1, 10E1, 11E1, 12E1 
03E0, 04E0, 05E0, 03E1, 04E1, 05E1 
02E0, 02E1; 02E2 
02E2, 03E2, 02E3, 03E3 
16E4, 16E5, 16E6, 16E7 
44F2, 45F2, 46F2, 47F2, 48F2, 49F2, 50F2, 51F2, 52F2, 44F3, 45F3, 46
F3, 47F3, 48F3, 49F3, 50F3, 51F3, 52F3, 44F4, 45F4, 46F4, 47F4, 48F4, 
49F4, 50F4, 51F4, 52F4, 44F5, 45F5, 46F5, 47F5, 48F5, 49F5, 50F5, 51
F5, 52F5, 44F6, 45F6, 46F6, 47F6, 48F6, 49F6, 50F6, 51F6, 52F6 
43F5, 43F6, 43F7 
39F5, 40F5, 41F5, 39F6, 40F6, 41F6 
41F0, 42F0, 43F0, 41F1, 42F1, 43F1 

32 
33 
34 
Out  Any statistical rectangle not identified above as NEP caught outside an F

27.6.OUTFU 

27.6 

Out  Any statistical rectangle not identified above as NEP caught outside an F

U 

U 

27.7.OUTFU 

27.7 

Out  Any statistical rectangle not identified above as NEP caught outside an F

27.8.c.OUTFU 

27.8.c 

Out  Any statistical rectangle not identified above as NEP caught outside an F

U 

27.9.a.OUTFU 

27.9.a 

Out  Any statistical rectangle not identified above as NEP caught outside an F

U 

U 

3.3 

Test the compatibility between the data collected in the FDI database and the 
data collected in the Mediterranean and Black Sea database 

In  order to  evaluate if  the  two databases  were  compatible,  the  EWG  was  requested to  compare 
data  collected  in  the  FDI  database  and  the  data  collected  in  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea 
database.  The  EWG  used  the  same  R  scripts  implemented  by  STECF18-11  last  year,  slightly 
changed to take into account the changes in the 2019 FDI formats. 

All the resulting plots comparing the two data calls are shown in the Annex 4. 

The comparison resulted in the following results: 

a. Codes used in the FDI and Med&BS data calls (e.g. gear type, vessel length, metier, etc.). The 
codes used in the 2019 data calls are much more homogenous compared to last year, thanks to 
the changes in the 2019 Mediterranean and Black Sea data calls implemented by JRC on the basis 
of the results of the same exercise carried out in the STECF 18-11. 

b. Sums of effort (kWdays-at-sea, GTdays-at-sea, fishing days) at the level of country-year-GSA 
area-gear  type.  EWG  compared  data  held  in  Table  G  ‘Effort  summary’  of  the  FDI  database  with 
data in Table D ‘Fisheries effort data’ of the Mediterranean and Black Sea database. The results of 
the  comparison  have  been  rather  good  for  all  GSAs  and  show  an  improvement  in  2018  data. 
Some  inconsistencies  are  still  present  for  some  métiers  (see  Annex  4).  It  was  not  possible  to 

46 
 
 
carry out the exercise for the effort data for Spain for 2018 because in FDI sub_regions have not 
been reported. 

c. Sums of landings (tonnes) and sum of discards (tonnes) at the level of country-year-GSA area-
gear  type.  EWG  compared  data  held  in  Table  A  ‘Catch  summary’  of  the  FDI  database  and  in 
Tables  B  ‘Fisheries  landings  at  length  data’  and  C  ‘Fisheries  discards  at  length  data’  of  the 
Mediterranean and Black Sea database. Comparison has been restricted to the species contained 
in  Annex  1,  Appendix  1.7  of  the  Med&BS  data  call.  The  results  of  the  comparison  are  different 
among MSs/GSAs and métier, being very good in several cases. EWG randomly checked the level 
of homogeneity at stock level for some Italian GSAs; these checks confirm that the data are the 
same  at  the  stock  level.  Differences  at  the  metìer  level  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that,  for 
some  GSAs,  MS  reported  in  the  Med&BS  data  call  only  stocks  for  which  biological  samples  are 
available (even if in the 2019 Med&BS data call request to upload landings data for all stocks and 
metiers, regardless if they have been sampled or not). 

d. Numbers at length at the level of country-year-GSA area-gear type. EWG compared data held 
in Tables F MBS ‘Landings length data’ and D MBS ‘Discards length data’ of the FDI database and 
in  Tables  B  ‘Fisheries  landings  at  length  data’  and  C  ‘Fisheries  discards  at  length  data’  of  the 
Mediterranean and Black Sea database. Comparison has been restricted to the species contained 
in Annex 1, Appendix 1.7 of the Med&BS data call. The results of the comparison are reported in 
the Annex 4. 

Conclusions  

From the comparisons performed, it is apparent that the two data sets are still not fully matching, 
but the level of homogeneity greatly increased for 2018 data thanks to the improvements made 
in  2019  data  calls  on  the  reference  codes  and  on  the  variables  requested  (e.g.  there  are  no 
longer different definitions used for “Discards” and “Unwanted Catch” estimates). 

It should be stressed that the same fisheries data (fishing effort (days at sea and fishing days), 
total  weight  of  landings  by  species)  and  biological  estimates  (discards,  length  and  age 
distributions) are requested in both the Med&BS and FDI data calls. 

EWG concludes that the two data sets are entirely consistent regarding effort and biological data 
and therefore MSs should not be requested send the same information twice in the same period 
of the year with different formats.  

EWG  evaluated  pros  and  cons  of  switching  from  the  Med&BS  data  call  to  the  FDI  data  call,  and 
highlighted the following issues: 

1)  In  order  to  run  stock  assessments  at  the  beginning  of  September,  the  final  dataset  must  be 
available by the end of August 

2) According to point 1) the STECF handling procedures (legal and operational deadlines) should 
be reviewed and revised. This year the deadlines have been: MED: 25 June – 9 August and BS 20 
-30 August 

3) If FDI data (including biological data) are to be published they will be treated as “official” and 
available to be used by any end user. However, during STECF Stock Aassessment (SA) EWG the 
quality  checks  are  performed  at  higher  details  (stock  level)  compared  to  FDI  checks.  This 
different approach in quality checks (FDI more general and SA focusing on stocks to be assessed) 
may result in mismatch in terms of  data issues that are reported in the DTMT. 

4)  If  Med&BS  data  call  does  not  call  for  fishery  dependent  information,  there  is  a  need  for  an  
EWG to quality check the Med&BS biological data. Should it be the FDI group? If yes, when it has 
to be scheduled (see point 1)? 

5) If Med&BS data call does not call for fishery dependent information, a lot of scripts and tools 
already developed in the framework of DGMARE (funded) projects (e.g. STREAM, RECFISH) or at 
MS level to check Med&BS data according to Med&BS format could become redundant. 

6)  To  avoid  that  experts  have  to  deal  with  2  different  datasets  during  stock  assessment  EWGs, 
FDI data should be reshaped according to Med&BS format. By who? And when? 

47 
 
7) Currently Med&BS ask only for one year’s data (from the previous year). However, MS’ can still 
re-upload  several  previous  year’s  data  on  the  express  authority  of    DGMare.  In  such  cases, 
should MSs re-upload using FDI or Med&BS dat call format? 

Based on these issues, the EWG suggests two alternative approaches: 

Proposal  1  -  drop  from  FDI  the  Med&BS  biological  data  (Table  C,  D,  E,  F).  FDI  should  call  for 
Table A, B, G, J and spatial data (tables H&I) while Med&BS would be kept as it is avoiding to call 
effort  data  (Table  D.  Fishing  effort  data).  This  proposal  seems  to  be  preferable,  bacause  the 
Med&BS is a consolidated call that runs very well at the moment. Such changes could eventually 
have an impact on stock assessment exercises (a priority for DGMARE). 

The proposals are summarized in the table below.  

Variables 

FDI data call 

Med&BS data call  AER data call 

Effort  by  fleet  segment  and  by 
métier 

Table G 

Capacity  by  fleet  segment  and 
by gear type 

Table J 

Effort by GFCM grid 

Landings by GFCM grid 

Landings (weight and value) by 
fleet segment and by métier 

Table H 

Table I 

Table A 

Discards  by  métier/species,  by 
length and by age 

Landings by métier/species, by 
length and by age 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

Table A,C 

Table A,B 

no 

YES: cluster 
name is 
needed 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

In order to allow a perfect alignment among the information provided in the different data calls, 
EWG also suggests to: 

 

Include  a  column  in  table  J  of  the  FDI  data  call  which  ask  for  the  principal  “sub_region” 
(i.e. GSA) where the vessel has his majority fishing activity during the year. The name of 
this  column  could  be  “PRINCIPAL_SUB_REGION”  avoiding  to  double-count  vessels  fishing 
in more than one “sub_region” during the year, 

  Ask  Med  MS  to  provide  economic  data  in  the  economic  data  call  at  this  same  level  of 
disaggregation  of  principal  “sub_region”  (i.e.  GSA)  and  not  only  at  national  level,  if  this 
level of aggregation is available. 

Proposal 2: pending all the issues listed above, drop commercial data and effort from MED&BS 
(it  will  call  survey  and  biological  parameters  only).  This  proposal  could  only  become  effective  if 
points listed above will be solved. In addition, EWG suggests that, before deleting biological data 
from  Med&BS  data  call,  detailed  checks  at  stock  level  (priority  species)  should  be  ensured,  for 
example comparing length distributions at stock level.  

48 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.4 

Produce maps of spatial effort and landings by c-squares 

3.4.1  Discuss  and  agree  possible  format  of  dissemination  tables  based  on  FDI  data 

collected (considering confidentiality issues) 

The FDI data call collects a valuable dataset covering the fisheries for all EU Member States. The 
data  dissemination  tool  published  at  the  JRC  website  has  valuable  information  and  for  the 
Fisheries Dependent Information classic publishing data covering the period 2003-2016. After the 
FDI data call changed format in 2018 the data dissemination tool has not been updated because 
the confidentiality issue needed to be resolved. Additionally data dissemination was structured by 
Annex from the Cod Recovery plan which has been superseded. As such a new data dissemination 
format needs to be defined therefore proposal for a new formats for FDI dissemination tables are 
suggested in Table 3.4.1.1 below. 

As partially covered in Section 3.2.2, the EWG agreed and strongly recommends the requirement 
to have a second meeting earlier in the year (possibly July) or a workshop dedicated to develop 
and  agree  on  a  methodology  on  the  best  way  to  have  the  data  provided  to  the  FDI  data  call 
(effort, landings, discards and biological and capacity) publicly available in the dissemination tool 
maintaining  the  scientific  robustness  of  the  estimates,  confidentiality,  but  also 
considering  the  utility  and  usability  of  the  data  for  the  different  end-users  needs.  The 
EWG considers that in order to have the best quality sampling data (discards and biological data) 
publicly available extensive work needs to be developed and agreed across experts, which due to 
limited resources and time, was not possible to achieve at this year meeting. 

Together  with  the  data  dissemination,  there  should  be  a  link  to  the  FDI  report  and  relevant 
disclaimers concerning the  data.  The EWG  propose  the  disclaimers related to  the  tables  in table 
3.4.1.1 below. 

Table 3.4.1.1: Proposed data for publication on the JRC data dissemination site.  

Table 

Categorical fields 

Value fields 

Disclaimer 

EU catches 
(aggregated over 
all Member States) 

In Pacific ocean 
(71, 77, 81, 87 
and 88) and Indian 
ocean (51 and 57) 
aggregate to 
ocean.  

Year, quarter, vessel 
length category, 
fishing technique, 
gear type, target 
assemblage, mesh 
size range, metier, 
supra-region, sub-
region, EEZ indicator, 
Geo indicator, 
specon, deep, species 

Total live weight 
landed (tonnes), 
total value of 
landings (EUR), 
total discards 
(tonnes) 

Discards amounts in this 
table are scientific discards 
estimates based on National 
sampling programmes that 
do not support the level of 
disaggregation on this table. 
The quality of discards 
estimates cannot be assured 
and should be used with 
caution, as these estimates 
might be uncertain and 
biased. In the Pacific ocean 
regions 71, 77, 81, 87 and 
88 are grouped. In the 
Indian ocean regions 51 and 
57 are grouped.  

49 
 
 
 
 
Table 

Categorical fields 

Value fields 

Disclaimer 

Discards amounts in this 
table are scientific discards 
estimates based on National 
sampling programmes that 
do not support the level of 
disaggregation on this table. 
The quality of discards 
estimates cannot be assured 
and should be used with 
caution, as these estimates 
might be uncertain and 
biased. In the Pacific ocean 
regions 71, 77, 81, 87 and 
88 are grouped. In the 
Indian ocean regions 51 and 
57 are grouped. 

In the Pacific ocean regions 
71, 77, 81, 87 and 88 are 
grouped. In the Indian ocean 
regions 51 and 57 are 
grouped. 

In the Pacific ocean regions 
71, 77, 81, 87 and 88 are 
grouped. In the Indian ocean 
regions 51 and 57 are 
grouped. 

Catches by 
Member State 
(excluding 
confidential 
records) 

In Pacific ocean 
(71, 77, 81, 87 
and 88) and Indian 
ocean (51 and 57) 
aggregate to 
ocean. 

Member State, year, 
quarter, vessel length 
category, fishing 
technique, gear type, 
target assemblage, 
mesh size range, 
metier, supra-region, 
sub-region, EEZ 
indicator, Geo 
indicator, specon 
tech, deep, species 

Total live weight 
landed (tonnes), 
total value of 
landings (EUR) 
total discards 
(tonnes). 

Value of 
confidential records 
marked with “c”. 

EU effort 
(aggregated over 
all Member States) 

In Pacific ocean 
(71, 77, 81, 87 
and 88) and Indian 
ocean (51 and 57) 
aggregate to 
ocean. 

Effort by Member 
State (excluding 
confidential 
records) 

In Pacific ocean 
(71, 77, 81, 87 
and 88) and Indian 
ocean (51 and 57) 
aggregate to 
ocean. 

Year, quarter, vessel 
length category, 
fishing technique, 
gear type, mesh size 
range,  target 
assemblage, metier, 
supra-region, sub-
region, EEZ indicator, 
Geo indicator, 
specon, deep 

Member State, Year, 
quarter, vessel length 
category, fishing 
technique, gear type, 
target assemblage, 
mesh size range, 
metier, supra-region, 
sub-region, EEZ 
indicator, Geo 
indicator, specon 
tech, deep 

Capacity by 
Member State 

Member State, year, 
vessel length 
category, fishing 
tech, supra-region, 
geo indicator 

Total days at sea, 
total kW days at 
sea, total GT days 
at sea, tot fishing 
days at sea, tot 
fishing kW days at 
sea, tot fishing gt 
days at sea, hours 
at sea, kW hours at 
sea, GT hours at 
sea 

Total days at sea, 
total kW days at 
sea, total GT days 
at sea, tot fishing 
days at sea, tot 
fishing kW days at 
sea, tot fishing gt 
days at sea, hours 
at sea, kW hours at 
sea, GT hours at 
sea 

Value of 
confidential records 
marked with “c”. 

Total trips, total kW 
engine power, total 
GT, total vessels, 
average age, 
average overall 
length, maximum 
sea days 

50 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 

Categorical fields 

Value fields 

Disclaimer 

Total live weight 
landed (tonnes), 
total value of 
landings (EUR). 

Data marked as confidential 
by Portugal are excluded. 

Fishing days 

Data marked as confidential 
by Portugal are excluded. 

EU Landings by c-
square 
(aggregated over 
all Member States) 

Without data 
marked as 
confidential from 
Portugal in distant 
waters 

EU Effort by c-
square 
(aggregated over 
all countries) 

Without data 
marked as 
confidential from 
Portugal in distant 
waters 

Year, quarter, vessel 
length category, 
fishing technique, 
gear type, mesh size 
range, target 
assemblage, metier, 
supra-region, sub-
region, specon, deep, 
ICES rectangle/GFCM 
grid, c-square, 
species 

Year, quarter, vessel 
length category, 
fishing technique, 
gear type, mesh size 
range, target 
assemblage, metier, 
supra-region, sub-
region, specon, deep, 
ICES rectangle/GFCM 
grid, c-square 

The  suggestions  in  the  table  above  do  not  include  the  biological  data  reported  in  tables  C,  D,  E 
and  F.  The  EWG  suggests  that  biological  data  (age/length)  are  not  published  in  the  data 
dissemination tool in 2019, as the method for combining the biological parameters in tables C, D, 
E and F with table A into a format that is published needs further consideration. The EWG suggest 
that it will be a ToR for the EWG-FDI meeting in 2020. 

3.4.2  Produce  maps  of  effort  and  landings  by  c-square  for  the  following  regions  (as 
defined  in  COM-2016-134  for  areas  other  than  ‘distant  waters’)  and  major  gear 
types (as defined in the data call) 

a)  Baltic; North Sea; North Western Waters; South Western Waters; Mediterranean and Black 

Sea; Distant waters4    

b)  Trawls (except beam trawls) with mesh < 100mm; trawls (except beam trawls) with mesh ≥ 
100mm;  beam  trawls  with  mesh  <  120mm;  beam  trawls  with  mesh  ≥120mm;  seine  nets; 
gillnets and entangling nets; dredges; hooks and lines; surrounding nets; pots and traps. 

The  first  step  of  spatial  data  analysis  was  to  ensure  that  data  is  in  the  correct  format  and 
information provided is consistent across variables. Due to the change in the data call format the 
validation  procedure  implemented  on  the  previous  EWG  FDI  meeting  had  to  be  modified.  The 
main  change  in  the  geographical  format  requrired  this  year  was  the  addition  of  a  new  variable: 
the  c-square  code.  According  to  the  FDI  data  call  specification,  spatial  data  on  landings  and 
effort (tables H and I) must be submitted using one of the following notations:  

  C-square code at 0.5x0.5 degree resolution, or: 
  Latitude and longitude of a rectangle together with a the its dimensions in decimal 

degrees:  

4 Defined here as waters not covered by the areas previously listed. 

51 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  0.5*0.5, corresponding to a c-square, 
  0.5*1, corresponding to an ICES rectangle, 
  1*1 for ICCAT squares, 
  5*5 for IOTC squares. 

In  order  to  accommodate  for  the  different  geographical  formats  allowed,  the  geographical  data 
validation process adopted last year was extended to include three additional checks described in 
the next paragraphs.  

Some  countries  provided  records  containing  both  the  c-square  code  and  coordinates,  the 
validation routine checked the compliance of c-squares notation with the geographical coordinates 
submitted.    Other  countries  reported  only  c-square  notation;  these  records  were  verified 
against a list of all valid 0.5x0.5 c-square codes. 

The third type of checks was applied on records that contained only coordinates and the type 
of  rectangle.  The  validation  routine  for  these  records  calculated  the  remainder  of  the  division 
and  verified  that  the  coordinates  indicated  were  the  the  geographical  center  of  the 
rectangle/square indicated in the rectangle type field.  

The spatial data subgroup suggests that these checks could be incorporated into the FDI data call 
uploading  tools.  Additionally,  it  is  suggested  that  the  rectangle  type  should  be  a  mandatory 
information in the next data call, to limit confusion during the conversion to spatial.  

Additional  checks  were  implemented  to  identify  points  that  were  outside  the  globe  and  on  land. 
To perform the point in polygon operation needed to identify points on land a new c-square data 
set  containing  indication  on  the  type  of  c-square  (sea,  land,  and  coast)  was  created  and  made 
available for download.  

After  the  initial  data  were  validated,  and  the  records  with  errors  were  omitted;  the  spatial  data 
sets  were  created  by  aggregating  the  individual  records  of  Table  I  and  Table  H  at  the  following 
level: 

Country, Year, Quarter, Macro-gear, Confidentiality, Specon, Sub region, Fishing zone, 

ICES Rectangle, value (effort/landings) and c-square code 

The aggregated spatial landings and spatial effort data sets were utterly cleaned all the records 
were there was no indication of the Sub region, and where there was a wrong unit of 
measurement for landings. Please refer to the Annex for additional maps and a recap on the 
errors. The maps following are for main Fishing Zone and Macro-gear as required. 

After the maps are reported the main sources of error in Table I and Table H and a total recap on 
the number of rows lost. It is important to note that data submission for Member States in the 
Mediterranean and Balck Sea is mandatory for the years 2017 and 2018 but voluntary for 2015 
and 2016. 

52 
 
 
 
 
TOR4.2.1.a - Spatial effort maps: main fishing zones 

Baltic Sea 

53 
 
 
 
 
 
North Sea 

54 
 
 
 
 
North Western Waters 

55 
 
 
 
 
South Western waters 

56 
 
 
 
 
Mediterranean and Black Sea 

57 
 
 
 
 
 
Distant Waters 

58 
 
 
TOR4.2.1.b - Spatial effort maps: main gear types 

Dredges 

Hooks 

59 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nets 

60 
 
 
 
 
Seines 

61 
 
 
 
 
Surrounding nets 

Beam trawlers with less than 120mm mesh size 

62 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Beam trawlers with more than 120mm mesh size 

63 
 
 
 
 
Beam trawlers with unknown mesh size 

64 
 
 
 
 
Traps 

65 
 
 
 
 
Trawlers with less than 100mm mesh size 

66 
 
 
 
 
Trawlers with more than 100mm mesh size 

Trawlers with unknown mesh size 

67 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TOR4.2.2.a - Spatial landings maps: main fishing zones 

Baltic 

68 
 
 
 
 
 
North Sea 

69 
 
 
 
 
North Western waters 

South Western waters 

70 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mediterranean and Black Sea 

Distant waters 

71 
 
 
 
 
 
TOR4.2.2.b - Spatial landings maps: main gear types 

Dredges 

Hooks 

72 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nets 

Seines 

73 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Surrounding nets 

Beam trawlers with less than 120mm mesh size 

74 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Beam trawlers with more than 120mm mesh size 

Beam trawlers with unknown mesh size 

75 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Traps 

Trawlers with less than 100mm mesh size 

76 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Trawlers with more than 100mm mesh size 

Trawlers with unknown mesh size 

77 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.5  Provide  catches,  landings  and  discards  data  for  exemptions  in  discard  plans  as 

well as information on the percentage of fish below and above MCRS 

Request 

STECF  is  asked  to  provide  figures  for  landings  and  discards  in  2018,  at  a  level  of  aggregation 
corresponding  to  the  fleet,  area  and  gear  type  as  specified  in  each  exemption of  each  of  
the discard plans for 2020. 

STECF  is  asked  to  assess  and  if  possible,  provide  percentages  of  discards  estimates  below  and 
above  MCRS  at  a  level  of aggregation  corresponding  to  the  fleet,  area  and  gear  type  as 
specified in each exemption of each of the discard plans for 2020.  

Where    there    is    insufficient    discard    data    for    the    above    task,    the    STECF    is    asked    to  
provide  estimated  catches  (landings  +  discards)  for  2018,  if  possible  and  enough  data  provided 
during data call. 

3.5.1  Discard  estimates  by  exemption  –  (General  –  Methodology  –  Shortcommings  – 

Extraction procedure) 

General Conclusions  

The  group  attempted  to  provide  information  for  as  many  exemptions  as  possible.  However,  the 
EWG  also  concluded  that  it  was  not  possible  to  fully  answer  the  requests  outlined  in  ToR  5  for 
each  exemption  in  the  discard  plans  due  to  the  current  format  of  the  data  available  in  the  FDI 
database.    Calculation  of  exemption-specific  catch  would  sometimes  require  more  specific  and 
detailed  data  than  is  currently  available  in  the  FDI  database  (e.g.,  exemption  only  for  discards 
inside  12nm  or  for  vessels  below  or  above  a  certain  engine  power).  All  results  under  this  TOR 
have to be interpreted with caution, taking into account the shortcomings listed below. 

Given that the exemptions show a wide variety of definitions to identify a certain group of vessels 
(and it cannot be predicted what will happen in future years), a specific data call asking Member 
States to provide data for each exemption may be a better option than to use data from the FDI- 
EWG that has been implemented to monitor the developments in EU fisheries in general. 

Methodology and Shortcomings  

The group based the calculation of the discards by exemption on estimates available in Table A. 
These  estimates  are  the  result  of  the  partitioning  (done  by  MS,  following  the  conclusion  of  the 
STECF Expert Working Group 17-12) of discard estimates available in tables C&D into the detailed 
disaggregated levels specified in table A. Discard estimates calculated under the domain defined 
by the MS estimation process and conform with their sampling design (‘Approved’ / ’scientifically 
validated’),  are  only  available  in  tables  C&D.  The  EWG  19-11  stresses  that  such  estimates  may 
not be reliable estimates of the true discards. 

The  EWG  has  attempted  to  provide  an  estimate  of  different  catch  fractions  for  fleets  that  will 
likely  be  granted  exemptions  from  the  landing  obligation  in  2020,  based  on  data  provided  for 
2018.  The  following  shortcomings  have  to  be  taken  into  account  to  avoid  misinterpretation  of 
results under TOR 5: 

1.  The  EWG  notes  that  the  data  call  asked  for  scientific  estimates  of  discards.    The  estimated 
values  based  on  scientific  sampling  programs  are  uncertain  (and  potentially  biased)  and  do  not 
constitute  an  official  estimate  like  landings  reported  in  logbooks.    Therefore,  any  estimate 
provided under TOR5 for discards of species under the landing obligation cannot be interpreted as 
discards for control purposes of de-minimis exemptions.  

2.  The  EWG  further  notes  that  providing  reliable  and  robust  estimates  of  catches,  i.e.  landings 
and discards for fleets that are granted exemptions from the landing obligation is problematic. For 
many  of  these  fleets,  estimates  are  unavailable,  because  MS  are  not  obliged  to  sample  these 
metiers  according  to  the  national  DCF  sampling  plans,  and  for those  fleets  where  discards  have 
been  sampled,  the  achieved  sampling  coverage  is often much  lower than   required  to  provide  a 
robust  estimate  of  the  true  discard  fractions.  At  best,  such  estimates  are  likely  to  be  rather 

78 
 
 
 
uncertain. In general, the sampling programs under the DCF are designed to inform assessments 
of  stocks  and  not  provide  discard  information  in  the  highly  disaggregated  format  asked  in  the 
data  call.      Alternatively,  official  logbook  information  could  be  used.  However,  for  most  MS  and 
fisheries,  the  records  of  unwanted  catch  fractions  (discards  +  BMS  landings)  in  logbooks  are 
believed to be an unreliable source of information.  To improve the situation, Member States may 
have  to  find  ways  to  improve  compliance  and  may  have  to  adapt  their  national  sampling 
programs  in  case  they  have  a  larger  amount  of  landings  under  a  certain  exemption,  but  no 
discard information.  To provide estimated catch fractions for fleets that have not been sampled 
requires extrapolation of catch samples taken from other fleets which may not be representative 
of the catch composition of these fleets, because of differences in fishing patterns (where, when 
and how the fleets fish), target species, catch quota and differences in species and size selectivity 
etc. A further complication arises when the sampled catch fractions of a particular fleet or fleets 
relate to only a small proportion of the total catch of the same species by all fleets involved in a 
fishery.  It  is  impossible  to  judge  whether  the  estimates  of  the  discard  fractions  derived  from 
extrapolation  of  sampled  fleets  are  likely  to  be  representative  of  those  fleets  that  are  not 
sampled.  

In  principle,  there  is  scope  for  the  EWG  to  use  its  expert  judgement  to  determine  whether  the 
catch  fraction  estimates  from  sampled  fleets  are  likely  to  be  representative  of  the  catches  for 
other  fleets.  However,  in  practice,  such  an  assumption  may  be  erroneous  because,  influence  of 
factors,  such  as  differences  between  the  fleets  in  fishing  pattern,  timing  of  fishing  and  quota 
availability  are  not  always  known  by  the  EWG.  Therefore,  the  estimates  based  on  extrapolation 
may be inaccurate. Hence the EWG considers that extrapolating catch fraction estimates for one 
fleet  or  fleets  to  other  fleets  simply  to  generate  fleet-specific  estimates  needs  to  be  carefully 
considered and be restricted to fleets likely to have similar catch compositions. 

Therefore, the EWG has adopted the following selection criteria: 

For all areas apart from the Mediterranean Sea (outside area 37) 

year,  quarter, 
specon_tech 

species, 

sub_region,  gear_type,  mesh_size_range, 

target_assemblage, 

For the Mediterranean Sea (area 37) 

year, quarter, species, sub_region, metier, specon_tech 

In more detail, the following procedure and equations were used: 

Let  the  following  notation  be:  D=discards,  L=  landings,  snf  =  national  fishery  with  a  discard 
estimate from 0 to X, unf = non-sampled fishery without discard information. 

The available landings and discards are aggregated (summed) over fisheries  

- 

- 

for all areas apart from the Mediterranean Sea, by year, quarter, species, 
sub_region, gear_type, mesh_size_range, target_assemblage, specon_tech 

for the Mediterranean Sea, by year, quarter, species, sub_region, metier, 
specon_tech 

and mean discard rates DRare calculated: 

 𝐷𝑅 =  

∑

𝐷𝑠𝑛𝑓

∑

𝑠𝑛𝑓
(

𝑠𝑛𝑓 𝐿𝑠𝑛𝑓+𝐷𝑠𝑛𝑓)

   if    𝐷𝑠𝑛𝑓 ≥  0    and with   𝐿𝑠𝑛𝑓 + 𝐷𝑠𝑛𝑓 > 0 

Fisheries specific discard amounts are then calculated if no discard information is available by 

𝐷𝑢𝑛𝑓 =  

𝐿𝑢𝑛𝑓.𝐷𝑅
(1−𝐷𝑅)

where  𝐷𝑢𝑛𝑓 

is null (empty) 

Fisheries  without  any  quantitative  discard  information,  i.e.  no  average  DR  could  be  estimated, 
remain without any discard estimation. 

79 
 
  
   
For  2018  in  total  only  21.5%  of  the  landings  (1140432  tonnes  out  of  5303762  tonnes)  had 
associated  discard  information  submitted  (all  areas  combined).  From  these  landings,  444710 
tonnes had zero discards (8.38% of the total landings). Taking into account the substantial issues 
mentioned above, the EWG took the decision to provide the discard information by exemption or 
by species and  area  with  and without  fill-ins. The fill-ins do in  most cases  not  add  a  substantial 
amount  of  discard  information  or  increase  the  coverage  substantially.  This  highlights  again  the 
general issue that for several fisheries under the exemptions only little information was available 
to  provide  discard  information  based  on  observer  programs  because  DCF  national  sampling 
programs have  to provide  information  in  a  much  wider context  and are  not designed  to  provide 
information for each exemption even if a MS has only a small amount of landings under a certain 
exemption.  The  EWG  stresses  again  that  any  EWG  estimates  presented  below  have  to  be  used 
with great care.      

3.  The  EWG  notes  that  given  the  aggregation  level  of  the  data  in  the  FDI  database,  it  was 
impossible  to  filter  the  database  to  the  exact  fishing  tactic  used  in  the  various  exemptions.  For 
example, the mesh size categories specified in the FDI database often do not exactly match those 
defined in a certain exemption. Also area definitions in exemptions were sometimes too detailed 
(e.g., areas up to a certain longitude or latitude) and did not exactly match the aggregation level 
of the FDI database.  

4. The EWG notes that it was sometimes unclear which gear types are under a certain exemption. 
For  example,  a  large  part  of  Nephrops  catches  is  made  with  gear  type  OTT  in  division  3a. 
However, the discard plans only mention OTB and TBN as gear codes in exemptions for Nephrops. 
In  other  exemptions  for  demersal,  OTT  is  mentioned  explicitly  next  to  OTB  and  TBN  suggesting 
that OTT would have been mentioned if catches with OTT are included under a certain exemption. 
Nevertheless, it is open to interpretation whether TBN (Nephrops trawls, an old gear code hardly 
used in current logbooks) may also contain OTT. To avoid speculations the EWG only used gear 
codes  mentioned  explicitly  under  a  certain  exemption  for  filtering  the  database  (i.e.  excluding 
OTT).  

5. The EWG further notes that all shortcomings in data quality and coverage identified under TOR 
1 -3 also apply to TOR 5. 

Extraction procedure 

Information, related to certain excemptions was extracted in following steps: 

1.  All exemptions and their definitions were translated to FDI database codes (see Tables 

3.5.2.1.1-3.5.2.5.1 for the list of FDI codes associated with exemptions); 

2.  The data for each exemption was extracted from FDI database and database with fill-ins 

(created following methodology described above); 
3.  The information was summarided in two main formats: 

a.  Tables with landnigs and discards reported by MS and estimated for the fleets 

under exemptions (Tables see Tables 3.5.2.1.2-3.5.2.5.2) 

b.  Tables with exemptions data aggregated by species and subregions (Annex 3) 

In both sets of tables there are following columns: 

 

‘Total  weight of landings, tonnes ‘ – total landings recorded in FDI database for particular 
excemption or species  

  Discards (with or without fill-inns) – weight of discards reported to FDI (estimated and 

 

reported to FDI in case of fill-ins); 
‘Coverage % of total landings reported’ - percentage of weight of landings for which 
associated discard data had been reported to FDI database.   

In all associated tables: 

  c – data reported as confidential during the data call; 
  n.a. – not available 

80 
 
3.5.2  Discard estimates by exemption – (Result) 

3.5.2.1  Baltic Sea region 

Table 3.5.2.1.1 - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the Baltic Sea region and the related FDI codes. 

Table 3.5.2.1.2 - Landings and discards reported by MS to FDI data call and estimated for the fleets under exemptions proposed 
for 2020 in the Baltic Sea region, based on 2018 data.  

Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Survivability 

2018/211,Art3.1 

Baltic (IIIb-d) 

Salmon 

2018 

DEU 

DNK 

LTU 

POL 

SWE 

LVA 

EST 

FIN 

Total exemption 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 
0.1 

c 

0.3 

0.1 

190.5 

0.4 

3.0 

185.7 

380.1 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with fill-ins 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

9.0 

9.0 

Coverage 
% of 
n.a. 
total 
c 
landings 
reported 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

49% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

8 

0 

n.a. 

9 

17 

Coverage % 
of total 
n.a. 
landings 
c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

97% 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

98% 

Exzmption ArticlaAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeMesh size FDIVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSSurvivability2018/211,Art3.1Baltic (IIIb-d)Yestrap nets-creels/pots-fyske nets-pound netsFPO-FYK-FPNAllAllAllSalmonSAL-2018/306Baltic (IIIb-d)noAllAllAllAllCodCOD35 cmBaltic (IIIb-d), 27.3.d.25-27.3.d.30 and 27.3.d.32noAllAllAllAllSalmonSAL60cmBaltic (IIIb-d), 27.3.d.31noAllAllAllAllSalmonSAL50 cm2018/306Baltic (IIIb-d)noAllAllAllAllPlaicePLE25 cmMCRS2018/211,Art3(2)202081 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.5.2.2  North Sea region 

Table 3.5.2.2.1 - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the North Sea region and the related FDI codes. 

Excemption ArticleAreaDescriptionPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeMesh size FDIVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRS2018/189 Article 3IVb-Ivc (only south of 54!)De minimis exemption for fishing vessels using  pelagic trawlers up to 25 m and mid-water trawls (OTM-PTM) in 4b and 4c south of 54 degrees YesPelagic trawls, midwater trawls (up to 25m)OTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllVL0010-VL1012-VL1218-VL1824AllHerringHER12018/189 Article 3IVb-Ivc (only south of 54!)De minimis exemption for fishing vessels using  pelagic trawlers up to 25 m and mid-water trawls (OTM-PTM) in 4b and 4c south of 54 degrees YesPelagic trawls, midwater trawls (up to 25m)OTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllVL0010-VL1012-VL1218-VL1824AllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZ12018/189 Article 3IVb-Ivc (only south of 54!)De minimis exemption for fishing vessels using  pelagic trawlers up to 25 m and mid-water trawls (OTM-PTM) in 4b and 4c south of 54 degrees YesPelagic trawls, midwater trawls (up to 25m)OTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllVL0010-VL1012-VL1218-VL1824AllMackerelMAC1JR-xx.2019   Art.10.aII-IIIa-IVDe minimis exemption for fishing vessels using  trammel nets and gill nets (GN-GNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTR-GEN-GNF) in 2a, 3a and 4 YesTrammel nets and gill netsGN-GNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTR-GEN-GNFGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAllAllSoleSol3%JR-xx.2019   Art.10.bIVDe minimis exemption for fishing vessels using TBB gear 80-119 mm with Flemish panel in the North SeaYesBeam trawlsTBBTBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllTBBFPSoleSOL5%JR-xx.2019   Art.10.cIIIaFish bycatch caught in Nephrops targeted trawl fisheryYesBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-TBNOTB-OTT-PTB70-8970S90AllGRID35Sole-haddock-whiting-cod-saithe and hake SOL-HAD-WHG-COD-POK-HKE4 % of the total annual catches of Nephrops-common sole-haddock-whiting-Northern prawn-cod-saithe and hakeJR-xx.2019   Art.10.dIIIaFish bycatch caught in Northern prawn trawl fishery with sorting grid-with unblocked fish outlet in ICES area 3aYesBottom trawlsOTB-OTTOTB-OTT>3532D80AllGRID19sole-haddock-whiting-cod-saithe-plaice-herring-Norway pout-greater silver smelt-blue whitingSOL-HAD-WHG-COD-POK-PLE-HER-NOP-ARG-ARU-ARY-WHB5 % of the total annual catches of species under landing obligation (Norway lobster-common sole-haddock-whiting-hake-Northern prawn-cod-saithe-plaice-Norway pout-Argentina spp.-herring and blue whitingJR-xx.2019   Art.10.eIVcWhiting and cod for the vessels using bottom trawls or seines (OTB-OTT-SDN-SSC) of mesh size 70-99mm (TR2) in ICES division 4cYesBottom trawls-demersal seinesOTB-OTT-SDN-SSCOTB-OTT-SDN-SSC70-9932D80-80D100AllWhiting-codWHG-COD5%-maximum of 2% can be used for cod JR-xx.2019   Art.10.fIva-IvbWhiting and cod for the vessels using bottom trawls or seines (OTB-OTT-SDN-SSC) of mesh size 70-99mm (TR2) in ICES division 4cYesBottom trawls-demersal seinesOTB-OTT-SDN-SSCOTB-OTT-SDN-SSC70-10032D80-80D101AllWhiting-codWHG-COD6%-maximum of 2% can be used for cod Deminimis2020 - Part 182 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.2.1 (continued) - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the North Sea region and the related FDI codes. 

Excemption ArticleAreaDescriptionPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeMesh size FDIVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRS90-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllSELTRA>=120120DXXAllJR-xx.2019   Art.10.hIVWhiting caught by beam trawls 80-119 mm in the North Sea ICES area 4YesBeam trawlsTBBTBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllWhitingWHG2% of catches of plaice and soleJR-xx.2019   Art.10.iIVPlaice by-catches in the Nephrops trawl fishery in combination with a technical measure (use of SepNep)YesBottom trawlsOTB-PTBOTB-OTT-PTB80-9980D100AllSEPNEPPlaicePLE3 % of the total annual catches of saithe-plaice-haddock-whiting-cod-Northern prawn-sole and NephropsJR-xx.2019   Art.10.jIVb-IVcBy-catches in the brown shrimp fishery in the North SeaYesBeam trawlsTBBTBB16D32AllAll species subject to catch limitsAll7 % of the total catch for all species subject to catch limitsJR-xx.2019   Art.10.lIVPelagic species under landing obligation for demersal vessels using bottom trawls (OTB-OTT-PTB-TBB) of mesh size 80-99mm (TR2-BT 2) in the North SeaYesBottom trawls-beam trawlsOTB-OTT-PTB-TBBOTB-OTT-PTB-TBB80-9980D100AllMackerelMAC7% of the total annual catches of mackerel JR-xx.2019   Art.10.kIVPelagic species under landing obligation for demersal vessels using bottom trawls (OTB-OTT-PTB-TBB) of mesh size 80-99mm (TR2-BT 2) in the North SeaYesBottom trawls-beam trawlsOTB-OTT-PTB-TBBOTB-OTT-PTB-TBB80-9980D100AllHorse mackerelHOM-JAX-HMG7% of the total annual catches of horse mackerel >8080D100-100D110-110D120-120DXXAll>3532D80AllGRID19JR-xx.2019   Art.10.nIVLing (Molva molva) for vessels using longlines (LLS) in the North Sea (ICES area 4)YesLonglinesLLSLLSAllLingLIN3 % of the total annual catches of ling DeminimisJR-xx.2019   Art.10.gIIIaWhiting caught in bottom trawls 90-119 mm with SELTRA panels an bottom trawls with a mesh size of 120 mm and YesBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-TBN-PTBOTB-OTT-PTB2020 - Part 2WhitingWHG2% of the total annual catches of Nephrops-cod-haddock-whiting-saithe-common sole-JR-xx.2019   Art.10.mIIIa-IVFish bycatch caugt in mixed fishery with trawl (OTB-OTM-OTT-PTB-PTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-TB-TBN) with mesh obove 80 mm and caught in Northern prawn trawl fishery with sorting grid (19mm) or device above 35 mmYesTrawlsOTB-OTM-OTT-PTB-PTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-TB-TBNOTB-OTT-PTB-SDN-SSCsprat-sandeel-Norway pout-blue whitingSPR-SAD-NOP-WHB1 % of the total annual catches made in mixed demersal fishery and fishery for Northern prawn83 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.2.1 (continued) - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the North Sea region and the related FDI codes. 

Excemption ArticleAreaDescriptionPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeMesh size FDIVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSJR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.aCatch of plaice by vessels using nets in ICES areas 3a and 4YesNetsGNS-GTR-GTN-GENGNS-GTR-GTNAllAllAllPlaicePLE-JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.bCatch of plaice by vessels using Danish seine in ICES areas 3a and 4YesDanish seineSDNSDNAllAllPlaicePLE-JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.cCatch and by-catch of plaice by vessels using bottom trawls (OTB-PTB) of mesh sizes ≥ 120 mm in ICES areas 3a and 4YesBottom trawlsOTB-PTBOTB-OTT-PTB>=120120DXXAllPlaicePLE-JR-xx.2019   Art.6.2.aIIIaCatch of plaice with trawls (OTB-PTB) with mesh size 90-99mm with Seltra panel targetting flatfish and roundfish  in ICES areas 3aNoTrawlsOTB-PTBOTB-OTT-PTB90-9980D100AllSELTRAPlaicePLE-JR-xx.2019   Art.6.2.bIVCatch of plaice with trawls (OTB-PTB) with mesh size 80-99mm targetting flatfish and roundfish  in ICES areas 4YesTrawlsOTB-PTBOTB-OTT-PTB80-9980D100AllPlaicePLE-JR-xx.2019   Art.4.1&2IVcSurvival exemption for ‘undersized’ common sole (sole less than MCRS of 24cm) caught by 80-99mm otter trawl gears in ICES area 4c within 6 nautical miles of coasts-albeit outside identified nursery areas; vessellengt max 10 m and max engine power of 221 kw, depth less 30 m and tow duration less then 1:30 hoursNoOtter trawlsOTBOTB80-9980D100VL0010SoleSOL-32D80AllGRID19-70S90AllGRID35-80D100-100D110-110D120-120DXXAllSELTRA-120DXXAll-80D100-100D110-110D120AllNETGRID-JR-xx.2019   Art.3.1.aIIa-IIIa-IVNephrops caught using potsYesPotsFPOFPONANAAllNorway lobsterNEP-JR-xx.2019   Art.9IIa-IIIa-IVskates and rays caught by all fishing gears in the North Sea (areas 4-3a and EU waters of 2a)YesAllAllAllAllAllAllSkates and raysJAD-JDP-RJA-RJB-RJC-RJE-RJF-RJG-RJH-RJI-RJM-RJN-RJO-RJR-RJU-RJY-SKA-TTO-TTR-JR-xx.2019   Art.5IIIa-IVSurvivability of fish by-catches in pots (creels) and fyke netsYesPots and fyke netsFPO-FYKFPO-FYKNANAAllHaddock-whiting-cod-plaice-sole-hake-saitheHAD-WHG-COD-PLE-SOL-HKE-POK-JR-xx.2019   Art.8IVSurvival exemption  for turbot caught by  towed gears with a cod end larger than 80mm in ICES area 4YesTowed gearOTB-PTB-BT2OTB-OTT-PTB-TBB>8080D100-100D110-110D120-120DXXAllTurbotTUR-JR-xx.2019   Art.7.1.aIIa-IVSurvival exemption for plaice below MCRS caught by 80-119mm beamtrawl gears (BT2) in ICES area 2a and 4 with flip-up rope or Benthos release panel (BRP) - engine >221 kWNoBeam trawlsTBBTBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllPlaicePLE-JR-xx.2019   Art.7.1.bIIa-IVSurvival exemption for plaice below MCRS caught by 80-119mm beamtrawl gears (BT2) in ICES area 2a and 4 implementing the roadmap for the Fully Documented FisheriesNoBeam trawlsTBBTBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllPlaicePLE-JR-xx.2019   Art.7.2IIa-IVSurvival exemption for plaice below MCRS caught by 80-119mm beamtrawl gears (BT2) in ICES area 2a and 4 with engine <221 kW or less then 24m in twelve miles zone and tow duration less than ninety min.NoBeam trawlsTBBTBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllPlaicePLE-2020 - Part 3Norway lobsterNEPJR-xx.2019   Art.3.1.bII-IIIa-IVNephrops caught by demersal trawls with a cod end larger than 80mm (70mm/35mm)YesBottom trawlsSurvivabilityIIIa-IVOTB-OTT-PTBOTB-OTT-PTB>8084 
 
 
Table 1.5.2.2.2 - Landings and discards reported by MS to FDI data call and estimated for the fleets under exemptions proposed for 2020 in 
the North Sea region, based on 2018 data. 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Total  
weight 
of 
landings
, tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Herring 

Herring 

2018  DNK 

2018  ENG 

839.8 

15.3 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Deminimis 

2018/189 
Article 3 

IVb-IVc (only 
south of 54!) 

Horse 
Mackerel 

2018  DNK 

8.5 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Total 
herring 

855.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Total  horse 
mackerel 

Mackerel 

2018  DNK 

Total 
mackerel 

2018  SWE 

8.5 

45.7 

45.7 

1.9 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

73.7 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

1% 

n.a. 

0.0 

1% 

100% 

73.7 

100% 

Deminimis 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.10.d 

IIIa 

sole-
haddock-
whiting-cod-
saithe-plaice-
herring-
Norway  pout-
greater  silver 
smelt-blue 
whiting 

Deminimis 

JR-xx.2019   

IIIa-IV 

sprat-

2018  DNK 

20.3 

8.8 

100% 

8.8 

100% 

Total 
exemption 

1.9 

73.7 

100% 

73.7 

100% 

85 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 
Art.10.m 

Area 

Deminimis 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.10.c 

IIIa 

Deminimis 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.10.b 

IV 

Deminimis 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.10.g 

IIIa 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight 
of 
landings
, tonnes 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.3 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

n.a. 

n.a. 

12.3 

56.2 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

n.a. 

n.a. 

92% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

12.3 

56.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

92% 

20.6 

77.2 

100% 

77.2 

100% 

Year 

Country 

2018  ENG 

2018  FRA 

2018  SWE 

2018  SWE 

Total 
exemption 

2018  SWE 

2.6 

40.7 

100% 

40.7 

100% 

Total 
exemption 

2.6 

40.7 

100% 

40.7 

100% 

Species 
sandeel-
Norway pout-
blue whiting 

Sole-
haddock-
whiting-cod-
saithe 
hake  

and 

Sole 

Sole 

2018  BEL 

2018  NLD 

268.2 

41.9 

100% 

41.9 

100% 

2,713.2 

421.7 

100% 

421.7 

100% 

Total 
exemption 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

2018  DNK 

2018  SWE 

2018  DEU 

2018  DNK 

2018  SWE 

2,981.4 

463.6 

100% 

463.6 

100% 

123.4 

1,030.1 

98% 

1,263.7 

100% 

22.3 

0.3 

15.7 

6.6 

80.2 

n.a. 

5.3 

8.4 

100% 

80.2 

100% 

21% 

100% 

100% 

0.0 

5.3 

8.4 

100% 

100% 

100% 

86 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight 
of 
landings
, tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

Total exemption  168.2 

1123.9 

100% 

1357.6 

100% 

Deminimis 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.10.n 

IV 

Deminimis 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.10.f 

IVa-IVb 

Ling 

Ling 

Ling 

Ling 

Ling 

2018  DNK 

2018  ENG 

2018  FRA 

2018  SCO 

2018  SWE 

c 

143.8 

359.1 

311.9 

0.0 

Total exemption 

815.1 

Whiting-cod 

2018  BEL 

Whiting-cod 

2018  DEU 

Whiting-cod 

2018  DNK 

Whiting-cod 

2018  ENG 

Whiting-cod 

2018  FRA 

Whiting-cod 

2018  NIR 

Whiting-cod 

2018  NLD 

Whiting-cod 

2018  SCO 

Whiting-cod 

2018  SWE 

37.6 

32.2 

7.0 

250.2 

143.4 

0.9 

130.7 

187.1 

8.0 

c 

n.a. 

34.4 

n.a. 

n.a. 

34.4 

n.a. 

8.3 

n.a. 

341.4 

502.8 

n.a. 

84.5 

2,473.2 

n.a. 

Deminimis 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.10.k 

Total exemption 

797.0 

3,410.3 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  BEL 

IV 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  DEU 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  ENG 

0.1 

0.0 

0.4 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

58% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

25% 

n.a. 

26% 

46% 

76% 

67% 

n.a. 

0% 

67% 

n.a. 

53% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

34.4 

n.a. 

n.a. 

34.4 

112.5 

147.5 

0.0 

341.4 

503.2 

2.3 

111.2 

2,473.2 

n.a. 

3,691.3 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

58% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

25% 

39% 

41% 

53% 

100% 

79% 

100% 

10% 

99% 

n.a. 

75% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

87 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  FRA 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  NLD 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  SCO 

Total exemption 

Deminimis 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.10.l 

IV 

Deminimis 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.10.h 

IV 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

2018  BEL 

2018  DEU 

2018  DNK 

2018  ENG 

2018  FRA 

2018  NLD 

2018  SCO 

2018  BEL 

2018  DEU 

2018  ENG 

2018  FRA 

2018  NLD 

2018  SCO 

Total exemption 

587.0 

Deminimis 

JR-xx.2019   

IVc 

Whiting-cod 

2018  BEL 

16.9 

n.a. 

Total exemption 

366.4 

1,871.5 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight 
of 
landings
, tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

50.3 

45.4 

0.7 

97.0 

0.4 

0.7 

c 

6.8 

549.4 

26.1 

3.7 

13.3 

9.8 

8.2 

0.1 

1.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 

1.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

1.8 

n.a. 

23.5 

25.3 

41.8 

262.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

21% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

11% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

n.a. 

63% 

0% 

100% 

99% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

1.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 

1.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

9.2 

1.8 

n.a. 

23.5 

34.5 

41.8 

262.1 

n.a. 

6.1 

335.0 

1,567.6 

100% 

1,567.6 

0.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

98% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

1,877.6 

n.a. 

37% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

19% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

21% 

7% 

n.a. 

100% 

7% 

100% 

99% 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

98% 

n.a. 

88 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 
Art.10.e 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Whiting-cod 

2018  ENG 

Whiting-cod 

2018  FRA 

Whiting-cod 

2018  NLD 

Whiting-cod 

2018  SCO 

Total  
weight 
of 
landings
, tonnes 

25.9 

709.7 

180.8 

7.7 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

n.a. 

115.0 

96.4 

65.7 

Deminimis 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.10.a 

II-IIIa-IV 

Survivability 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.3.1.b 

II-IIIa-IV 

Total exemption 

941.0 

277.1 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

2018  BEL 

2018  DEU 

2018  DNK 

2018  ENG 

2018  FRA 

2018  NLD 

2018  SCO 

2018  SWE 

44.3 

84.4 

422.4 

54.4 

431.8 

62.0 

0.0 

8.5 

Total exemption 

1,107.8 

Norway lobster 

2018  DNK 

Norway lobster 

2018  ENG 

Norway lobster 

2018  NIR 

Norway lobster 

2018  NLD 

Norway lobster 

2018  SCO 

Norway lobster 

2018  SWE 

132.2 

15.8 

1.2 

c 

520.9 

8.7 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

2.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2.1 

1.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

22.1 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

n.a. 

11% 

0% 

58% 

9% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

17% 

21% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

7% 

97% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

94.2 

115.0 

99.6 

65.7 

374.4 

n.a. 

- 

0.0 

2.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

2.1 

1.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

41% 

52% 

2% 

100% 

41% 

n.a. 

0% 

17% 

22% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

7% 

97% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

22.1 

100% 

89 
 
  
  
  
  
Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Norway lobster 

2018  SWE 

Norway lobster 

2018  SWE 

Norway lobster 

2018  DNK 

Norway lobster 

2018  SWE 

Total  
weight 
of 
landings
, tonnes 

6.3 

804.4 

4,523.4 

719.8 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

4.3 

352.0 

641.8 

195.5 

Total exemption 

6,732.8 

1,216.8 

Survivability 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.3.1.a 

IIa-IIIa-IV 

Survivability 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.6.1.a 

IIIa-IV 

Norway lobster 

2018  ENG 

Norway lobster 

2018  SCO 

Norway lobster 

2018  SWE 

Total exemption 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

2018  BEL 

2018  DEU 

2018  DNK 

2018  ENG 

2018  FRA 

2018  NLD 

2018  SCO 

2018  SWE 

14.6 

18.1 

323.4 

356.2 

7.4 

13.9 

4,010.5 

7.0 

39.8 

1.3 

0.2 

19.5 

Survivability 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.9 

IIa-IIIa-IV 

Skates and rays 

2018  BEL 

Skates and rays 

2018  DEU 

212.2 

45.1 

Total exemption 

4,099.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 

19.8 

19.8 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2.4 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2.4 

n.a. 

50.9 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

92% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

91% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

45% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

44% 

n.a. 

40% 

4.3 

352.0 

642.4 

195.5 

1,217.4 

n.a. 

n.a. 

19.8 

19.8 

n.a. 

0.0 

2.4 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

2.4 

130.2 

52.4 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

92% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

91% 

n.a. 

3% 

45% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

8% 

44% 

3% 

40% 

90 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight 
of 
landings
, tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

Skates and rays 

2018  DNK 

Skates and rays 

2018  ENG 

Skates and rays 

2018  FRA 

Skates and rays 

2018  NIR 

Skates and rays 

2018  NLD 

Skates and rays 

2018  SCO 

Skates and rays 

2018  SWE 

211.5 

357.6 

37.1 

0.1 

383.2 

453.1 

0.1 

12.8 

28.3 

47.7 

n.a. 

969.9 

n.a. 

111.7 

Total exemption 

1,700.0 

1,221.4 

95% 

6% 

23% 

n.a. 

70% 

n.a. 

82% 

30% 

19.0 

28.3 

48.4 

n.a. 

970.5 

n.a. 

111.7 

1,360.6 

95% 

6% 

24% 

n.a. 

70% 

n.a. 

82% 

31% 

Haddock-
whiting-cod-
plaice-sole-hake-
saithe 

Haddock-
whiting-cod-
plaice-sole-hake-
saithe 

Haddock-
whiting-cod-
plaice-sole-hake-
saithe 

Haddock-
whiting-cod-
plaice-sole-hake-
saithe 

2018  ENG 

33.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2018  FRA 

0.3 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2018  SCO 

7.7 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2018  SWE 

1.5 

14.5 

97% 

14.6 

100% 

Survivability 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.5 

IIIa-IV 

91 
 
  
  
Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Total exemption 

Survivability 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.6.1.b 

IIIa-IV 

Survivability 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.6.1.c 

IIIa-IV 

Survivability 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.8 

IV 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Turbot 

Turbot 

Turbot 

Turbot 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight 
of 
landings
, tonnes 

42.4 

9.9 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

14.5 

n.a. 

1,735.1 

293.0 

4.9 

52.2 

18.2 

n.a. 

2.1 

1.1 

2018  DEU 

2018  DNK 

2018  FRA 

2018  SCO 

2018  SWE 

Total exemption 

1,820.3 

296.2 

2018  BEL 

2018  DEU 

2018  DNK 

2018  ENG 

2018  NIR 

2018  NLD 

2018  SCO 

2018  SWE 

c 

19.5 

4,990.7 

419.4 

0.1 

927.5 

1,422.2 

26.7 

c 

1.8 

69.1 

8.4 

n.a. 

n.a. 

57.6 

11.5 

Total exemption 

7,825.3 

148.4 

2018  BEL 

2018  DEU 

2018  DNK 

2018  ENG 

260.7 

298.4 

162.8 

231.5 

18.8 

30.1 

0.3 

n.a. 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

3% 

n.a. 

88% 

n.a. 

100% 

98% 

88% 

c. 

88% 

100% 

0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

99% 

93% 

82% 

39% 

53% 

70% 

n.a. 

14.6 

n.a. 

294.2 

n.a. 

2.1 

1.1 

297.4 

c 

1.9 

69.3 

25.4 

0.0 

n.a. 

57.7 

11.5 

165.8 

19.9 

30.2 

0.3 

14.4 

4% 

n.a. 

89% 

n.a. 

100% 

98% 

88% 

c 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

88% 

46% 

53% 

71% 

26% 

92 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Turbot 

Turbot 

Turbot 

Turbot 

Turbot 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Survivability 

JR-xx.2019   
Art.6.2.b 

IV 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight 
of 
landings
, tonnes 

10.8 

0.3 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

0.0 

n.a. 

1,846.4 

197.8 

129.3 

0.9 

1.8 

n.a. 

2018  FRA 

2018  NIR 

2018  NLD 

2018  SCO 

2018  SWE 

Total exemption 

2,941.1 

248.7 

2018  BEL 

2018  DEU 

2018  DNK 

2018  ENG 

2018  FRA 

2018  NIR 

2018  NLD 

2018  SCO 

668.8 

742.2 

126.3 

90.1 

64.9 

0.4 

780.2 

23.9 

n.a. 

227.1 

n.a. 

95.6 

15.2 

n.a. 

1,752.9 

272.9 

Total exemption 

2,496.8 

2,363.7 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

1% 

n.a. 

5% 

75% 

n.a. 

19% 

n.a. 

9% 

n.a. 

59% 

2% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

51% 

5% 

0.0 

0.3 

219.9 

1.8 

0.0 

286.8 

831.1 

250.7 

12.6 

114.4 

21.6 

2.3 

1,815.2 

273.3 

3,321.2 

5% 

100% 

88% 

78% 

100% 

74% 

60% 

36% 

11% 

77% 

25% 

100% 

51% 

100% 

48% 

93 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
3.5.2.3  North Western Waters 

Table 3.5.2.3.1 - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the North Western Waters and the related FDI codes. 

Exemption Article AreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeLegislation mesh size Mesh size regulationVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRS190/2018 Article 3a.aVb-VI-VIIyespelagic trawlsOTM-PTMAllAllAllAllBlue whitingWHB190/2018 Article 3a.bVIIyesmidwater pair trawlPTMPTMAllAllAllAllAlbacore tunaALB190/2018 Article 3a.cyesMackerelMAC190/2018 Article 3a.cyesHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZ190/2018 Article 3a.cyesHerringHER190/2018 Article 3a.cyesWhitingWHGyesBottom trawls , SeinesOTB-OTT-OT-PTB-PT-SSC-SDN-SPR-SX-SV-TBN-TBS-TB-TXOTB-OTT-PTB-SDN-SPR-SSC-SV<8080D100-100D110-110D120 -120DXXAllAllWhitingWHG5yesPelagic trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllAllAllWhitingWHG5yesBeam trawlBT2TBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllAllWhitingWHG5XX/2019 Article 8.byesTrammel and gill netsGN-GNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTR-GEN-GNFGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAllAllAllSoleSOL3XX/2019 Article 8.cyesBeam trawlTBBTBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllTBBFPSoleSOL3XX/2019 Article 8.dVIIb-c and VIIe-kyesBottom trawls , Seines, beam trawlsOTB-OTT-OT-PTB-PT-SSC-SDN-SPR-SX-SV-TBB-TBN-TBS-TB-TXOTB-OTT-PTB-SDN-SPR-SSC-SV-TBB>8080D100-100D110-110D120AllAllHaddockHAD5XX/2019 Article 8.eyesBottom trawls , Seines, beam trawlsOTB-OTT-OT-PTB-PT-SSC-SDN-SPR-SX-SV-TBB-TBN-TBS-TB-TXOTB-OTT-PTB-SDN-SPR-SSC-SV-TBBAllAllAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZ7XX/2019 Article 8.fyesBottom trawls , Seines, beam trawlsOTB-OTT-PTB-SDN-SPR-SSC-SV-TBBAllAllAllAllMakerelMAC7XX/2019 Article 8.gVIIa-VIIj-VIIkyesBeam trawlBT2TBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllTBBFPSoleSOL3DeminimisVIId-VIIe-VIIf-VIIg2020 - part 15VIIdPelagic trawls, midwater trawls (up to 25m)OTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllVL0010-VL1012-VL1218-VL1824All1XX/2019 Article 8.aVIIdVI and VIIb-k94 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.3.1 (Continued) - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the North Western Waters and the related FDI codes. 

Exemption Article AreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeLegislation mesh size Mesh size regulationVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSyesBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-PTB70-9980D100-70D80AllAllMegrimMEG-LDB-LEZ5yesBeam trawlBT2TBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllAllMegrimMEG-LDB-LEZ5Exemption Article AreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeLegislation mesh size Mesh size regulationVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSXX/2019 Article 8.iVIIb-c and VIIf-kyesBottom trawlsOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTB-OTT-PTBAllAllAllAllBoarfishBOR-BOC-ZAC-ZAI-EVI-PZH-RIG-SWH-ENV-EMV-ZAL0.5XX/2019 Article 8.jVb-VIyesBottom trawlsOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTB-OTT-PTB>100100D110, 110D120, 120DXXAllAllGreat silver smeltARG-ARU-ARY0.6XX/2019 Article 8.kVIayesBottom trawlsOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTB-OTT-PTB<11932D70 - 70D80 - 80D100-100D110-110D120AllAllHaddockHAD3PlaicePLE0.85WhitingWHG0.15DeminimisXX/2019 Article 8.hVIIXX/2019 Article 8.lVIIa2020 - part 2Combined species below MCRSBeam trawlTBBTBB>3132D80noAll95 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.3.1 (Continued) - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the North Western Waters and the related FDI codes. 

Exemption Article AreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeLegislation mesh size Mesh size regulationVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRS1393/2014 Artile 2 noPSAllAllAllAllMakerelMAC-1393/2014 Artile 2 noPSAllAllAllAllHerringHER-190/2018 Article 2noLAAllAllAllAllMakerelMAC-190/2018 Article 2noLAAllAllAllAllHerringHER-XX/2019 Article 3.1.aVI-VIIYesPots,traps,creelFPO-FIX-FYKFPO-FPN-FYKAllAllAllAllNorway LobsterNEP-XX/2019 Article 3.1.b>100100D110, 110D120, 120DXXAllAllNorway LobsterNEP-XX/2019 Article 3.1.c70-9980D100-70D80AllSELTRA-GRID35 Norway LobsterNEP-XX/2019 Article 3.1.dVIa - within 12 NMnoOtter trawlsOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTT-OTB-OTM80-11080D100,110D120AllAllNorway LobsterNEP-XX/2019 Article 4.1.a,bVIIdnoOtter trawls, max power 221kW, depth 30m, duration 1:30 hOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTT-OTB-OTM80-9980D100VL0010AllSoleSOL-XX/2019 Article 5VI-VIIYesAllAllAllAllAllAllSkates & raysSRX-JAD-JDP-RJA-RJB-RJC-RJE-RJF-RJG-RJH-RJI-RJM-RJN-RJO-RJR-RJU-RJY-SKA-TTO-TTR-XX/2019 Article 6.1.aYesTrammel netsGTR-GTN-GEN-GNGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAllAllAllPlaicePLE-XX/2019 Article 6.1.bYesOtter trawlsOTT,OTB,TBS,TBN,TB,PTB,OT,PT,TXOTT-OTB-OTMAllAllAllAllPlaicePLE-XX/2019 Article 6.1.cVIIa-VIIknoBeam trawl, max power 221 kW, flip-up or bentic panelTBBTBBAllAllAllSELTRA-GRID35PlaicePLE-XX/2019 Article 6.1.dVIIa-VIIknoBeam trawl, max power 221 kW, or max 24m, within 12 nm, duration 1:30 hTBBTBBAllAllAllAllPlaicePLE-XX/2019 Article 6.1.eVIIdYesDanish seinesSDNSDNAllAllAllAllPlaicePLE-XX/2019 Article 7V (excl Va)-Vb-VI-VIInoPots,traps,creelFPO-FIX-FYKFPO-FPNAllAllAllAllAll--Survivability2020 - part 3VIpelagic purse seinesVIIe - VIIfring net fishery targeting pelagicVIIYesBottom trawlsOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTB-OTT-PTBVIId,VIIe,VIIf and VIIg 96 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.3.2 - Landings and discards reported by MS to FDI data call and estimated for the fleets under exemptions proposed for 2020 in 
the North Western Waters, based on 2018 data.   

Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

Blue whiting 

2018  DEU 

35,318.7 

Blue whiting 

2018  DNK 

87,258.7 

Blue whiting 

2018  ENG 

1,857.0 

Blue whiting 

2018  ESP 

735.9 

Deminimis 

190/2018 
Article 3a.a 

Vb-VI-VII 

Blue whiting 

2018  NIR 

Blue whiting 

2018  FRA 

Blue whiting 

2018  IRL 

Blue whiting 

2018  NLD 

15,736.9 

49,903.1 

4,508.5 

112,312.
5 

Blue whiting 

2018  POL 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

Blue whiting 

2018  SCO 

60,420.3 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

Deminimis 

190/2018 
Article 3a.b 

VII 

Total 
exemptio
n 

380,014.
3 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Albacore tuna 

2018  FRA 

Albacore tuna 

2018  IRL 

2,108.0 

919.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Total 
exemptio
n 

3,027.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

97 
 
  
  
  
  
Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

2018  FRA 

445.2 

Deminimis 

190/2018 
Article 3a.c 

VIId 

Deminimis 

XX/2019 Article 
8.b 

VIId-VIIe-VIIf-
VIIg 

Deminimis 

XX/2019 Article 
8.a 

VIId 

VIId 

Mackerel 

Horse 
Mackerel 

Herring 

Whiting 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

2018  FRA 

2018  FRA 

2018  FRA 

2018  ENG 

2018  FRA 

2018 

IRL 

Total 
exemption 

2018  BEL 

2018  ENG 

2018  FRA 

2018  NIR 

2018  NLD 

2018  SCO 

0.4 

1.6 

0.0 

n.a. 

9.6 

20.1 

c 

29.7 

n.a. 

26.9 

25.9 

4.5 

16.7 

353.6 

735.8 

c 

1,089.4 

94.1 

237.5 

2,413.1 

3,882.5 

0.0 

460.6 

39.9 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

89% 

68% 

1% 

n.a. 

76% 

92% 

c 

87% 

n.a. 

12% 

75% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.4 

1.6 

0.0 

n.a. 

9.6 

20.1 

c 

29.7 

0.9 

26.9 

3,882.5 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

89% 

68% 

96% 

n.a. 

76% 

92% 

c 

87% 

1% 

12% 

75% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Sub Total 

3,245.2 

3,909.4 

56% 

3,910.3 

56% 

2018  FRA 

2018  NLD 

Sub Total  

153.8 

c 

c 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

98 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

VIId 

Deminimis 

XX/2019 Article 
8.i 

VIIb-c and VIIf-k 

Deminimis 

XX/2019 Article 
8.j 

Vb-VI 

Deminimis 

XX/2019 Article 
8.h 

VII 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Boarfish 

Boarfish 

2018  BEL 

2018  ENG 

2018  FRA 

Sub Total 

2018  ESP 

2018 

IRL 

Total 
exemption 

Great silver smelt 

2018  SCO 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Total 
exemption 

2018  BEL 

2018  ENG 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

IRL 

2018  NIR 

2018  SCO 

43.6 

0.1 

0.9 

44.6 

0.0 

c 

0.5 

0.2 

0.2 

21.7 

251.0 

835.3 

1,270.5 

474.7 

3.4 

0.0 

Sub Total 

2,856.6 

137.2 

100% 

137.2 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

137.2 

178.2 

c 

178.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2.7 

n.a. 

n.a. 

3.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

98% 

n.a. 

n.c5. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

137.2 

178.2 

n.a. 

178.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2.7 

- 

n.a. 

3.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

98% 

n.a. 

n.c. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2% 

0% 

n.a. 

0% 

5 Discards with 0 landings 

99 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                 
Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Haddock 

Haddock 

Haddock 

Haddock 

Haddock 

Haddock 

Haddock 

Sole 

Sole 

Deminimis 

XX/2019 Article 
8.d 

VIIb-c and VIIe-k 

Deminimis 

XX/2019 Article 
8.g 

VIIa-VIIj-VIIk 

Deminimis 

XX/2019 Article 
8.c 

VIId-VIIe-VIIf-
VIIg 

2018  BEL 

2018  ENG 

2018 

IRL 

310.8 

568.2 

532.9 

Sub Total 

1,411.9 

2018  BEL 

2018  ENG 

2018  FRA 

2018 

IRL 

2018  NIR 

2018  NLD 

2018  SCO 

Total 
exemption 

2018  BEL 

Total 
exemption 

62.7 

96.8 

n.a. 

159.5 

515.0 

1,072.4 

10,104.0 

52.3 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

62% 

83% 

91% 

62% 

7% 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

62.7 

96.8 

n.a. 

159.5 

515.0 

1,072.4 

10,195.9 

52.3 

50.6 

c 

6.0 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

62% 

83% 

91% 

65% 

33% 

35% 

c 

1% 

88.7 

296.2 

4,310.7 

1,178.4 

73.6 

c 

78.4 

6,026.1 

11,743.7 

51% 

11,892.2 

59% 

18.0 

18.0 

0.5 

0.5 

74% 

74% 

0.5 

0.5 

74% 

74% 

2018  BEL 

1,285.6 

155.5 

100% 

155.5 

100% 

Total 
exemption 

1,285.6 

155.5 

100% 

155.5 

100% 

Deminimis 

XX/2019 Article 
8.e 

VI and VIIb-k 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  BEL 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  ENG 

37.7 

62.1 

n.a. 

28.3 

n.a. 

8% 

n.a. 

28.3 

n.a. 

8% 

100 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  ESP 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  FRA 

Horse Mackerel 

2018 

IRL 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  NIR 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  NLD 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  SCO 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Haddock 

Haddock 

Deminimis 

XX/2019 Article 
8.f 

VI and VIIb-k 

Deminimis 

XX/2019 Article 
8.k 

VIa 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

0.4 

428.7 

3.9 

0.2 

273.5 

19.5 

826.0 

57.6 

99.7 

- 

2,974.6 

0.3 

47.1 

0.1 

398.9 

1,830.1 

450.8 

322.2 

33.8 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

835.2 

n.a. 

37.4 

279.0 

31.1 

n.a. 

7.9 

n.a. 

n.a. 

88.7 

0% 

35% 

0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

19% 

n.a. 

6% 

0% 

26% 

n.a. 

0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

450.8 

322.2 

33.8 

1.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

836.3 

n.a. 

37.4 

279.0 

31.1 

1.8 

7.9 

n.a. 

n.a. 

90.6 

0% 

74% 

0% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

39% 

n.a. 

6% 

#DIV/0! 

89% 

100% 

0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

Total 
exemption 

2018  BEL 

2018  ENG 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  GBJ 

2018 

IRL 

2018  NIR 

2018  NLD 

2018  SCO 

Total 
exemption 

5,408.4 

444.1 

15% 

447.8 

49% 

2018  ENG 

2018  ESP 

1.5 

27.5 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

16.3 

0.5 

100% 

31% 

101 
 
  
  
  
  
Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Haddock 

Haddock 

Haddock 

Haddock 

2018  FRA 

2018 

IRL 

2018  NIR 

2018  SCO 

Total 
exemption 

Norway lobster 

2018  ENG 

Norway lobster 

2018 

IRL 

Norway lobster 

2018  NIR 

Norway lobster 

2018  SCO 

Survivability 

XX/2019 Article 
3.1.a 

VI-VII 

Survivability 

XX/2019 Article 
6.1.a 

VIId-VIIe-VIIf-
VIIg 

Survivability 

XX/2019 Article 
6.1.b 

VIId-VIIe-VIIf-
VIIg 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Total 
exemption 

2018  ENG 

2018  FRA 

2018 

IRL 

Total 
exemption 

2018  BEL 

2018  ENG 

2018  FRA 

2018  GBG 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

17.4 

359.1 

26.9 

102.2 

534.5 

0.2 

c 

10.4 

1,316.5 

1,327.1 

266.1 

254.7 

c 

520.8 

20.1 

716.3 

0.2 

12.9 

n.a. 

776.2 

789.3 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

155.8 

337.0 

c 

493.0 

n.a. 

346.8 

1,915.3 

4,717.6 

0.0 

n.a. 

0% 

4% 

n.a. 

58% 

14% 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

75% 

96% 

c 

85% 

n.a. 

99% 

89% 

n.a. 

0.2 

19.9 

50.1 

777.5 

95% 

85% 

88% 

98% 

864.5 

85% 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

155.8 

337.0 

c 

493.0 

0.9 

346.8 

4,717.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

75% 

96% 

c 

85% 

1% 

99% 

89% 

n.a. 

102 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

2018  GBJ 

2018 

IRL 

2018  NIR 

2018  SCO 

Total 
exemption 

Plaice 

2018  FRA 

Total 
exemption 

Norway lobster 

2018  ENG 

Norway lobster 

2018  ESP 

Norway lobster 

2018  FRA 

Norway lobster 

2018 

IRL 

Norway lobster 

2018  NIR 

Norway lobster 

2018  SCO 

Total 
exemption 

Skates & rays 

2018  BEL 

Skates & rays 

2018  DEU 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

0.5 

38.0 

2.5 

7.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.2 

3.3 

0.7 

1.9 

84% 

33% 

72% 

72% 

2,700.4 

5,064.4 

89% 

5,071.5 

90% 

42.4 

42.4 

3.4 

123.2 

273.0 

2,474.8 

231.3 

594.6 

3,700.4 

928.7 

0.5 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2.8 

2.5 

52.7 

n.a. 

n.a. 

57.9 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

7% 

21% 

11% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

9% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

26% 

20% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.1 

16.9 

2.6 

62.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

81.7 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2,790.5 

146.4 

n.a. 

n.a. 

15% 

37% 

21% 

24% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

19% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

28% 

20% 

Skates & rays 

2018  ENG 

1,917.2 

2,777.7 

Skates & rays 

2018  ESP 

557.0 

146.3 

Survivability 

XX/2019 Article 
6.1.e 

VIId 

Survivability 

XX/2019 Article 
3.1.b 

VII 

Survivability 

XX/2019 Article 
5 

VI-VII 

103 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Type of 
exemptio
n 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight
, 
tonnes 

Coverag
e % of 
total 
landings 

Skates & rays 

2018  FRA 

4,840.8 

1,682.4 

60% 

1,682.4 

60% 

Skates & rays 

2018  GBG 

Skates & rays 

2018  GBJ 

Skates & rays 

2018 

IRL 

Skates & rays 

2018  NIR 

Skates & rays 

2018  NLD 

Skates & rays 

2018  SCO 

41.3 

47.8 

8.5 

92.0 

25.6 

401.4 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

6.6 

78.2 

0.2 

52.9 

n.a. 

43.7 

0% 

3% 

0% 

3% 

n.a. 

3% 

Total 
exemption 

8,860.8 

4,606.6 

40% 

4,800.9 

40% 

104 
 
  
  
 
 
3.5.2.4  South Western Waters 

Table 3.5.2.4.1 - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the South Western Waters and the related FDI codes. 

Excemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeMesh size FDIVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRS2018/188 Article 3.ayesIndustrial pelagic trawl fisheryOTMOTM-PTMAllAllAllAllBlue whitingWHB2018/188 Article 3.byesMidwater pair trawlPTMPTMAllAllAllAllAlbacore tunaALB2018/188 Article 3.cyesOTMOTMAllAllAllAllAnchovyANE2018/188 Article 3.cyesOTMOTMAllAllAllAllMackerelMAC2018/188 Article 3.cyesOTMOTMAllAllAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZ2018/188 Article 3.dyesPSPSAllAllAllAllAnchovyANE12018/188 Article 3.dyesPSPSAllAllAllAllMackerelMAC2018/188 Article 3.dyesPSPSAllAllAllAllHorse mackerel and jack mackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZDA XX/2019 Article 6.1.aVIII-IXyesTrawls and seinesOTT-OTB-PTB-OT-PT-TBN-TBS-TX-SSC-SPR-TB-SDN-SX-SVOTT-OTB-PTB-OTM-PTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-SVAllAllAllAllHakeHKE5DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.byesBeam and bottom trawlsTBB-OTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TB-OT-PT-TXTBB-OTB-OTT-PTBAllAllAllAll5DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.cyesTrammel and gill netsGNS-GN-GND-GNC-GTN-GTR-GENGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAll3DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.dXyesHooks and linesLHM-LHP-LLD-LLSLHM-LHP-LLD-LLSAllAllAllAllAlfonsinosALF-BRX5DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.eVIII-IXyesBeam trawls, bottom trawls and seinesOTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TX-SSC-SPR-SDN-SX-SVTBB-OTT-OTB-PTB-OTM-PTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-SVAllAllAllAll7DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.fVIII-IX-X-CECAF 34.1.1-34.1.2-34.2.0yesGillnetsGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAll3DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.gVIII-IXyesBeam trawls, bottom trawls and seinesOTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TX-SSC-SPR-SDN-SX-SVTBB-OTT-OTB-PTB-OTM-PTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-SVAllAllAllAllMackerelMAC7DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.hVIII-IX-CECAF 34.1.1-34.1.2-34.2.0yesGillnetsGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAllMackerelMAC32020 part 1VIII5Pelagic trawls (midwater trawls)4VIII-IX-X-CECAF 34.1.1-34.1.2-34.2.0Purse seines4VIIIa-VIIIbDeminimisSoleSOLHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZ105 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.4.1 (Continued) - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the South Western Waters and the related FDI codes. 

Excemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeMesh size FDIVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSDA XX/2019 Article 6.1.iyesBeam trawls, bottom trawls and seinesOTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TX-SSC-SPR-SDN-SX-SVTBB-OTT-OTB-PTB-OTM-PTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-SVAllAllAllAll5DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.jyesGillnetsGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAll4DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.kyesBeam trawls, bottom trawls and seinesOTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TX-SSC-SPR-SDN-SX-SVTBB-OTT-OTB-PTB-OTM-PTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-SVAllAllAllAll5DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.lyesGillnetsGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAll3DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.myesBeam trawls, bottom trawls and seinesOTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TX-SSC-SPR-SDN-SX-SVTBB-OTT-OTB-PTB-OTM-PTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-SVAllAllAllAll5DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.nyesGillnetsGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAll4DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.oyesBeam trawls, bottom trawls and seinesOTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TX-SSC-SPR-SDN-SX-SVTBB-OTT-OTB-PTB-OTM-PTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-SVAllAllAllAll5DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.pyesGillnetsGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAll4DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.qyesBeam trawls, bottom trawls and seinesOTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TX-SSC-SPR-SDN-SX-SVTBB-OTT-OTB-PTB-OTM-PTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-SVAllAllAllAll5DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.ryesGillnetsGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAll22018/188 Article 2no-SBAllAllAllAllAnchovyANE-2018/188 Article 2no-SBAllAllAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZ-2018/188 Article 2no-SBAllAllAllAllJack MackerelJAA-2018/188 Article 2no-SBAllAllAllAllMackerelMAC-DA XX/2019 Article 3VIII-IXyesBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TXOTB-OTT-PTB-OTM-PTM-TBBAllAllAllAllNorway LobsterNEPAllDA XX/2019 Article 4.1VIII-IXyesAll-AllAllAllAllAllSkates & raysSRX-JAD-JDP-RJA-RJB-RJC-RJE-RJF-RJG-RJH-RJI-RJM-RJN-RJO-RJR-RJU-RJY-SKA-TTO-TTRAllVIII-IXyesTrammel nets-GNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAllCukoo rayRJNAllVIIIyesBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-PTB-OTM-PTM-TBBAllAllAllAllCukoo rayRJNAllIXanoArtisanal gear voracera-SBAllAllAllAllRed seabreamSBRAllVIII-IXa-XyesHooks and linesLHM-LHP-LLD-LLSLHM-LHP-LLD-LLS-LTLAllAllAllAllRed seabreamSBRAllDeminimisSurvivabilityVIII-IXMegrimMEG-LDB-LEZPlaicePLEAnglerfish2020 part 2VIII-IX-X-CECAF 34.1.1-34.1.2-34.2.0Artisanal purse seineDA XX/2019 Article 4.4DA XX/2019 Article 4.5MON-ANK-ANG-MVA-MVO-MVJ-MVN-MNZ-LHS-LHU-KZZ-IDZ-IVV-ANFVIIIWhitingWHGVIII-IXPollackPOL106 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.4.2 - Landings and discards reported by MS to FDI data call and estimated for the fleets under exemptions proposed for 2020 in 
the South Western Waters, based on 2018 data. 

Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of total 
landings 

Deminimis 

2018/188 Article 
3.a 

VIII 

2018/188 Article 
3.b 

VIII 

2018/188 Article 
3.c 

VIII 

Blue whiting 

Blue whiting 

Blue whiting 

Blue whiting 

2018  ENG 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

IRL 

Blue whiting 

2018  NLD 

Total 
exemption 

0.9 

0.2 

0.3 

c 

c 

2.9 

Albacore tuna 

2018  FRA 

Albacore tuna 

2018 

IRL 

3,401.5 

2,182.9 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

c 

c 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Total 
exemption 

5,584.5 

n.a. 

Anchovy 

2018  FRA 

Total anchovy 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

2018  DEU 

2018  ENG 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  NLD 

102.5 

102.5 

420.7 

1,195.1 

13.7 

744.8 

c 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  DEU 

548.8 

Total mackerel 

3,130.2 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

1.1 

n.a. 

c 

1.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

c 

c 

7% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

42% 

42% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

c 

c 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

1.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

1.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

c 

c 

7% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

42% 

42% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

n.a. 

107 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  ENG 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  ESP 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  FRA 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  NLD 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

1.8 

0.0 

218.9 

c 

c 

32,913.0 

2,268.2 

7,911.9 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of total 
landings 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

c 

0.9 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.9 

10.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

10.2 

29.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

c 

13% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

10% 

2% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2% 

16% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

c 

0.9 

n.a. 

- 

0.9 

10.2 

n.a. 

7.3 

17.5 

29.1 

n.a. 

8.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

c 

13% 

n.a. 

37% 

17% 

2% 

n.a. 

76% 

3% 

16% 

n.a. 

38% 

Anchovy 

Anchovy 

Anchovy 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Total 
mackerel 

horse 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  PRT 

Total anchovy 

43,093.0 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  PRT 

9,908.8 

167.9 

196.0 

Total mackerel 

10,272.7 

Horse  mackerel 
and jack mackerel 

Horse  mackerel 
and jack mackerel 

Horse  mackerel 
and jack mackerel 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  PRT 

33,371.5 

1,738.4 

n.a. 

5,077.0 

n.a. 

2018/188 Article 
3.d 

VIII-IX-X-
CECAF 34.1.1-
34.1.2-34.2.0 

DA XX/2019 

VIII-IX-X-

Horse Mackerel 

2018  ESP 

785.8 

6.7 

16% 

9.2 

25% 

horse 
Total 
mackerel  and 
jack mackerel 

40,186.9 

29.1 

13% 

37.3 

18% 

108 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of total 
landings 

Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 
Article 6.1.f 

Area 
CECAF 34.1.1-
34.1.2-34.2.0 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  FRA 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  PRT 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

50.3 

595.2 

1,431.3 

296.6 

84.8 

80.4 

461.7 

23.7 

75.2 

708.1 

22.1 

829.0 

0.0 

2,399.9 

n.a. 

n.a. 

6.7 

26.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

26.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

5.2 

n.a. 

5.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Pollack 

Pollack 

Pollack 

Pollack 

Sole 

Sole 

Total 
exemption 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  PRT 

Total 
exemption 

2018  ENG 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  PRT 

Total 
exemption 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.h 

VIII-IX-CECAF 
34.1.1-34.1.2-
34.2.0 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.r 

VIII-IX 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.c 

VIIIa-VIIIb 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.p 

VIII 

Total 
exemption 

2,399.9 

n.a. 

Whiting 

2018  FRA 

290.0 

778.4 

Total 
exemption 

290.0 

778.4 

DA XX/2019 

VIII-IX 

Anglerfish 

2018  ENG 

18.7 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

9% 

28% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

18% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

99% 

n.a. 

84% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

97% 

97% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.8 

10.0 

75.6 

n.a. 

3.6 

79.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

5.2 

n.a. 

5.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

778.4 

778.4 

n.a. 

n.a. 

5% 

16% 

49% 

n.a. 

7% 

33% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

99% 

n.a. 

85% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

98% 

98% 

n.a. 

109 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 
Article 6.1.n 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Anglerfish 

Anglerfish 

Anglerfish 

Anglerfish 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Hake 

Hake 

Hake 

Hake 

Hake 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  PRT 

2018  SCO 

Total 
exemption 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  PRT 

Total 
exemption 

2018  ENG 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  PRT 

2018  SCO 

Total 
exemption 

2018  ENG 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

IRL 

2018  PRT 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of total 
landings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

795.6 

1,538.7 

256.0 

2.1 

2,611.1 

1.1 

43.0 

32.5 

76.6 

0.0 

20.2 

20.8 

3.9 

0.1 

45.0 

0.2 

3.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

3.6 

n.a. 

1.0 

n.a. 

1.0 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

6,279.5 

2,095.6 

4,658.7 

818.7 

c 

c 

873.3 

177.0 

6% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2% 

n.a. 

98% 

n.a. 

55% 

n.a. 

0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

n.a. 

66% 

21% 

c 

76% 

14.7 

n.a. 

0.1 

n.a. 

14.8 

n.a. 

1.0 

n.a. 

1.0 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

2,095.6 

818.7 

c 

180.5 

8% 

n.a. 

1% 

n.a. 

3% 

n.a. 

98% 

n.a. 

55% 

n.a. 

0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

n.a. 

98% 

47% 

c 

99% 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.l 

VIII-IX 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.j 

VIII-IX 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.a 

VIII-IX 

110 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of total 
landings 

Total 
exemption 

11,812.6 

3,091.3 

49% 

3,094.8 

78% 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  DEU 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  ENG 

548.8 

1.8 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  ESP 

4,056.9 

1,611.1 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.e 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  FRA 

VIII-IX 

Horse Mackerel 

2018 

IRL 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  NLD 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  PRT 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.i 

VIII-IX 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.g 

VIII-IX 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Megrim 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Total 
exemption 

2018  BEL 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  PRT 

Total 
exemption 

2018  DEU 

2018  ENG 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  NLD 

2018  PRT 

1,025.8 

1,073.5 

c 

9,264.7 

364.1 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

15,977.7 

1,975.2 

c 

1,368.8 

1,387.5 

83.3 

c 

144.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2,854.5 

147.0 

420.7 

1,195.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

8,887.4 

1,519.1 

2,870.5 

c 

4,734.1 

56.7 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

4% 

8% 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

2% 

c 

n.c. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.c. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

5% 

6% 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

1,611.1 

364.1 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

10% 

26% 

n.a. 

c 

6,006.0 

55% 

7,981.2 

36% 

c 

144.0 

n.a. 

2.8 

149.8 

n.a. 

n.a. 

1,519.1 

56.7 

c 

c 

n.c. 

n.a. 

n.c. 

n.c. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

97% 

23% 

c 

2,941.9 

84% 

111 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.m 

VIII-IX 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.k 

VIII-IX 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.q 

VIII-IX 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.b 

VIIIa-VIIIb 

Anglerfish 

Anglerfish 

Anglerfish 

Anglerfish 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Plaice 

Pollack 

Pollack 

Pollack 

Pollack 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

Total 
exemption 

2018  BEL 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  PRT 

Total 
exemption 

2018  BEL 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  PRT 

Total 
exemption 

2018  BEL 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  PRT 

Total 
exemption 

2018  BEL 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of total 
landings 

18,863.7 

1,575.8 

4% 

4,517.7 

70% 

155.9 

1,548.7 

4,202.0 

93.6 

6,000.2 

c 

1.2 

46.6 

1.0 

49.1 

c 

3.6 

104.9 

1.4 

109.9 

c 

7.7 

741.2 

17.4 

5.9 

n.a. 

n.a. 

23.3 

c 

n.a. 

0.5 

n.a. 

0.5 

c 

2.8 

6.5 

n.a. 

9.3 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

3% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

3% 

c 

n.a. 

80% 

n.a. 

76% 

c 

17% 

54% 

n.a. 

52% 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

17.4 

5.9 

n.a. 

0.2 

23.5 

c 

n.a. 

0.5 

n.a. 

0.5 

c 

2.8 

6.5 

n.a. 

9.3 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

3% 

n.a. 

1% 

3% 

c 

n.a. 

90% 

n.a. 

86% 

c 

17% 

54% 

n.a. 

52% 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

112 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

DA XX/2019 
Article 6.1.o 

VIII 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Whiting 

Total 
exemption 

2018  BEL 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

Total 
exemption 

Survivability 

DA XX/2019 
Article 3 

Norway lobster 

2018  ESP 

Norway lobster 

2018  FRA 

VIII-IX 

Norway lobster 

2018  PRT 

Total 
exemption 

Red seabream 

2018  ENG 

Red seabream 

2018  ESP 

Red seabream 

2018  FRA 

Red seabream 

2018  PRT 

DA XX/2019 
Article 4.5 

VIII-IXa-X 

DA XX/2019 
Article 4.4 

VIII-IX 

Cukoo ray 

Cukoo ray 

Cukoo ray 

Total 
exemption 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  PRT 

Total VIII-IX 

VIII 

Cukoo ray 

2018  BEL 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of total 
landings 

1,043.8 

c 

19.3 

762.0 

783.1 

77.8 

2,170.9 

253.0 

2,501.7 

0.0 

92.1 

2.4 

477.1 

571.6 

3.9 

25.0 

5.9 

34.8 

c 

42.5 

c 

n.a. 

83.0 

84.3 

3.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

3.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

4.4 

4.4 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

c 

28% 

c 

n.a. 

29% 

29% 

70% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

9% 

7% 

24% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

3% 

c 

42.5 

c 

n.a. 

83.0 

84.3 

3.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

3.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

4.9 

4.9 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

c 

28% 

c 

n.a. 

46% 

45% 

70% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

13% 

11% 

26% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

3% 

c 

113 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Cukoo ray 

Cukoo ray 

Cukoo ray 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018  PRT 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

218.0 

801.6 

c 

Weight, 
tonnes 

4.9 

253.5 

c 

DA XX/2019 
Article 4.1 

Total VIII 

1,020.2 

258.5 

Skates & rays 

2018  BEL 

Skates & rays 

2018  ENG 

Skates & rays 

2018  ESP 

VIII-IX 

Skates & rays 

2018  FRA 

Skates & rays 

2018  PRT 

1.3 

0.0 

1,171.3 

1,516.9 

1,115.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

70.0 

399.7 

n.a. 

Total 
exemption 

3,804.7 

469.8 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of total 
landings 

6% 

68% 

c 

55% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

25% 

46% 

n.a. 

26% 

4.9 

253.5 

c 

258.5 

n.a. 

n.a. 

93.0 

399.7 

45.1 

537.8 

6% 

71% 

c 

57% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

27% 

49% 

15% 

32% 

114 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
3.5.2.5  Mediterranean Sea 

Table 3.5.2.5.1 - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the Mediterranean Sea and the related FDI codes. 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSyespelagic midwater trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllAnchovyANEyespelagic midwater trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllSardinePILyespelagic midwater trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllMackerelMACyespelagic midwater trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllAnchovyANEyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllSardinePILyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllMackerelMACyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZyespelagic midwater trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllAnchovyANEyespelagic midwater trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllSardinePILyespelagic midwater trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllMackerelMACyespelagic midwater trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllAnchovyANEyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllSardinePILyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllMackerelMACyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZyespelagic midwater trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllAnchovyANEyespelagic midwater trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllSardinePILyespelagic midwater trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllMackerelMACyespelagic midwater trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZ2020 - Part 1Deminimis161/2018 Article 3(1) Annex I (1)Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)5161/2018 Article 3(1) Annex I (2)161/2018 Article 3(1) Annex III (1)Adriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)5161/2018 Article 3(1) Annex III (2)Adriatic Sea (GSA17)Article 161/2018 (1) Annex II (1)South Eastern Mediterranean Sea GSA15 GSA16 GSA19 GSA20 GSA22 GSA23, GSA255115 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.5.1 (Continued) - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the Mediterranean Sea and the related FDI codes. 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllAnchovyANEyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllSardinePILyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllMackerelMACyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZyespelagic midwater trawlsPSPSAllAllAnchovyANEyespelagic midwater trawlsPSPSAllAllSardinePILyespelagic midwater trawlsPSPSAllAllMackerelMACyespelagic midwater trawlsPSPSAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZyespelagic midwater trawlsPSPSAllAllAnchovyANEyespelagic midwater trawlsPSPSAllAllSardinePILyespelagic midwater trawlsPSPSAllAllMackerelMACyespelagic midwater trawlsPSPSAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllAnchovyANEyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllSardinePILyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllMackerelMACyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZyesBottom trawlsDTSOTB-OTT-PTBAllAllHakeHKEyesBottom trawlsDTSOTB-OTT-PTBAllAllRed mulletMUT-MUX-MUMyesGill nets and and trammel netsDFNGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAllHakeHKEyesGill nets and and trammel netsDFNGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAllRed mulletMUT-MUX-MUMyesTrawl netsDTSOTB-OTT-PTB-OTMAllAllHakeHKEyesTrawl netsDTSOTB-OTT-PTB-OTMAllAllRed mulletMUT-MUX-MUMyesGill nets and and trammel netsDFNGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAllHakeHKEyesGill nets and and trammel netsDFNGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAllRed mulletMUT-MUX-MUM2020 - Part 2161/2018 Article 3(1) Annex II (2)South Eastern Mediterranean Sea GSA 255161/2018 Article 3(2) Annex IVDeminimis86/2017, Article 4 (a) i, 153/2018 (1) 3Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)686/2017, Article 4 (a) ii, , 153/2018 (1) 3186/2017, Article 4 (b) iAdriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)6Malta Island and South of Sicily (GSA15-GSA16)5161/2018 Article 3(2) Annex VSouthern Agean Sea and Crete Island (GSA22-GSA23)5161/2018 Article 3 (2) Annex VISouthern Adriatic Sea and Ionian Sea (GSA18-GSA19-GSA20)386/2017, Article 4 (b) iiAdriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)1116 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.5.1 (Continued) - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the Mediterranean Sea and the related FDI codes. 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSEuropean seabassBSSAnnular seabreamANNSharpsnout seabreamSHRWhite seabreamSWACommon two-banded seabreamCTBGrouperdGPD-GPW-EIU-EPA-ELD-EEN-EEC-EER-EIF-EFX-EPZ-EPT-GPNStriped seabreamSSBSpanish seabreamSBARed seabreamSBRCommon pandoraPACCommon seabreamRPGWreckfishWRFSoleSOLGilthead seabreamSBGDeep-water rose shrimpDPSEuropean seabassBSSAnnular seabreamANNSharpsnout seabreamSHRWhite seabreamSWACommon two-banded seabreamCTBGrouperdGPD-GPW-EIU-EPA-ELD-EEN-EEC-EER-EIF-EFX-EPZ-EPT-GPNStriped seabreamSSBSpanish seabreamSBARed seabreamSBRCommon pandoraPACCommon seabreamRPGWreckfishWRFSoleSOLGilthead seabreamSBGDeminimisxxx/2019, Article 4 (1,a,iii) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)yesBottom trawlsDTSOTB-OTT-PTBAll2020 - Part 3All5xxx/2019, Article 4 (1,a,iv) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)yesGill nets and and trammel netsDFNGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAll3117 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.5.1 (Continued) - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the Mediterranean Sea and the related FDI codes. 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSEuropean seabassBSSAnnular seabreamANNSharpsnout seabreamSHRWhite seabreamSWACommon two-banded seabreamCTBGrouperdGPD-GPW-EIU-EPA-ELD-EEN-EEC-EER-EIF-EFX-EPZ-EPT-GPNStriped seabreamSSBSpanish seabreamSBARed seabreamSBRCommon pandoraPACCommon seabreamRPGWreckfishWRFSoleSOLGilthead seabreamSBGAnchovyANESardinePILMackerelMACHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZEuropean seabassBSSAnnular seabreamANNSharpsnout seabreamSHRWhite seabreamSWACommon two-banded seabreamCTBGrouperdGPD-GPW-EIU-EPA-ELD-EEN-EEC-EER-EIF-EFX-EPZ-EPT-GPNStriped seabreamSSBSpanish seabreamSBARed seabreamSBRCommon pandoraPACCommon seabreamRPGWreckfishWRFGilthead seabreamSBGDeep-water rose shrimpDPS2020 - Part 4Deminimisxxx/2019, Article 4 (1,a,v) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)yesHooks, linesLHM-LHP-LLD-LLSAllAll1xxx/2019, Article 4 (1,b,v) of 86/2017Adriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)yesBottom trawlsxxx/2019, Article 4 (1,a,vi) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)yesBottom trawlsDTSOTB-OTT-PTBAllAll5AllAll5OTB-OTT-PTB118 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.5.1 (Continued) - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the Mediterranean Sea and the related FDI codes. 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSEuropean seabassBSSAnnular seabreamANNSharpsnout seabreamSHRWhite seabreamSWACommon two-banded seabreamCTBGrouperdGPD-GPW-EIU-EPA-ELD-EEN-EEC-EER-EIF-EFX-EPZ-EPT-GPNStriped seabreamSSBSpanish seabreamSBARed seabreamSBRCommon pandoraPACCommon seabreamRPGWreckfishWRFSoleSOLGilthead seabreamSBGEuropean seabassBSSAnnular seabreamANNSharpsnout seabreamSHRWhite seabreamSWACommon two-banded seabreamCTBGrouperdGPD-GPW-EIU-EPA-ELD-EEN-EEC-EER-EIF-EFX-EPZ-EPT-GPNStriped seabreamSSBSpanish seabreamSBARed seabreamSBRCommon pandoraPACCommon seabreamRPGWreckfishWRFSoleSOLGilthead seabreamSBGAnchovyANESardinePILMackerelMACHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZ2020 - Part 5Deminimisxxx/2019, Article 4 (1,b,vii) of 86/2017Adriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)yesHooks, linesxxx/2019, Article 4 (1,b,vi) of 86/2017Adriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)yesGill nets and and trammel netsDFNLHM-LHP-LLD-LLSAllAll1AllAll3GND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNxxx/2019, Article 4 (1,a,vi) of 86/2017Adriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)yesBottom trawlsDTSAllAll5OTB-OTT-PTB119 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.5.1 (Continued) - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the Mediterranean Sea and the related FDI codes. 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSEuropean seabassBSSAnnular seabreamANNSharpsnout seabreamSHRWhite seabreamSWACommon two-banded seabreamCTBGrouperdGPD-GPW-EIU-EPA-ELD-EEN-EEC-EER-EIF-EFX-EPZ-EPT-GPNStriped seabreamSSBSpanish seabreamSBARed seabreamSBRCommon pandoraPACCommon seabreamRPGWreckfishWRFGilthead seabreamSBGDeep-water rose shrimpDPSEuropean seabassBSSAnnular seabreamANNSharpsnout seabreamSHRWhite seabreamSWACommon two-banded seabreamCTBGrouperdGPD-GPW-EIU-EPA-ELD-EEN-EEC-EER-EIF-EFX-EPZ-EPT-GPNStriped seabreamSSBSpanish seabreamSBARed seabreamSBRCommon pandoraPACCommon seabreamRPGWreckfishWRFSoleSOLGilthead seabreamSBG2020 - Part 6Deminimisxxx/2019, Article 4 (1,c,iv) of 86/2017South-eastern Mediterranean Sea (GSA14-GSA15-GSA16-GSA19-GSA20-GSA21-GSA22-GSA23-GSA24-GSA25-GSA26-GSA27)yesBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-PTBAllAll5xxx/2019, Article 4 (1,c,v) of 86/2017South-eastern Mediterranean Sea (GSA14-GSA15-GSA16-GSA19-GSA20-GSA21-GSA22-GSA23-GSA24-GSA25-GSA26-GSA27)yesGill nets and and trammel netsDFNAllAll3GND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTN120 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.5.1 (Continued) - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the Mediterranean Sea and the related FDI codes. 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSEuropean seabassBSSAnnular seabreamANNSharpsnout seabreamSHRWhite seabreamSWACommon two-banded seabreamCTBGrouperdGPD-GPW-EIU-EPA-ELD-EEN-EEC-EER-EIF-EFX-EPZ-EPT-GPNStriped seabreamSSBSpanish seabreamSBARed seabreamSBRCommon pandoraPACCommon seabreamRPGWreckfishWRFSoleSOLGilthead seabreamSBGAnchovyANESardinePILMackerelMACHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZyesGill netsDFNGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAllHakeHKEyesGill netsDFNGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAllRed mulletMUT-MUX-MUMyesBeam trawlTBBTBBAllAllHakeHKEyesBeam trawlTBBTBBAllAllRed mulletMUT-MUX-MUM86/2017, Article 4 (b) ivyesTrawl netsDTSOTB-OTT-PTB-OTMAllAllSoleSOL286/2017, Article 4 (b) vyesGill netsDFNGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAllSoleSOL0yesTrawl netsDTSOTB-OTT-PTB-OTMAllAllHakeHKEyesTrawl netsDTSOTB-OTT-PTB-OTMAllAllRed mulletMUT-MUX-MUMyesGill netsDFNGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAllHakeHKEyesGill netsDFNGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAllRed mulletMUT-MUX-MUM86/2017, Article 4 (c) iiiyesTrawl netsDTSOTB-OTT-PTB-OTMAllAllDeep water rose shrimpDPS6Article 86/2017 (4) cSouth-eastern Mediterranean Sea (GSA14-GSA15-GSA16-GSA19-GSA20-GSA21-GSA22-GSA23-GSA24-GSA25-GSA26-GSA27)yesTrawl netsDTSOTB-OTT-PTB-OTMAllAllHakeHKE6Deminimis2020 - Part 7xxx/2019, Article 4 (1,c,vi) of 86/2017South-eastern Mediterranean Sea (GSA14-GSA15-GSA16-GSA19-GSA20-GSA21-GSA22-GSA23-GSA24-GSA25-GSA26-GSA27)yesHooks, linesLHM-LHP-LLD-LLSAllAll1AllAll5xxx/2019, Article 4 (1,c,vii) of 86/2017South-eastern Mediterranean Sea (GSA14-GSA15-GSA16-GSA19-GSA20-GSA21-GSA22-GSA23-GSA24-GSA25-GSA26-GSA27)yesBottom trawlsDTSOTB-OTT-PTB186/2017, Article 4 (b) iiAdriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)186/2017, Article 4 (b) iii186/2017, Article 4 (c) iSouth-eastern Mediterranean Sea (GSA14-GSA15-GSA16-GSA19-GSA20-GSA21-GSA22-GSA23-GSA24-GSA25-GSA26-GSA27)686/2017, Article 4 (c) ii121 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.5.1 (Continued) - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the Mediterranean Sea and the related FDI codes. 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllAnchovyANEyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllSardinePILyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllMackerelMACyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllAnchovyANEyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllSardinePILyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllMackerelMACyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllAnchovyANEyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllSardinePILyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllMackerelMACyespelagic purse seinesPSPSAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZ2020 - Part 8DeminimisArticle 161/2018 (1) Annex VISouthern Adriatic and Ionian Sea  (GSA18-GSA19-GSA20)3Article 161/2018 (1) Annex IVMalta Island and Sicily (GSA15-GSA16)3Article 161/2018 (1) Annex VArgean Sea and Crete Island (GSA22-GSA23)3122 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.5.1 (Continued) - The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2020 in the Mediterranean Sea and the related FDI codes. 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSPECONSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRS153/2018, Article 3 (1. a) of 86/2017GSA17-GSA18noBeam trawlTBBTBBAllAllSoleSOL-153/2018, Article 3 (1. b) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)noMechanised dredgesHMDHMDAllAllScallopSJA-153/2018, Article 3 (1. c) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)noMechanised dredgesHMDHMDAllAllCarpet clamVEN-153/2018, Article 3 (1. d) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)noMechanised dredgesHMDHMDAllAllVenus shellsCLV-xxx/2019, Article 3.1Italian territorial waters in GSA9-GSA10-GSA17-GSA18noHydraulic dredgesDRBAllAllVenus shellsCLV-153/2018, Article 3 (1. e) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)nobottom trawlsOTB, OTT, PTB, TBN, TBS, TB, OT, PT, TXOTB-OTT-PTBAllAllNorway LobsterNEP-xxx/2019, Article 3 (1. g) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)nohooks, linesLHP, LHM, LLS, LLD, LL, LTL, LXLHM-LHP-LLD-LLSAllAllRed SeabreamSBR-xxx/2019, Article 3 (1. h) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12) Adriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)                                     South-eastern Mediterranean Sea (GSA14-GSA15-GSA16-GSA19-GSA20-GSA21-GSA22-GSA23-GSA24-GSA25-GSA26-GSA27)nonets, pots and trapsGNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN, FPO, FIXAllAllAllLobsterLBE-xxx/2019, Article 3 (1. h) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12) Adriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)                                     South-eastern Mediterranean Sea (GSA14-GSA15-GSA16-GSA19-GSA20-GSA21-GSA22-GSA23-GSA24-GSA25-GSA26-GSA27)nonets, pots and trapsGNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN, FPO, FIXAllAllAllCrawfishVLO-2020 - Part 9Survavability123 
 
 
 
Table 3.5.2.5.2 - Landings and discards reported by MS to FDI data call and estimated for the fleets under exemptions proposed for 2020 in 
the Mediterranean Sea region, based on 2018 data. 

Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Anchovy 

Anchovy 

2018 

ITA 

2018  GRC 

Horse Mackerel 

2018 

ITA 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

4,203.6 

482.1 

123.4 

Weight, 
tonnes 

0.0 

7.0 

n.a. 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

56% 

100% 

n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

0.0 

7.0 

n.a. 

56% 

100% 

n.a. 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  GRC 

119.8 

319.4 

100% 

319.4 

100% 

Deminimis 

161/2018 Article 3 
(2) Annex VI 

Southern Adriatic and 
Ionian Sea  (GSA18-
GSA19-GSA20) 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Sardine 

Sardine 

Anchovy 

Anchovy 

2018 

ITA 

2018  GRC 

2018 

ITA 

2018  GRC 

47.1 

0.1 

1,011.7 

n.a. 

0.0 

0.0 

1,266.6 

51.8 

Total exemption 

7,254.4 

378.2 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

n.a. 

100% 

27% 

100% 

62% 

97% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

77% 

n.a. 

0.0 

0.0 

51.8 

378.2 

8.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.9 

n.a. 

8.9 

n.a. 

100% 

27% 

100% 

62% 

97% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

77% 

1,157.4 

365.0 

4.2 

0.2 

7.2 

0.1 

252.9 

6.1 

8.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.9 

n.a. 

8.9 

Deminimis 

161/2018 Article 
3(1) Annex I (1) 

Western 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-
GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-
GSA9-GSA10-
GSA11.1-GSA11.2-
GSA12) 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  FRA 

Horse Mackerel 

2018 

ITA 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Sardine 

Sardine 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Total exemption 

1,793.0 

124 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Deminimis 

161/2018 Article 
3(1) Annex I (2) 

Western 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-
GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-
GSA9-GSA10-
GSA11.1-GSA11.2-
GSA12) 

Deminimis 

161/2018 Article 
3(1) Annex III (1) 

Adriatic Sea 
(GSA17-GSA18) 

Deminimis 

161/2018 Article 
3(1) Annex III (2) 

Adriatic Sea 
(GSA17) 

Anchovy 

Anchovy 

Anchovy 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  ESP 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  FRA 

Horse Mackerel 

2018 

ITA 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Sardine 

Sardine 

Sardine 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Anchovy 

2018 

ITA 

Horse Mackerel 

2018 

ITA 

Mackerel 

Sardine 

Anchovy 

Anchovy 

2018 

ITA 

2018 

ITA 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  HRV 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

24,030.3 

4.0 

9,118.0 

1,342.1 

36.6 

128.4 

34.4 

25.5 

11,733.7 

866.4 

2,214.9 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

16,365.0 

131.3 

108.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

21,369.4 

2827.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

37% 

21% 

2827.0 

2827.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

37% 

21% 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

Total exemption 

37,973.8 

2827.0 

13,249.5 

13.6 

100% 

1,813.0 

1,395.9 

n.a. 

1.8 

n.a. 

100% 

13.6 

n.a. 

1.8 

Total exemption 

49,534.3 

n.a. 

125 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Horse Mackerel 

2018 

ITA 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Sardine 

Sardine 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

Deminimis 

161/2018 Article 
3(2) Annex IV 

Malta Island and 
South of Sicily 
(GSA15-GSA16) 

Deminimis 

86/2017, Article 4 
(a) i, 153/2018 (1) 
3 

Western 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-
GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-
GSA9-GSA10-
GSA11.1-GSA11.2-
GSA12)  

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Sardine 

Hake 

Hake 

Hake 

Red mullet 

Red mullet 

Red mullet 

Anchovy 

2018 

ITA 

1,364.2 

Total exemption 

62,982.2 

32.2 

Horse Mackerel 

2018 

ITA 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  MLT 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

2018 

ITA 

Total exemption 

1,913.7 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

2936.8 

214.6 

710.3 

31.9 

681.3 

114.5 

Total hake 

4328.4 

361.0 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

1380.5 

46.7 

302.4 

9.8 

1571.2 

127.1 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

21.4 

34.4 

12.4 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

46,257.3 

16.8 

100% 

198.4 

n.a. 

46.7 

21.0 

85.8 

157.0 

239.1 

4.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

4.1 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

16.8 

n.a. 

32.2 

5.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

5.6 

214.6 

31.9 

114.7 

361.2 

46.7 

9.8 

127.7 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

97% 

55% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

39% 

96% 

97% 

64% 

90% 

99% 

100% 

72% 

n.a. 

97% 

40% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

29% 

96% 

94% 

60% 

90% 

99% 

90% 

72% 

126 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

Total red mullet 

3254.0 

183.6 

85% 

184.1 

85% 

Deminimis 

86/2017, Article 4 
(a) ii, , 153/2018 
(1) 3 

Deminimis 

86/2017, Article 4 
(a) ii, , 153/2018 
(1) 4 

Western 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-
GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-
GSA9-GSA10-
GSA11.1-GSA11.2-
GSA12) 

Western 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-
GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-
GSA9-GSA10-
GSA11.1-GSA11.2-
GSA12) 

Deminimis 

86/2017, Article 4 
(b) i 

Adriatic Sea 
(GSA17-GSA18) 

Hake 

Hake 

Hake 

Red mullet 

Red mullet 

Red mullet 

Hake 

Hake 

Hake 

Red mullet 

Red mullet 

Red mullet 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Total exemption 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Total exemption 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

2018  SVN 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

2018  SVN 

62.2 

97.1 

565.3 

724.6 

101.9 

21.3 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

167.3 

65.3 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

3% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

12% 

65.3 

7% 

290.5 

814.7 

3.5 

3508.4 

401.9 

1.8 

825.3 

0.0 

3.2 

3385.5 

2221.3 

6.0 

0.2 

100% 

99% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

77.3 

n.a. 

0.0 

77.2 

77.3 

3.5 

401.9 

0.0 

3.2 

2221.3 

0.2 

n.a. 

1% 

n.a. 

3% 

n.a. 

0% 

14% 

8% 

100% 

99% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Deminimis 

86/2017, Article 4 
(b) ii 

Adriatic Sea 
(GSA17-GSA18) 

Hake 

Hake 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

56.9 

19.3 

2.5 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

2.5 

0.0 

100% 

19% 

Total exemption 

8,541.8 

2630.1 

100% 

2630.1 

100% 

127 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

Hake 

Red mullet 

Red mullet 

Red mullet 

Hake 

Red mullet 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

Hake 

Hake 

Hake 

Hake 

Deminimis 

86/2017, Article 4 
(b) iii 

Adriatic Sea 
(GSA17-GSA18) 

Deminimis 

86/2017, Article 4 
(b) iv 

Adriatic Sea 
(GSA17-GSA18) 

Deminimis 

86/2017, Article 4 
(b) v 

Adriatic Sea 
(GSA17-GSA18) 

Deminimis 

86/2017, Article 4 
(c) i 

South-eastern 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA14-GSA15-
GSA16-GSA19-
GSA20-GSA21-

2018  SVN 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

2018  SVN 

0.4 

6.6 

98.4 

0.0 

Total exemption 

181.8 

2018 

ITA 

2018 

ITA 

Total exemption 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

2018  SVN 

Total exemption 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

2018  SVN 

2018  CYP 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

2018  GRC 

0.0 

0.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2.6 

n.a. 

2.1 

2.1 

0.0 

70.9 

40.3 

111.3 

11.7 

406.5 

n.a. 

0.2 

418.3 

145.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.5 

307.8 

11.1 

9.8 

0.2 

7.6 

0.0 

1049.5 

30.3 

6.1 

0.6 

99% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

35% 

n.a. 

62% 

23% 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

3% 

100% 

69% 

100% 

79% 

13% 

55% 

67% 

0.0 

0.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2.6 

n.a. 

2.1 

2.1 

0.0 

1.2 

0.0 

1.2 

0.5 

12.2 

0.2 

12.8 

0.2 

56.7 

0.6 

99% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

37% 

n.a. 

62% 

23% 

100% 

97% 

100% 

97% 

100% 

88% 

100% 

92% 

36% 

70% 

69% 

1419.5 

116.1 

100% 

116.1 

100% 

Total exemption 

462.7 

11.8 

128 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 
GSA22-GSA23-
GSA24-GSA25-
GSA26-GSA27) 

Deminimis 

86/2017, Article 4 
(c) ii 

Deminimis 

Article 161/2018 
(1) Annex II (1) 

South-eastern 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA14-GSA15-
GSA16-GSA19-
GSA20-GSA21-
GSA22-GSA23-
GSA24-GSA25-
GSA26-GSA27) 

South Eastern 
Mediterranean Sea 
GSA15 GSA16 
GSA19 GSA20 
GSA22 GSA23, 
GSA25 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Red mullet 

Red mullet 

Red mullet 

Red mullet 

Hake 

Hake 

Hake 

Hake 

Red mullet 

Red mullet 

Red mullet 

Red mullet 

2018  CYP 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

2018  GRC 

12.6 

880.7 

10.7 

724.9 

0.0 

5.5 

0.4 

6.4 

Total exemption 

4111.6 

159.2 

2018  CYP 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

2018  GRC 

2018  CYP 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

2018  GRC 

1.1 

242.9 

0.1 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

1756.2 

64.3 

3.0 

323.7 

1.0 

1271.3 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

9.6 

Total exemption 

3599.3 

73.9 

Anchovy 

2018 

ITA 

Horse Mackerel 

2018 

ITA 

Mackerel 

Sardine 

2018 

ITA 

2018 

ITA 

1,701.9 

4.1 

2.6 

5,10.5 

Total exemption 

2,219.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

71% 

60% 

78% 

100% 

80% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

84% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

13% 

0.0 

8.0 

0.4 

6.4 

188.4 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

64.3 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

9.6 

73.9 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.2 

71% 

81% 

78% 

100% 

88% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

84% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

36% 

Deminimis  Article 86/2017 (4) 

South-eastern 

Hake 

2018  CYP 

7.6 

129 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
Species 

Year 

Country 

Hake 

Hake 

Hake 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 
c 

Area 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA14-GSA15-
GSA16-GSA19-
GSA20-GSA21-
GSA22-GSA23-
GSA24-GSA25-
GSA26-GSA27) 

Deminimis 

xxx/2019, Article 
4 (1,a,iv) of 
86/2017 

Western 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-
GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-
GSA9-GSA10-
GSA11.1-GSA11.2-
GSA12) 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

2018  GRC 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Red seabream 

2018  ESP 

Red seabream 

2018  FRA 

Red seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Annular seabream 

2018  FRA 

Total exemption 

2,482.7 

146.9 

81% 

173.5 

87% 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

1,049.5 

30.3 

6.1 

0.6 

55% 

67% 

56.7 

0.6 

70% 

69% 

1,419.5 

116.1 

100% 

116.1 

100% 

109.2 

5.2 

64.4 

0.3 

2.7 

25.3 

0.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Annular seabream 

2018 

ITA 

95.3 

804.7 

14% 

804.7 

14% 

European seabass 

2018  ESP 

European seabass 

2018  FRA 

European seabass 

2018 

ITA 

Common 
two-
banded seabream 

two-
Common 
banded seabream 

Grouperd 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

2018  FRA 

27.9 

197.0 

41.5 

1.0 

16.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.7 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

130 
 
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Grouperd 

2018 

ITA 

Common pandora 

2018  ESP 

Common pandora 

2018  FRA 

Common pandora 

2018 

ITA 

Common 
seabream 

Common 
seabream 

Common 
seabream 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Spanish seabream 

2018  ESP 

Spanish seabream 

2018  FRA 

Spanish seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

4.3 

165.4 

54.0 

146.0 

31.7 

14.9 

25.5 

50.7 

18.5 

55.8 

284.5 

804.7 

222.3 

0.0 

10.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

131 
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Striped seabream 

2018  ESP 

Striped seabream 

2018  FRA 

Striped seabream 

2018 

ITA 

White seabream 

2018  FRA 

White seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Wreckfish 

Wreckfish 

Wreckfish 

Anchovy 

Anchovy 

Anchovy 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Total exemption 

2,965.7 

807.2 

Deminimis 

xxx/2019, Article 
4 (1,a,vi) of 
86/2017 

Western 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-
GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-
GSA9-GSA10-
GSA11.1-GSA11.2-
GSA12) 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  ESP 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  FRA 

Horse Mackerel 

2018 

ITA 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Sardine 

Sardine 

Sardine 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

73.5 

22.1 

176.1 

197.0 

20.3 

0.5 

0.8 

0.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

89.3 

508.1 

19.3 

n.a. 

666.0 

460.3 

1,631.9 

856.3 

378.1 

n.a. 

372.7 

7,077.2 

689.5 

3.9 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

1% 

99% 

n.a. 

55% 

98% 

n.a. 

44% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

807.2 

508.1 

n.a. 

460.3 

856.3 

n.a. 

7,077.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

1% 

99% 

n.a. 

55% 

99% 

n.a. 

44% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

64.6 

576.3 

100% 

576.3 

100% 

7.7 

n.a. 

81.3 

42.9 

n.a. 

51% 

n.a. 

44.7 

n.a. 

51% 

132 
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

Total  W  Med 
Sea 

4,004.5 

9,521.1 

58% 

9,523.0 

58% 

Anchovy 

Anchovy 

Anchovy 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

2018  SVN 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  HRV 

0.9 

0.0 

54.8 

262.6 

0.0 

52.4 

0.0 

2.5 

100% 

86% 

100% 

100% 

0.0 

262.6 

0.0 

2.5 

Horse Mackerel 

2018 

ITA 

1,100.8 

1,152.5 

99% 

1,152.5 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  SVN 

Adriatic Sea 
(GSA17-GSA18) 

Deminimis 

xxx/2019, Article 
4 (1,a,iii) of 
86/2017 

Western 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-
GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-
GSA9-GSA10-
GSA11.1-GSA11.2-
GSA12) 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Sardine 

Sardine 

Sardine 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

2018  SVN 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

2018  SVN 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Total  Adriatic 
Sea 

1,980.4 

1,418.2 

60% 

1,436.6 

87% 

13.7 

77.1 

57.4 

17.2 

6.9 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

10.1 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

10.1 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

Red seabream 

2018  ESP 

Red seabream 

2018  FRA 

0.3 

6.4 

644.6 

0.2 

0.5 

118.6 

0.9 

0.1 

0.0 

n.a. 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

0.4 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

0.1 

0.0 

1.5 

0.0 

0.0 

16.8 

0.4 

100% 

86% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

75% 

100% 

100% 

31% 

100% 

133 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Red seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Annular seabream 

2018  FRA 

Annular seabream 

2018 

ITA 

European seabass 

2018  ESP 

European seabass 

2018  FRA 

European seabass 

2018 

ITA 

two-
Common 
banded seabream 

Common 
two-
banded seabream 

Grouperd 

Grouperd 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Common pandora 

2018  ESP 

Common pandora 

2018  FRA 

Common pandora 

2018 

ITA 

Common 
seabream 

Common 
seabream 

Common 
seabream 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

27.0 

1.2 

45.6 

13.0 

20.4 

10.8 

1.0 

6.4 

0.1 

6.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

805.1 

187.0 

109.1 

n.a. 

206.4 

105.6 

16.5 

1.3 

22.6 

9.8 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

99% 

n.a. 

42% 

98% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

187.0 

n.a. 

105.6 

9.8 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

99% 

n.a. 

42% 

98% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Spanish seabream 

2018  ESP 

308.7 

253.5 

98% 

253.5 

98% 

134 
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Spanish seabream 

2018  FRA 

Spanish seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Striped seabream 

2018  ESP 

Striped seabream 

2018  FRA 

Striped seabream 

2018 

ITA 

White seabream 

2018  FRA 

White seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Wreckfish 

Wreckfish 

Wreckfish 

Deep-water 
shrimp 

rose 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

2018  ESP 

1367.8 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

155.0 

n.a. 

60.4 

95.6 

354.4 

155.8 

44.7 

0.1 

0.7 

9.9 

1.4 

37.5 

13.6 

2.9 

0.2 

0.0 

0.6 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

3.2 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

n.a. 

32% 

99% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

97% 

n.a. 

95.6 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

3.2 

n.a. 

32% 

99% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

97% 

135 
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Deep-water 
shrimp 

Deep-water 
shrimp 

rose 

rose 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

46.0 

1459.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

50.2 

57% 

50.2 

57% 

Deminimis 

xxx/2019, Article 
4 (1,c,iv) of 
86/2017 

South-eastern 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA14-GSA15-
GSA16-GSA19-
GSA20-GSA21-
GSA22-GSA23-
GSA24-GSA25-
GSA26-GSA27) 

Total exemption 

5484.4 

714.9 

69% 

714.9 

69% 

Red seabream 

2018  CYP 

Red seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Red seabream 

2018  MLT 

Red seabream 

2018  GRC 

Annular seabream 

2018  CYP 

Annular seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Annular seabream 

2018  GRC 

European seabass 

2018 

ITA 

Common 
two-
banded seabream 

Common 
two-
banded seabream 

Grouperd 

Grouperd 

Grouperd 

2018 

ITA 

2018  GRC 

2018  CYP 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

Common pandora 

2018  CYP 

c 

c 

c 

n.a. 

0.1 

c 

n.a. 

0% 

c 

n.a. 

0.1 

c 

n.a. 

0% 

10.5 

100% 

10.5 

100% 

c 

n.a. 

9.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.2 

c 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

87% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

80% 

c 

n.a. 

9.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.2 

c 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

87% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

80% 

3.2 

0.1 

2.5 

6.8 

0.5 

7.8 

17.2 

0.4 

0.1 

10.0 

0.1 

8.3 

136 
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

Common pandora 

2018 

ITA 

Common pandora 

2018  MLT 

170.5 

272.6 

1.4 

0.1 

25% 

20% 

Common pandora 

2018  GRC 

150.2 

12.2 

100% 

Common 
seabream 

Common 
seabream 

Common 
seabream 

Common 
seabream 

2018  CYP 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

2018  GRC 

Spanish seabream 

2018  CYP 

Spanish seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Spanish seabream 

2018  MLT 

Spanish seabream 

2018  GRC 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Gilthead 
seabream 

2018  CYP 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

2018  GRC 

0.4 

25.9 

0.0 

14.7 

8.1 

12.7 

0.0 

10.4 

c 

8.2 

0.0 

46.9 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.3 

0.1 

4.7 

0.0 

3.5 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

92% 

60% 

0% 

100% 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

394.8 

0.1 

12.2 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.3 

0.1 

4.7 

0.0 

3.5 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

34% 

20% 

100% 

2% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

92% 

69% 

0% 

100% 

c 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.2 

100% 

0.2 

100% 

137 
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

2018 

ITA 

2018  GRC 

Striped seabream 

2018 

ITA 

White seabream 

2018 

ITA 

White seabream 

2018  GRC 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

0.1 

0.1 

3.4 

5.1 

0.0 

1.6 

1.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2018 

ITA 

2018  CYP 

Wreckfish 

Deep-water 
shrimp 

Deep-water 
shrimp 

Deep-water 
shrimp 

Deep-water 
shrimp 

rose 

rose 

rose 

rose 

2018 

ITA 

5,354.7 

99.6 

34% 

140.2 

58% 

2018  MLT 

9.9 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

2% 

2018  GRC 

1,210.7 

142.8 

100% 

142.8 

100% 

Deminimis 

xxx/2019, Article 
4 (1,c,vii) of 
86/2017 

Total exemption 

7,093.1 

556.8 

47% 

719.5 

South-eastern 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA14-GSA15-
GSA16-GSA19-
GSA20-GSA21-
GSA22-GSA23-
GSA24-GSA25-

Anchovy 

Anchovy 

Anchovy 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

2018  GRC 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  CYP 

84.5 

n.a. 

0.0 

0.1 

1.3 

0.0 

1.2 

0.0 

Horse Mackerel 

2018 

ITA 

798.6 

2,251.1 

n.a. 

0% 

100% 

22% 

60% 

n.a. 

0.0 

1.2 

0.0 

2,284.6 

65% 

n.a. 

#DIV/0! 

100% 

22% 

72% 

138 
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 
GSA26-GSA27) 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  MLT 

1.1 

3.5 

41% 

3.5 

41% 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  GRC 

404.3 

864.5 

100% 

864.5 

100% 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Sardine 

Sardine 

Sardine 

Sole 

Sole 

2018  CYP 

2018 

ITA 

2018  GRC 

2018  CYP 

2018 

ITA 

2018  GRC 

c 

81.7 

95.8 

0.3 

c 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

135.5 

n.a. 

c 

n.a. 

100% 

61% 

n.a. 

56.3 

26.4 

100% 

c 

n.a. 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

26.4 

c 

n.a. 

100% 

61% 

n.a. 

100% 

Total exemption 

1,659.5 

3,146.7 

63% 

3,180.2 

68% 

2018 

ITA 

2018  GRC 

Red seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Red seabream 

2018  GRC 

Annular seabream 

2018  CYP 

Annular seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Annular seabream 

2018  MLT 

27.4 

374.4 

5.2 

4.0 

0.9 

68.8 

0.3 

n.a. 

0.9 

n.a. 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

0.1 

Annular seabream 

2018  GRC 

110.2 

501.3 

European seabass 

2018  CYP 

European seabass 

2018 

ITA 

European seabass 

2018  MLT 

2.9 

12.8 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

14% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.9 

n.a. 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

0.1 

501.3 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

14% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Deminimis 

xxx/2019, Article 
4 (1,c,v) of 
86/2017 

South-eastern 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA14-GSA15-
GSA16-GSA19-
GSA20-GSA21-
GSA22-GSA23-
GSA24-GSA25-
GSA26-GSA27) 

139 
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Common 
two-
banded seabream 

Common 
two-
banded seabream 

two-
Common 
banded seabream 

Common 
two-
banded seabream 

Grouperd 

Grouperd 

Grouperd 

2018  CYP 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

2018  GRC 

2018  CYP 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

Common pandora 

2018  CYP 

Common pandora 

2018 

ITA 

Common pandora 

2018  MLT 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

1.8 

37.0 

0.1 

108.1 

1.8 

4.5 

0.1 

4.8 

48.5 

1.2 

0.0 

100% 

0.0 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.1 

45% 

0.1 

45% 

11.9 

100% 

11.9 

100% 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

0.0 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

13% 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

0.0 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

14% 

Common pandora 

2018  GRC 

496.6 

52.1 

100% 

52.1 

100% 

Common 
seabream 

Common 
seabream 

Common 
seabream 

Common 
seabream 

2018  CYP 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

1.3 

19.5 

2.7 

2018  GRC 

178.6 

0.0 

100% 

0.0 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.3 

6.4 

10% 

100% 

0.3 

6.4 

10% 

100% 

140 
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Spanish seabream 

2018  CYP 

Spanish seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Spanish seabream 

2018  MLT 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

12.2 

26.9 

0.1 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Spanish seabream 

2018  GRC 

122.5 

14.0 

100% 

14.0 

100% 

2018  CYP 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

4.6 

19.2 

0.3 

2018  GRC 

146.2 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

2018  CYP 

2018 

ITA 

2018  GRC 

Striped seabream 

2018  CYP 

Striped seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Striped seabream 

2018  MLT 

Striped seabream 

2018  GRC 

0.0 

100% 

0.0 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2.2 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2.2 

0.0 

n.a. 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

0.0 

0.3 

1.9 

1.7 

21.5 

0.1 

51.2 

141 
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

White seabream 

2018  CYP 

White seabream 

2018 

ITA 

White seabream 

2018  MLT 

White seabream 

2018  GRC 

Wreckfish 

Wreckfish 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

3.9 

9.4 

0.7 

207.3 

0.1 

0.5 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

7.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

7.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Total exemption 

2,144.1 

596.4 

86% 

596.4 

86% 

Deminimis 

xxx/2019, Article 
4 (1,c,vi) of 
86/2017 

South-eastern 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA14-GSA15-
GSA16-GSA19-
GSA20-GSA21-
GSA22-GSA23-
GSA24-GSA25-
GSA26-GSA27) 

Red seabream 

2018  MLT 

Grouperd 

Grouperd 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

Common pandora 

2018  MLT 

Common 
seabream 

Common 
seabream 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

Spanish seabream 

2018  MLT 

Wreckfish 

Wreckfish 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

Total exemption 

0.0 

0.9 

0.2 

0.0 

0.1 

0.3 

2.0 

0.6 

1.2 

5.5 

Deminimis 

Article 161/2018 
(1) Annex IV 

Malta Island and 
Sicily (GSA15-

Anchovy 

2018 

ITA 

Horse Mackerel 

2018 

ITA 

1364.2 

46.7 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

4.1 

n.a 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

40% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

5.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

55% 

n.a. 

142 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 
GSA16) 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  MLT 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Sardine 

Sole 

Sole 

Sole 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

2018 

ITA 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

2018  SVN 

Total exemption 

1,913.7 

Deminimis 

xxx/2019, Article 
4 (1,b,vi) of 
86/2017 

Adriatic Sea 
(GSA17-GSA18) 

Red seabream 

2018  HRV 

Red seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Annular seabream 

2018  HRV 

Annular seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Annular seabream 

2018  SVN 

European seabass 

2018  HRV 

European seabass 

2018 

ITA 

European seabass 

2018  SVN 

Common 
two-
banded seabream 

two-
Common 
banded seabream 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

Common 

two-

2018  SVN 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

21.0 

85.8 

157.0 

239.1 

145.1 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

4.1 

0.5 

307.8 

11.1 

9.8 

0.4 

1.3 

1.4 

18.7 

2.0 

6.5 

73.3 

2.8 

15.8 

21.9 

0.0 

0.2 

0.0 

n.a 

0.0 

n.a 

0.9 

0.0 

n.a 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

29% 

100% 

69% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

99% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

5.6 

0.5 

12.2 

0.2 

0.0 

n.a. 

0.0 

1.5 

0.9 

0.0 

1.4 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

39% 

100% 

88% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

27% 

100% 

100% 

68% 

99% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

143 
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 
banded seabream 

Year 

Country 

Grouperd 

2018 

ITA 

Common pandora 

2018  HRV 

Common pandora 

2018 

ITA 

Common pandora 

2018  SVN 

Common 
seabream 

Common 
seabream 

Common 
seabream 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

2018  SVN 

Spanish seabream 

2018  HRV 

Spanish seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

2018  SVN 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

0.0 

9.5 

18.2 

3.0 

1.3 

7.1 

0.0 

0.7 

0.9 

104.8 

193.4 

12.7 

4.4 

1.3 

n.a 

0.2 

n.a 

0.2 

0.0 

n.a 

n.a 

0.0 

n.a 

0.5 

n.a 

0.2 

0.0 

n.a 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

0.2 

1.1 

0.2 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

0.5 

1.3 

0.2 

0.0 

n.a. 

100% 

84% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

88% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

144 
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

2018  SVN 

Striped seabream 

2018  HRV 

Striped seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Striped seabream 

2018  SVN 

White seabream 

2018  HRV 

White seabream 

2018 

ITA 

White seabream 

2018  SVN 

Wreckfish 

2018 

ITA 

0.1 

2.2 

103.8 

0.3 

2.3 

32.2 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a 

0.0 

n.a 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

Total exemption 

1,105.1 

13.8 

Red seabream 

2018  HRV 

Red seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Annular seabream 

2018  HRV 

Annular seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Annular seabream 

2018  SVN 

European seabass 

2018  HRV 

European seabass 

2018 

ITA 

European seabass 

2018  SVN 

two-
Common 
banded seabream 

2018  HRV 

Common 

two-

2018 

ITA 

0.0 

4.2 

0.0 

3.0 

0.1 

0.1 

20.7 

0.8 

0.1 

2.7 

0.0 

0.3 

0.0 

n.a 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

49% 

100% 

96% 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

0.0 

3.2 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

23.4 

0.0 

0.3 

0.0 

0.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

100% 

83% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

84% 

100% 

96% 

100% 

55% 

100% 

100% 

70% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Deminimis 

xxx/2019, Article 
4 (1,b,v) of 
86/2017 

Adriatic Sea 
(GSA17-GSA18) 

145 
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 
banded seabream 

Year 

Country 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

Grouperd 

2018 

ITA 

Common pandora 

2018  HRV 

Common pandora 

2018 

ITA 

Common pandora 

2018  SVN 

Common 
seabream 

Common 
seabream 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

Spanish seabream 

2018  HRV 

Spanish seabream 

2018 

ITA 

2018  HRV 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

2018 

ITA 

437.1 

2018  SVN 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

2018  SVN 

0.3 

0.0 

0.1 

0.1 

0.2 

47.1 

n.a 

0.0 

44.1 

779.1 

0.6 

0.3 

6.0 

2.0 

2.8 

1.5 

0.2 

0.0 

n.a 

0.0 

n.a 

0.0 

n.a 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a. 

100% 

65% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.0 

784.1 

0.2 

0.0 

n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 

0.0 

5.6 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

n.a. 

100% 

18% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

146 
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Striped seabream 

2018  HRV 

Striped seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Striped seabream 

2018  SVN 

White seabream 

2018  HRV 

White seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Wreckfish 

Deep-water 
shrimp 

Deep-water 
shrimp 

rose 

rose 

2018 

ITA 

2018  HRV 

2018 

ITA 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

0.0 

58.5 

0.0 

0.0 

1.6 

0.0 

912.5 

2,804.3 

0.0 

n.a 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a 

n.a 

8.3 

100% 

n.a. 

0% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

19% 

0.0 

n.a. 

0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 

8.3 

100% 

n.a. 

#DIV/0! 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

279.8 

97% 

279.8 

99% 

Deminimis 

Article 161/2018 
(1) Annex VI 

Southern Adriatic and 
Ionian Sea  (GSA18-
GSA19-GSA20) 

Total exemption 

4,350.9 

1,067.8 

Anchovy 

Anchovy 

2018 

ITA 

2018  GRC 

Horse Mackerel 

2018 

ITA 

4,203.6 

482.1 

123.4 

0.0 

7.0 

n.a 

69% 

56% 

100% 

n.a. 

1,078.8 

0.0 

7.0 

n.a. 

89% 

56% 

100% 

n.a. 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  GRC 

119.8 

319.4 

100% 

319.4 

100% 

Mackerel 

Mackerel 

Sardine 

Sardine 

2018 

ITA 

2018  GRC 

2018 

ITA 

2018  GRC 

47.1 

0.1 

1,011.7 

n.a 

0.0 

0.0 

1,266.6 

51.8 

Total exemption 

7,254.4 

378.2 

n.a. 

100% 

27% 

100% 

62% 

100% 

n.a. 

0.0 

0.0 

51.8 

378.2 

0.0 

n.a. 

100% 

27% 

100% 

62% 

100% 

Deminimis 

161/2018 Article 

Southern Agean Sea  Anchovy 

2018  GRC 

7,536.9 

0.0 

147 
 
  
  
 
  
  
Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 
3(2) Annex V 

Area 
and Crete Island 
(GSA22-GSA23) 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  GRC 

Mackerel 

Sardine 

2018  GRC 

2018  GRC 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

321.8 

43.2 

32.7 

7,201.5 

0.0 

3.0 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Total exemption 

15,092.8 

46.2 

100% 

Deminimis 

Article 161/2018 
(1) Annex V 

Argean Sea and Crete 
Island (GSA22-
GSA23) 

Anchovy 

2018  GRC 

Horse Mackerel 

2018  GRC 

Mackerel 

Sardine 

2018  GRC 

2018  GRC 

7,536.9 

0.0 

321.8 

43.2 

32.7 

7,201.5 

0.0 

3.0 

Total exemption 

15,092.8 

46.2 

Deminimis 

xxx/2019, Article 
4 (1,a,v) of 
86/2017 

Western 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-
GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-
GSA9-GSA10-
GSA11.1-GSA11.2-
GSA12) 

Red seabream 

2018  ESP 

Red seabream 

2018  FRA 

Red seabream 

2018 

ITA 

European seabass 

2018  ESP 

European seabass 

2018  FRA 

Grouperd 

Grouperd 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

Common pandora 

2018  ESP 

Common pandora 

2018  FRA 

Common pandora 

2018 

ITA 

Common 

2018  ESP 

6.5 

0.4 

0.4 

0.0 

3.6 

0.0 

0.3 

0.3 

0.0 

3.3 

0.1 

n.a 
n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

43.2 

0.0 

3.0 

46.2 

0.0 

43.2 

0.0 

3.0 

46.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

148 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

seabream 

Common 
seabream 

2018  FRA 

Spanish seabream 

2018  ESP 

Spanish seabream 

2018 

ITA 

Gilthead 
seabream 

2018  FRA 

Striped seabream 

2018  ESP 

White seabream 

2018  FRA 

Wreckfish 

Wreckfish 

Wreckfish 

Wreckfish 

2018  ESP 

2018  FRA 

2018 

ITA 

2018  MLT 

0.0 

0.3 

0.6 

4.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.4 

1.0 

0.1 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 
n.a 

n.a 

Total exemption 

21.3 

n.a. 

2018  CYP 

1.1 

n.a 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2018 

ITA 

5,354.7 

99.6 

34% 

140.2 

58% 

2018  MLT 

9.9 

n.a 

n.a. 

0.0 

2% 

2018  GRC 

1,210.7 

142.8 

100% 

142.8 

100% 

Deminimis 

86/2017, Article 4 
(c) iii 

South-eastern 
Mediterranean Sea 
(GSA14-GSA15-
GSA16-GSA19-
GSA20-GSA21-
GSA22-GSA23-
GSA24-GSA25-
GSA26-GSA27) 

Deep  water  rose 
shrimp 

Deep  water  rose 
shrimp 

Deep  water  rose 
shrimp 

Deep  water  rose 
shrimp 

149 
 
  
  
 
Discards without 
fillings 

Discards with 
fillings 

Type of 
exemption 

Exemption 
Article 

Area 

Species 

Year 

Country 

Total  
weight of 
landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 
reported 

Total exemption 

6,576.4 

242.4 

Sole 

2018  HRV 

Red seabream 

2018  HRV 

Annular seabream 

2018  HRV 

European seabass 

2018  HRV 

Common 
two-
banded seabream 

2018  HRV 

Common pandora 

2018  HRV 

Deminimis 

xxx/2019, Article 
4 (1,b,vii) of 
86/2017 

Adriatic Sea 
(GSA17-GSA18) 

Common 
seabream 

2018  HRV 

Spanish seabream 

2018  HRV 

Gilthead 
seabream 

Sharpsnout 
seabream 

2018  HRV 

2018  HRV 

Striped seabream 

2018  HRV 

White seabream 

2018  HRV 

Total exemption 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.1 

0.3 

1.0 

0.7 

0.0 

1.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

3.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

46% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Weight, 
tonnes 

282.9 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Coverage 
% of 
total 
landings 

65% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

150 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
3.5.3  Estimation of the percentage of fish above and below MCRS 

Method 

Estimation  of  the fish above and below  the MCRS  by species,  country,  métier,  year and quarter 
was done merging tables A, D and F using the fields domain_discards and domain_landings. 

In Table A, if a métier has been sampled for landings it has a domain_landings associated and the 
length structure of le landings is displayed in table F, respectively, if discards have been sampled, 
a domain_discards is associated and the length structure of the discards displayed in table D. 

Length structure of the discards and landings are provided by domains and year, quarter for the 
Mediterranean  and  the  Black  Sea  regions  and  by  domain  and  year  for  the  Atlantic  Ocean  and 
other regions. 

The  domains  were  created  to  reflect  the  sampling  programs  of  the countries  and  to  provide  the 
best scientific information about the length structure of the landings/discards. In most of the case 
a domain will then aggregate métier and/or areas and/or quarter and/or mesh sizes… The values 
in column totwghtlandg and discards of table A are then expected to be lower than totwghtlandg 
and discards in table D and totwghtlandg in table F as they can encompass several lines in table 
A. 

The  main  and  strong  assumption  made  in  these  calculations  is  that  the  length  structure  of 
landings  and  discards  for  a  métier  in  table  A  will  be  the  length  structure  of  the  landings  of  the 
associated domain in table F and the length structure of the discards of the associated domain in 
table D. 

Landings  and  discards  numbers  at  length  coming  respectively  from  table  F  and  D  are  then 
corrected  by  the  ratio  of  the  reported  weight  of  landings  and  discards  in  the  different  tables  to 
compute the numbers by métier. 

𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑡,𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛,𝑙

= 𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐹 𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛,𝑙  

𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑤𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑔 𝑇𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐴 𝑚𝑒𝑡,𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑤𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑔  Table F𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛

𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 Table A𝑚𝑒𝑡,𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛,𝑙 = 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 Table D  𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛,𝑙  

𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑠 Table D 𝑚𝑒𝑡,𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑠 Table A 𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛

met: metier in table A 

domain: either domain_discards when computing discards numbers at length or domain_landings 
when computing landings numbers at length. 

l: length 

As not all métiers in Table A are associated to a domain, the total length structure of the catches 
cannot  be  computed  and  conclusions  depend  upon  the  number  of  domains  provided  and  the 
number of samples in each domain and their representativeness. 

The number caught at length can then  be linked with the MCRS reference table and the sum of 
fishes caught above or under the MCRS computed by métier/species. 

However,  these  numbers  at  length  cannot  be  directly  compared  to  the  percentages  of  discards 
allowed  when  exemptions  are  granted  nor  the  discard  ratio  usually  looked  at  as  these  discard 
ratio are commonly expressed in weight. 

An  attempt  to  compute  the  percentages  in  weight  was  investigated  using  the  average  a  and  b 
(table  3.5.3.1)  parameters  from  the  weight  at  length  relationships  extracted  from  Fishbase  for 

151 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
several  species.  Using  these  values  is  a  fix  to  overcome  the  absence  of  weight  at  length  in  the 
tables D and F. 

Table  3.5.3.1:  a  and  b  parameters  coming  from  fishbase  (average  over  the  available 
inforamtion). 

species 

a_mean 

b_mean 

HER 

WHG 

HKE 

WHB 

LIN 

SAN 

COD 

MAC 

SOL 

NOP 

PLE 

POK 

HOM 

HAD 

RJA 

SME 

0,006273 

3,094734 

0,007904 

2,994284 

0,005471 

3,079333 

0,007294 

2,971714 

0,00386 

3,074 

0,001887 

3,213333 

0,009009 

3,016714 

0,008713 

3,029667 

0,008607 

3,025722 

0,006667 

0,00892 

0,0104 

0,011642 

3 

3,009 

2,972 

2,937 

0,012056 

2,937286 

0,003603 

3,218667 

0,0039 

3,203 

These  parameters  were  then  used  to  transform  length  into  weight  at  length  and  allowed 
computing  the  percentages  in  weight  under  or  above  the  MCRS  for  several  species  and  métiers 
with a domain associated. 

As an example, Figure 3.5.3.1 and Figure 3.5.3.2 represent the percentages of fish caught by the 
Belgian fleets fishing sole in the North Sea with Beam Trawl using a mesh size between 70 and 99 
mm between 2015 and 2018 both in number and weight. 

Example  subset(percLong,  country_code=="BEL"  &  Area=="NS"  &  metier=="TBB_DEF_70-
99_0_0" & species=="SOL". 

152 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.5.3.1: Percentages in number of soles caught Under or Above the MCRS. 

Figure 3.5.3.2: Percentages in weight of soles caught Under or Above the MCRS. 

153 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Shortcomings 

1.  For  the  first  time,  this  year  the  length  frequency  data  have  been  used  to  calculate  the 
percentage of undersized fish in the landings and discards. Similar to the overall discard rates it 
needs  to  be  highlighted  that  this  is  based  on  observer  data  and  a  limited  number  of  sampled 
trips.  The  length  frequencies  were  used  as  being  representative  in  a  much  wider  context.  E.g., 
when  a  sampled  length  frequency  was  only  available  for  quarter  3,  it  was  assumed  that  it  is 
representative  for  the  whole  year.  This  can  introduce  a  serious  bias  as  fish  grow  over  the  year 
and recruits are often entering the fishery in the third quarter. Therefore, the results have to be 
interpreted carefully and always in conjunction with information on the sampling coverage. 

2. The data call has only asked for the length frequencies in numbers, but without an associated 
mean weight at length. The EWG made a first attempt to provide also the information for biomass 
by using length-weight relationships based on FISHBASE values (see above under methods). This 
is a very rough approach and  in order to be able to calculate the percentage based on biomass 
based  on  submitted  data,  it would  be  beneficial to  add a column with  mean weight  at  length to 
table F in future datacalls.   

3.  Data  checks  (i.e.  SOP)  revealed  that  there  a  several  cases  with  inconsistent  information 
between the length frequencies provided and the associated total weight of landings and discards.  
It is unclear whether this is due to the rough estimates used for the length-weight relationship or 
by wrongly scaled numbers at length.  

4. Due to the issues identified, the EWG stresses that the percentage of undersized fish provided 
may  not  be  used  to  calculate  e.g.,  deductions  needed  from  TACs  (based  on  biomass!)  under 
exemptions  for  undersized  fish  or  shellfish  only.  Although  the  potential  of  having  this  type  of 
information could be clearly demonstrated in this first attempt, further investigations and updates 
to the datacall  are needed.    

154 
 
4 

CONTACT DETAILS OF EWG-19-11 PARTICIPANTS 

1  -  Information  on  EWG  participant’s  affiliations  is  displayed  for  information  only.  In  any  case, 
Members of the STECF, invited experts, and JRC experts shall act independently. In the context of 
the  STECF  work,  the  committee  members  and  other  experts  do  not  represent  the 
institutions/bodies  they  are  affiliated  to  in  their  daily  jobs.  STECF  members  and  experts  also 
declare  at  each  meeting  of  the  STECF  and  of  its  Expert  Working  Groups  any  specific  interest, 
which  might  be  considered  prejudicial  to  their  independence  in  relation  to  specific  items  on  the 
agenda.  These  declarations  are  displayed  on  the  public  meeting’s  website  if  experts  explicitly 
authorized the JRC to do so in accordance with EU legislation on the protection of personnel data. 
For more information: http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/adm-declarations 

STECF members 

Name 

Address 

Casey, John 

Motova, Arina 

Co-chair 

Vanhee, Willy 

Co-chair 

Raid, Tiit 

26 Outney Road, 
Bungay,Suffolk,NR35 
1DZ,UK 

Seafish, 18 Logie Mill, 
Logie Green Road, 
Edinburgh EH7 4HS, UK 

Hospitaalstraat  12,  8400 
Oostende, Belgium 

Estonian Marine 
Institute, University of 
Tartu, Mäealuse 14, 
Tallin, EE-126, Estonia 

Invited experts 

Name 

Address 

Adamowicz, 
Maciej 

Cano, Suzana 

Carlshamre, 
Sofia 

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

DGRM -  Direção-Geral 
de Recursos Naturais- 
Segurança e Serviços 
Marítimos, Av. Brasília, 
1449-030, Lisbon, 
Portugal 

SLU - Inst. of Marine 
Research, Turistgatan 
5, 453 30 Lysekil, 
Sweden 

Demaneche, 
Sébastien 

IFREMER B.P. 70, 
29280, Plouzané, 
France 

Telephone 
no. 

Email 

blindlemoncasey@gmail.com 

arina.motova@seafish.co.uk 

wvanhee@telenet.be 

Tiit.raid@gmail.com 

Telephone 
no. 

Email 

madamowicz@mir.gdynia.pl 

sfcano@dgrm.mm.gov.pt 

sofia.carlshamre@slu.se 

sdemanec@ifremer.fr 

Dixon, Simon 

Marine Management 
Organisation, U.K. 

simon.dixon@marinemanagem
ent.org.uk 

155 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Egekvist, 
Josefine 

González 
Herraiz, Isabel 

Gómez Suárez, 
Francisco Javier 

DTU Aqua Kemitorvet 
Building 201, Room 147 
2800 Kgs. Lyngby 
Denmark 

INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL 
DE OCEANOGRAFÍA 
(IEO). Centro 
Oceanográfico de A 
Coruña. Paseo Marítimo 
Alcalde Francisco 
Vázquez, 10. 15001 A 
Coruña, Spain.  

INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL 
DE OCEANOGRAFÍA 
(IEO). Centro 
Oceanográfico de A 
Coruña. Paseo Marítimo 
Alcalde Francisco 
Vázquez, 10. 15001 A 
Coruña, Spain. 

Jakovleva, Irina 

Fisheries Service under 
Ministry of Agriculture 

Kavadas, 
Stefanos 

Kempf, 
Alexander 

Kovsars, 
Maksims 

Molla Gazi, 
Karolina 

Moore, Claire 

Hellenic Centre for 
Marine Research, 
Institute of Marine 
Biological Resources 
and Inland Waters 46,7 
km Athens Sounio ave. 
P.O. Box 712, P.C. 
19013 Anavyssos Attiki 
Greece 

Thuenen Institute of 
Sea Fisheries 
Herwigstraße 31. 27570 
Bremerhaven 

Fish Resources 
Research department 
(BIOR), Latvia 

Wageningen Marine 
Research, The 
Netherlands 

Marine Institute, 
Rinville, Oranmore, 
Galway, Ireland 

Nicheva, Simona  Executive Agency for 

Fisheries and 
Aquaculture, 1 Knyaz 
Aleksander Batenberg 
Str., 8000 Burgas, 
Bulgaria 

Institute for Agricultural 
and Fisheries Research, 
Belgium 

Marine Scotland 
Science, 375 Victoria 
Road, Aberdeen, United 
Kingdom 

Nimmegeers, 
Sofie 

Reilly, Thomas 

jsv@aqua.dtu.dk 

isabel.herraiz@ieo.es 

francisco.gomez@ieo.es 

irina.jakovleva@zuv.lt 

stefanos@hcmr.gr 

alexander.kempf@thuenen.de 

Maksims.Kovsars@bior.gov.lv 

kmollagazi@gmail.com 

Claire.moore@marine.ie 

simona.nicheva@iara.governm
ent.bg 

sofie.nimmegeers@ilvo.vlaand
eren.be 

Thomas.reilly@gov.scot 

Reis, Dalia 

DRP/SRMCT Rua Cônsul 

Dalia.CC.Reis@azores.gov.pt 

156 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dabney - Colónia 
Alemã, 9900-014 
HORTA 

Ribeiro Santos, 
Ana 

CEFAS, Pakefield Road, 
NR33 0HT, Lowestoft, 
United Kingdom 

ana.ribeirosantos@cefas.co.uk 

Russo, Tommaso  University of Rome Tor 

Tommaso.Russo@Uniroma2.it 

Vergata, Italy 

Sabatella, 
Evelina Carmen 

NISEA soc. Coop. via 
Irno 11 84135 Salerno 

Helmond van, 
Aloysius 

Wageningen Marine 
Research, The 
Netherlands 

Vermard, Youen 

Centre Atlantique - Rue 
de l'Ile d'Yeu - BP 
21105 - 44311 Nantes 
Cedex 03 

e.sabatella@nisea.eu 

edwin.vanhelmond@wur.nl 

youen.vermard@ifremer.fr 

JRC experts 

Name 

Address 

Telephone no. 

Email 

Gibin, Maurizio 

Joint Research 
Centre 

Mannini, 
Alessandro 

Joint Research 
Centre 

Zanzi, 
Antonella 

Joint Research 
Centre 

Maurizio.GIBIN@ec.europa.eu 

Alessandro.MANNINI@ec.europa.eu 

Antonella.ZANZI@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 

Name 

Address 

Telephone no. 

Email 

Zanzi, 
Antonella 

STECF secretariat  

jrc-stecf-secretariat@ec.europa.eu  

Ranshuysen, 
Evelien 

DGMARE 

Evelien.RANSHUYSEN@ec.europa.eu 

157 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 

LIST OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS  

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Fisheries  Dependent 
Information (STECF-16-20); Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; EUR 27758 
EN; doi:10.2788/502445 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Fisheries  Dependent 
Information (STECF-17-12); Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; EUR 29204 
EN; doi:10.2760/094412 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Fisheries  Dependent 
Information (STECF-18-11); Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; EUR 28359 
EN; doi:10.2760/696153 

158 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6  ANNEXES 

Annex 1 - DTMT Guidance 

1 

Introduction 

The  Data  Transmission  Monitoring  Tool  (DTMT)  has  been  designed  with  the  purpose  of 
facilitating exchange  of  information  among  the  end  users  of  data, MS  and Commission. 
The objective of this approach is to efficiently monitor and communicate data issues and 
in the long term improve the flow and quality of data. It is very important for DG MARE 
that issues are properly reported and commented on at all levels in the DTMT, so that a 
follow-up of data issues can be ensured. 

Data  issues  which  relate  to  MS  not  having  provided  the  data  for  whatever  reasons  or 
data quality issues should be reported in the DTMT. In this way, MS will become aware 
of the data issues identified by EWGs or in preparation of EWGs and can therefore work 
on solutions for the future. 

The  data  transmission  issues  should  be  reported  in  the  DTMT  in  a  standardised  and 
homogeneous  way  to  allow,  by  using  a  searchable  tool,  the  quick  identification  of 
pending issues and to flag common gaps and issues among MS, among different years of 
the same data call and, when possible, among different data calls.  

The identification of data transmission issues should start right after the deadline for the 
data call, when the first final dataset is available. The reporting of issues into the DTMT 
should start right after the expert working group has finished working with data. Direct 
communication with MS is desirable prior to reporting of issues in the DTMT. The issues 
that  are  already  dealt  with  during  the  process  of  creating  the  final  dataset  should  not 
generally be included in the DTMT and only outstanding issues should be reported, with 
the exception of timeliness issues which may need to be reported. 

This Guidance document has been developed in stages under the guidance of DGMARE, 
JRC  and  STECF  at  the  STECF  Plenary  in  March  2019.  It  is  intended  to  be  a  living 
document and updated as needed if changes are made to the DTMT or guidance needs 
to change. It can be found at (https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guidelines).    

The tool is available at https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/dcf/dtmt  

Access credentials are user-specific. All end user groups e.g. STECF (and relevant Expert 
groups), ICES, GFCM etc., will be provided with log-on credentials by the JRC. 

The home page for the JRC and DG MARE is shown in Figure 1. This shows all columns 
with an example of 5 records. 

End  users  will  see  a  reduced number  of  columns  in  accordance  with  their  access  rights 
(see Table 1). 

This Guidance document follows the chronological order of the DTMT sections. 

2 

Guidance for end users on filling in issues in the DTMT 

2.1  How to add an issue 

The JRC, END USERS and DG MARE can add a new issue using the ‘Add issue’ button. 

Clicking  ‘Add  issue’  opens  a  dialogue  box  and  the  end-user  simply  needs  to  enter  the 
required information in the appropriate boxes either by entering text or selecting from a 
drop-down menu (Figure 2). 

159 
 
If the end user fails to insert the relevant information, a warning dialogue box appears.  

2.2  How should an issue be selected 

Whether an issue should be reported is a judgement that must be made by the end-user 
that identifies a problem which remains unresolved and has had some influence on either 
the coverage, timeliness or quality of the data submitted. 

The  data  type  requested  should  be  identified  according  to  the  list  for  each  EWG  (see 
Annex  1,  at  the  end  of  this  guidance  document)  and  entered  in  the  "Data  requested" 
field. The entries should be limited to the listed values. 

The "Issue" field is used to identify which specific part of the data requested is in error, 
and  the  nature  of  the  issue.  This  field  should  contain  enough  information  to  clearly 
convey  which  piece  of  data  is  the  issue.  The  information  should  be  aggregated  to  the 
highest level feasible, without loss of clarity regarding the data being identified. Ideally, 
data that would be corrected together should be dealt with in a single record. Any issue 
raised requires a Member State to provide an explanation as to why the issue has arisen. 

A clear description of the issues raised is fundamental to the ability of MSs to understand 
and comment on such issues, so clarity is important. 

2.3  Deleting an issue 

The  JRC,  END  USERS  and  DG  MARE  can  delete  issues  by  clicking  the 

button  on  the 

extreme left of the record next to the ID number (Figure 1). Clicking the 
confirmation to delete dialogue box.  

opens up a 

2.4  Selecting the severity of impact of the issue been on the work of the EWG 

Severity Field: "Low", "Medium" and "High". 

"Low" implies not important impact on the conduct or output of the EWG. 

"Medium"  has  influence  on  the  conduct  of  the  WG  or  the  results,  such  that  time  has 
been wasted, or the results are in error but not in a major way. 

"High"  should  be  chosen  where  the  results  of  the  EWG  have  been  influenced  in  an 
important way, such as errors in the output or delays in the conduct of the meeting or 
the preparation of the report.   

Note: that the issue type “impact on the WG”, has been removed  

2.5  Different issue types  

"Coverage"  essentially  relates  to  variables  that  were  called  for  but  not  reported. 
However,  when  considering  coverage,  some  expert  judgement  is  required  to  determine 
whether a variable that was called for and not  transmitted needs to be reported. Some 
common sense is required here. For example, reporting every missing variable for every 
stratum requested in a data call is not appropriate. Generally, individual coverage issues 
that  are  judged  to  have  low  impact  on  the  end-user’s  work  should  not  be  reported. 
However if the cumulative effect of a series of coverage issues for a particular Member 
State is judged to be medium-high severity, then the description of the issues should be 
reported.  

160 
 
 
"Timeliness"  essentially  relates  to  data  that  were  not  transmitted  in  accordance  with 
agreed  deadlines  (legal  or  operational).  If  for  whatever  reason,  the  data  were 
transmitted after the deadline and were available to the end-user to undertake the work, 
this should be specified in the "End-user comment" column. If the delay is minor and 
the data is available for the work, and the delay is not occurring every year the End User 
may exclude the issue. However, the data are repeated uploaded late but in time for the 
EWG this should be note as a database entry. 

"Quality" is not straightforward to assess but a general rule of thumb is that a quality 
issue will be one that has had an impact on the work being undertaken by the end-user. 
Hence quality issues with low severity need not be reported unless there is a cumulative 
effect. The end users should also look at section 4 of this document and fill in the "End 
user comment" field of the DTMT accordingly. 

Note:  that  the  issue  type  “unknown”,  has  been  removed  as  in  practice  it  has  not 
appeared to be useful. 

3 

Guidance  to  Member  States  on  commenting  on  issues  reported  in  the 
DTMT 

Member States (MS) comments need to address each issue raised directly and provide a 
suitable explanation or confirmation of correction. Clarification should be provided where 
the MS has a reason why there is no obligation to provide the data.  

Note that MS do not have the ability to add an issue record i.e. there is no "Add issue" 
button  available  for  MS.  Double  clicking  on  an  issue  opens  a  dialogue  box  (Figure  3) 
where the MS can insert its comments. Note that the only editing option the MS has, is 
to insert/edit text in the "Member State comment" box. 

4 

End user comment and assessment 

Two fields are provided, "end user comment" and "end user assessment". The first 
of these should be used by the end user to provide further information on the data issue, 
if  that  is  needed,  following  the  MS  comment.  The  field  "end  user  assessment"  has 
several options: "Not assessed", when the end user has not evaluated MS response 

"Satisfactory",  where  the  end  user  considers  that  the  MS  response  is  satisfactory, 
covers the issue and no further action is needed 

"Unsatisfactory", where the end user considers that the MS response does not resolve 
the issue and further action would be helpful to resolve the issue 

"Follow-up needed" should be used in some situations in which the MS response may 
be satisfactory as an explanation of the reason for the issue, but there is still a need to 
follow-up on the issues for so that in the future such issues are less likely.  

5 

Guidance to STECF on commenting and assessment of data issues reported 
in the DTMT 

Two  fields  are  provided:  "STECF  comment"  and  "STECF  assessment".  The  field 
"STECF  comment"  should  be  used  to  provide  further  information  on  the  data  issue,  if 
that  is  needed  following  the  MS  comment.  The  field  "STECF  assessment"  has  several 
options: 

"Not assessed", which indicates that STECF has not evaluated the MS response. 

"Satisfactory", where STECF considers that the MS response is satisfactory, covers the 
issue and no further action is needed. 

161 
 
"Unsatisfactory",  where  STECF  considers  that  the  MS  response  does  not  resolve  the 
issue and where further action would be helpful to resolve the issue. 

"Follow-up needed" should be used in some situations in which the MS response may 
be satisfactory as an explanation of the reason for the issue, but there is still a need to 
follow-up on the issues for so that in the future such issues are less likely.  

As for end-users and MS, it is crucial that the STECF and other end-users' comments to 
issues  raised  and  the  associated  MS  responses  are  sufficiently  clear  and  informative  to 
allow  DG  MARE  to  judge  whether  the  issue  can  be  considered  a  failure  or  warrants 
further clarification from the MS before such a judgement is made. 

In assessing issues and Member State responses, the current guidance (STECF EWG 18-
10) is as listed in Table 2. 

6 

Guidance  to  DG  MARE  on  commenting  and  assessment  of  data  issues 
reported in the DTMT 

DG  MARE  has  access  to  the  entire  application,  but  has  edit  access  to  the  columns  "DG 
MARE comments/action" and "DG MARE decision" (drop-down menu) only. 

Double  clicking  a  record  opens  up  a  dialogue  box  where  the  comments/action  can  be 
inserted and decision can be selected from the drop-down menu. Note that a new option 
“issue closed” is needed. 

Figure 1. Home page of the online Data Transmission Monitoring Tool (DTMT) (JRC and 
DG MARE View). 

Will be renamed 
‘Data Transmission 
Monitoring 

162 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1. Column headers, associated instructions and read/edit access rights. 

Colours  refer  to  user  input  permissions.  End-user  input,  MS  input,  STECF  input,  DG 
MARE input  

Generally all fields are available to view by all End users, STECF and DGMARE but write 
permission is only given to the different users according the colour scheme given below. 
Generally MS will generally only be able to view their own records 

ID  
Year  

Country 
End user  
Data call  
Data requested   Manual 

automatically generated 
Manual  input:  Insert  year  of  the  most  recent  data  call.  This  field  is 
used also to identify records by year     
select from drop-down menu 
select from drop-down menu 
select from drop-down menu 

A formal data description which should be taken from the 
relevant  table  for  each  EWG/organization  (see  Annex 
1below) 
The text should be stand-alone and contain explicit detail 
to be self-explanatory 
See  examples  given  below  by  EWG,  these  should  only 
refer to the data with the issue, by field year etc. and not 
data that is satisfactory, see Annex 1 for examples. 

input  by 
end-user. 
Manual 
input 
identifyin
g 
issue. 
Select from drop-down menu (coverage, quality, timeliness - see text 
above for basis) 
Select from drop-down menu (High, medium, low, see text above for 
basis).  

the 

Issue 

Issue type 

Severity 

MS Comment 

Recurring Issue?  Select from drop-down menu (yes, NO, UNKNOWN). Mark yes if it is 
an  issue  that  was  raised  previously,  BUT  do  not  raise  it  if  for 
example, if the issue had been satisfactorily addressed previously. Do 
not report for example that MS 'A' did not provide data for 2008-2010 
if  the  data  transmission  issue  relates  to  a  data  call  in  2017  and  this 
was previously reported and dealt with in 2015 
Manual  input  by  MS.  MS  should  provide  sufficient  detail  to  allow  the 
end-user to assess whether the issue has been adequately addressed 
or whether it should remain as a potential data failure. 
Edit  access:  relevant  MS  only,  Read  access:  end-user  that  raised 
the issue,  STECF and DG MARE 
Manual input . Insert any appropriate comment that justifies the end-
user assessment and suggested follow-up action.  Note that in some 
cases end user and STECF will be one and the same. 
Select  from  drop-down  menu  (NOT  ASSESSED,  SATISFACTORY, 
UNSATISFACTORY, Follow-up needed - see above) 
Manual  input.  Insert  any  appropriate  comment  that  justifies  the 
STECF assessment and suggested follow-up action  

End-user 
comment 

Select  from  drop-down  menu  (NOT  ASSESSED,  SATISFACTORY, 
UNSATISFACTORY, Follow-up needed- see above) 
Manual input . Insert any appropriate comment that justifies the DG 
MARE assessment and follow-up action 
Select from drop-down menu (Not a DT Failure, Issue Closed, Failure) 

End user 
Assessment 
STECF 
Comment/propo
sed action 
STECF 
Assessment 
DG MARE 
Comment/action 
DG 
MARE 
Decision 

163 
 
  
 
 
 
Figure 2. Add issue dialogue box. 

164 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Member State dialogue box. 

165 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2. Guidance for STECF evaluation of data transmission issues resulted from EWG-
18-10. 

Issue 

EWG Assessment 
and associated comments 

Unclear MS comment in reply to the issue 
flagged by the end-user. 

 Follow up necessary 

+ a comment:  

The  DT  issue  identified  by  an  end-user  is 
not  clearly  and  explicitly  described  (End-
user must always provide a self-sufficient 
comment/feedback to the EWG.) 

Information  provided  by  end-users  and 
MS  is  contradictory  and  there  is  no 
evidence  to  allow  the  EWG  to  give  an 
assessment. 

“The comment by the MS is unclear.” 

Not assessed 

+ a comment: 

“The  end-user  should  be  more  specific 
in defining the deficiencies” 

Follow up necessary 

+ a comment:  

“The  information  provided  by  end-users 
and MS is contradictory”. 

MS mistaken on data transmission. 

Unsatisfactory 

The  issue  raised  relates  to  lack  of  data 
collection  and  not  data  transmission. 
Hence,  data  will  not  be  available  but 
situation must be flagged. 

Unsatisfactory 

A  standard  comment  must  be  included. 
“Failure  concerning  data  collection  and 
not data transmission” 

Data exists but MS fails to submit. 

Unsatisfactory 

When the issue raised is related to lack of 
punctuality on data transmission:  

1.  If  flagged  by  the  End–user  with 
“HIGH” or “Impact on the WG”. 
2.  If  flagged  by  the  End–user  with 
it 
LOW/MEDIUM 
proves  to  be  a  repetitive  issue 
from past years. 

severity  and 

3.  If  flagged  by  the  End–user  with 
it 
LOW/MEDIUM 
proves not to be a repetitive issue 
from past years. 

severity  and 

If  MS  according  to  the  agreed  NP,  plans 
to  collect  additional  data  beyond  DCF 
requirements and does not transmit these 
data  in  response  to  a  data  call  (this 
additional  collection  must  be  however 
clearly stated in the NP)). 

Unsatisfactory 

Unsatisfactory 

Expert should judge according to the MS 
justification. (no fixed rules agreed) 

Unsatisfactory 

If  the  issue  relates  to  data  collected  and 
the  past  and  data 
called 
been 
transmission 
evaluated. 

previously 

has 

for 

in 

Satisfactory  The  Standard  comment 
“Issue  is  assumed  to  be  closed  since  it 
data 
and 
the 
relates 
transmission  has  previously 
been 
evaluated.”  

past 

to 

166 
 
 
Annex 1 - Values for ‘Data Request’ and Issues, by EWG 

The information below is organised by EWG.  Even though some of the data field names 
are  the  same  for  different  calls  (e.g.  Landings),  the  values  of  these  may  end  up  being 
different,  so  they  are  dealt  with  separately  for  each  call  and  should  be  reported 
separately in the DTMT. It is there accepted that to uniquely identify a data issue it will 
be jointly defined by "Data Requested” and a “Data Call” identifiers. Generally entries 
need  to  be  understandable,  so  longer  forms  are  used,  but  for  species  and  gears  the 
following codes are used to uniquely identify data items in the ‘Issues’ field.    

Gear type in the DCF appendix IV of the 2010/93/EC  
https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10213/16106/2009-12-
18_Commission_Decision_93.pdf  

3-alpha code FAO ASFIS list of species  http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en  

FDI WG/data call 

FDI Data request 

One of the following descriptions should be entered in the Data Requested field  

Capacity  
Effort  
Landings  
Discards 
Landings length 
Discard length 
Landings age  
Discard age 
Spatial effort  
Spatial landings 
All data 

FDI Issue examples 

1.  Data request = Capacity 

a.  Capacity not provided year 2015 

2.  Data request = Effort 

a.  Effort not provided TBB in year 2015 
b.  Effort not provided BEAM and DREDGE areas 27.7.d and 27.7.e  
c.  Effort not provided for vessels with length <10m 
d.  Effort not provided year 2017, although catches data provided same year 

3.  Data request = Landings 

a.  For  2017,  total  landed  weight  of  all  species  is  2.5  times  higher  than  the 

corresponding figure reported in Eurostat dataset  

b.  Landings not provided for quarters 2 and 3 years 2016 and 2017  
c.  Landings not provided for SPECON_TECH T90 for year 2015 

4.  Data request = Discards 

a.  Discard weight not provided for year 2015 and 2016 
b.  Discards  year  2017  are  ~  10  times  higher  than  the  previous  years;  data 

should be checked to verify their reliability. 

5.  Data request = Landings length 

a.  No length frequency distribution was provided year 2015 

6.  Data request = Landings age 

a.  No landings at age data were provided for HKE 

7.  Data request = Discard length 

167 
 
a.  No discard length frequency distribution was provided year 2015 

8.  Data request = Discard age 

a.  Discard age data were not provided for any species 

9.  Data request = Spatial effort 

a.  Data not provided for vessels with length >18m year 2015  
b.  Spatial  effort  data  were  not  provided  for  year  2016,  even  if  spatial 

landings data were provided for the same year 

10. Data request = Spatial landings 

a.  The latitude and longitude values have been swapped 

11. Data request = All data 

a.  The vessel length was always provided with value Not Known 

STECF Mediterranean and Black Sea Assessment EWG /Data Call 

MBS Data requested codes 

One of the following descriptions should be entered in the Data Requested field  
Catch 
Landings length 
Discards length 
Effort 
Maturity ogive at length 
Maturity ogive at age 
Growth parameters 
Sex ratio at length 
Sex ratio at age 
Age length key 
MEDITS survey TA* 
MEDITS survey TB* 
MEDITS survey TC* 
Other surveys abundance by length and sex 
Other surveys biomass by length and sex 
Other surveys abundance and biomass by age and sex 

*  During  the  EWG  for  some  parameters  some  cross-checking/  combining  of  between 
different  data  tables  may  be  carried  out.  In  this  case  the  data  request  code  should  be 
modify accordingly (i.e. if there is a mismatch between table TA and TB the codes should 
be MEDITS survey TA_TB) 

MBS Data issues examples 

As  a  general  rule  the  entry  for  this  field  should  be  reported  to  area  (GSA)  and  the 
species  (FAO  3  digit  alpha  code)  at  the  beginning  and  then  the  details  of  the  issues 
documented. 

2.2.1 Data issues examples for data requested on Fisheries catch, landings and discards 
by length. 

1) GSA_09_HKE. Landings in weight are missing in years 2002,2005,2006 
2) GSA_09_HKE. Abundance by length classes are missing in year 2008 for gear OTB 
3) GSA_09_HKE. Landings in weight and volume are missing in years 2002,2005,2006 
4) GSA_09_HKE. Abundance by age classes are missing in year 2008 for gear OTB 
5) GSA_09_HKE. Abundance and mean weight by age classes are missing in year 2008 
for all gears 

168 
 
 
 
2.2.2 Data issues examples for data requested on Effort 

GSA09_OTB. Fishing days are missing for years 2002, 2012 and 2016 (quarter 1)  

2.2.3  Data  issues  examples  for  data  requested  Biological  parameters  and  ALK  (Age 
length Key) 

GSA_09_HKE. Maturity at length data are missing for years 2002 and 2012. 

2.2.4 Data issues examples for data requested from Medits surveys 

GSA_09_HKE.  Total  weight  reported  in  year  2002  haul  number  102  different  between 
table TB and TC. 

GSA_09_HKE. Data in weight and number are reported for year 2002 haul number 102 
even though the haul is not reported in table TA. 

2.2.5 Data issues examples for data requested Other surveys 

GSA_09_HKE. No abundance by length and sex are reported in year 2002. 

GSA_09_HKE.  Ratio  between  total  biomass  and  abundance  by  length  for  year  2002 
seems to low for the species. 

Fleet Socio-economic data call 

FSE Data requested 

One  of  the  following  descriptions/data  types  should  be  entered  in  the  Data  Requested 
field  

Capacity 
Landings 
Effort 
Employment 
Income 
Subsidies 
Expenditure 
Capital 
Social 
Multiple*   

*when the issue is broader than or covers multiple data types, for example, at the fleet 
segment level when only capacity data are reported and all other variables are missing.  

FSE Data issues entries 

- Data Issues should be reported at aggregated at the  lowest level  possible allowing to 
identify the issue by  

  main issue +  
  details,  first  give  aggregation  level,  the  detailed  variable  (see  list  below  by 
Data  Requested  field),  with  year(s),  fleet  segment,  species,  sub-region,  etc. 
added as necessary. 

Main Issue type 

Missing data 
Partial data  
Questionable data 

169 
 
 
Confidential*  

*missing  data  due  to  confidentiality  reasons;  not  necessarily  a  transmission  failure 
(=missing data) but flagged to highlight the fact that full coverage of the fleet (national 
and EU) is not achieved because it has been withheld by MS. 

Aggregation levels used for different variable types 

Aggregation levels 

Variable 
group 

Variables 

National total   

All variables 

all 

Fleet segment 

All variables 

all 

FAO  area  (sub-region,  level  3 
or 4, GSA) 

Landings  

Weight and value  

Effort 

Days  at  sea, fishing  days,  GT 
and kW fishing days 

FAO species codes 

Landings 

Weight and value 

List of the variables by the variable group defined in ‘Data Requested’ field 

Data 
requested 

Capacity 

Issue - variables  

Number of vessels, age of vessels,  mean LOA of vessels, total vessel 
power, total vessel tonnage   

Landings 

Live weight of landings,  value of landings 

Effort 

Employment 

Income 

Fishing days,  days at sea, energy consumption, kW fishing days, GT 
fishing days,  number of fishing trips,  
Engaged  crew,  Total  hours  worked  per  year  (engaged  crew)  (MAP), 
Unpaid labour (MAP) 
Gross  value  of  landings,    income  from  leasing  out  quota  or  other 
fishing rights, other income 

Subsidies 

Operating subsidies, subsidies on investments   

Expenditure 

Capital 

Personnel  costs,    energy  costs,  other  non-variable  costs,  repair  & 
maintenance costs, rights costs, value of unpaid labour, consumption 
of fixed capital, 
Fishing rights,  Investments,  Long/short debt (MAP),  tangible asset 
value (replacement),  total assets (MAP) 

Social 

Employment, FTE, unpaid labour 

170 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Aquaculture Socio-economic data call 

Aquaculture Data requested 

One  of  the  following  descriptions/data  types  should  be  entered  in  the  Data  Requested 
field  

Income 
Capital 
Costs 
Raw material weight 
Employment 
Number of enterprises 
Sales 
Social 
Environmental 
Multiple* 

*when  the  issue  is  broader  than  or  covers  multiple  data  types  (e.g.  there  are  reported 
more enterprises than persons employed), and it is decided to report aggregated.  

Aquaculture Data issues entries 

- Data Issues should be reported at aggregated at the lowest level possible allowing to 
identify the issue by  

  main issue +  
  details,  first  give  aggregation  level,  the  detailed  variable  (see  list  below  by 
Data  Requested  field),  with  year(s),  segment,  species,  etc.  added  as 
necessary. 

Main Issue type 

Missing data 
Partial data  
Questionable data 
Confidential*  

*missing  data  due  to  confidentiality  reasons;  not  necessarily  a  transmission  failure 
(=missing data) but flagged to highlight the fact that full coverage of the sector (national 
and EU) is not achieved because it has been withheld by MS. 

Aggregation levels used for different variable types  

Aggregation levels 

National total 

Segment 

Variable 
group 

Variables 

All variables 

all 

All variables 

all 

FAO species codes 

Sales 

Weight  of  sales  and 
Value  of 
sales  per 
species 

Medicines or treatments administered by type  Environmental  Medicines 

171 
 
 
 
 
 
List of the variables by the variable group defined in ‘Data Requested’ field 

Data requested 
Income 

Costs 

Capital 

Raw  material 
weight 
Employment 

Number 
enterprises 

of 

Sales 

Issue - variables  

Gross sales (total), Operating Subsidies, Other Income 

Wages  and  salaries,  Imputed  value  of  unpaid  labour,  Energy  Costs, 
Livestock  costs,  Feed  costs,  Repair  and  maintenance,  Other  operational 
Costs 
Total  Value  of  Assets,  Consumption  of  fixed  capital,  Financial  Income, 
Financial Expenditure, Net Investments, Subsidies in investments, Debt 

Livestock used, Fish Feed used 

Persons  employed,  Persons  employed  FTE,  Number  of  hours  worked  by 
employees and unpaid labour, Unpaid labour, Unpaid labour FTE 
Number  of  enterprises  with  less  or  equal  than  5  employees,  Number  of 
enterprises  with  6-10  employees,  Number  of  enterprises  with  more  or 
equal than 11 employees. 

Weight of sales per species, Value of sales per species 

Social 

Employment, FTE, Unpaid labour 

Environmental  Medicines, Mortalities 

Processing Socio-economic data call 

Processing Data requested 

One  of  the  following  descriptions/data  types  should  be  entered  in  the  Data  Requested 
field  

Income 
Capital 
Costs 
Employment 
Number of enterprises 
Weight of raw material 
Social 
Multiple* 

*when  the  issue  is  broader  than  or  covers  multiple  data  types  (e.g.  there  are 
reported  more  enterprises  than  persons  employed),  and  it  is  decided  to  report 
aggregated.  

Processing Data issues entries 

- Data Issues should be reported at aggregated at the lowest level  possible allowing to 
identify the issue by  

  main issue +  
  details,  first  give  aggregation  level,  the  detailed  variable  (see  list  below  by 
Data  Requested  field),  with  year(s),  size  class,  product,  etc.  added  as 
necessary. 

172 
 
 
 
 
Main Issue type 

Missing data 
Partial data  
Questionable data 
Confidential*  

*missing  data  due  to  confidentiality  reasons;  not  necessarily  a  transmission  failure 
(=missing data) but flagged to highlight the fact that full coverage of the sector (national 
and EU) is not achieved because it has been withheld by MS. 

Aggregation levels used for different variable types  

Aggregation levels 

Variable group 

Variables 

National total   

Size class (optional) 

Product (optional) 

All variables 

All variables 

all 

all 

Weight 
material 

of 

raw 

Weight 
material 

of 

raw 

List of the variables by the variable group defined in ‘Data Requested’ field 

Data requested 
Income 

Costs 

Capital 

Employment 

of 

Number 
enterprises 
Weight  of  raw 
material 

Issue - variables  

Gross sales (total), Operating Subsidies, Other Income 

Personnel  costs,  Value  of  unpaid  labour,  Payment  for  external  agency 
workers (optional),  Energy Costs, Purchase  of  fish  and  other  raw  material 
for production, Other operational Costs 
Total  Value  of  Assets,  Consumption  of  fixed  capital,  Financial  Income, 
Financial Expenditure, Net Investments, Subsidies on investments, Debt 
Number  of  persons  employed,  FTE  national,  Number  of  hours  worked  by 
employees and unpaid labour, Unpaid labour 

Number of enterprises. 

Weight of raw material (optional) 

Social 

Employment, FTE 

173 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2 – Member States sections on Methodology, Data availability, Coverage, 
Problems encountered and other comments 

1  Belgium 

1.1  Methodology 

TOTWGHTLANDG and TOTVALLANDG are based on combined information of logbook data 
and  sale  slips.  The  actual  landed  weight  and  value  are  split  according  to  the  logbook 
information on hours fished in the respective rectangles.  

For  the  VESSEL_LENGTH,  the  length  overall  is  related  to  the  fleet  throughout  the  year 
and not to the fleet on the 1st of January. 

FISHING  TECH  of  a  vessel  for  a  certain  year  was  determined  based  on  the  highest 
fishing days recorded for a certain gear. 

TOTSEADAYS, TOTFISHDAYS (table G) and EFFECTIVE_EFFORT (table I) were calculated 
using  the  ‘fecR’  package.  TOTKWDAYSATSEA  and  TOTKWFISHDAYS  and  calculated  as 
respectively  days  at  sea  and  fishing  days  multiplied  by  the  power  of  the  vessel  in 
kilowatts  at  the  trip 
for  calculating 
TOTGTDAYSATSEA  and  TOTGTFISHDAYS  with  the  gross  tonnage  of  the  vessel.  The 
engine power and gross tonnage are related to the fleet throughout the year and not to 
the fleet on the 1st of January. 

landing  date  and  area.  Same  approach 

For the calculation of HRSEA, the total hours at sea of a trip was split proportionally to 
the days at sea, over the areas where fishing activity was recorded for that trip.  

To  determine  TOTKW,  TOTGT,  AVGAGE  and  AVGLOA  in  table  J,  the  fleet  was  not 
considered  on  the  1st  of  January.  The  most  recent  vessel  configuration  throughout  the 
year was selected.  

QUARTER and YEAR are based on the trip return date. 

The  biological  data  on  discards,  length  and  age  distributions  (discards  and  landings) 
have been processed to answer the ICES data calls and is based on sampling data from 
the  at-sea  observer  programme  conducted  under  the  DCF.  The  thresholds  applied  for 
submitting  biological  data  (discard  quantity  and  length  distributions  (discards  and 
landings)) are listed in table 1.1 and were updated through time. For the 2018 data call, 
an additional criteria of at least 50 age measurements was applied for the submission of 
age distributions. If data were requested for a data limited stock or for a species with the 
Irish Sea as stock area, all available data were provided.  

Domains have been defined, corresponding to the sampling programme and are inserted 
in Table A. For species that have corresponding landings by quarter, vessel length group 
and/or  fishing  technique  within  the  same  discards  domain,  the  annual  estimates  of 
discard  ratio  (discards/catch)  have  been  applied  to  those  landings  to  calculate  the 
DISCARDS by quarter, vessel length group and fishing technique. Discard data from the 
logbooks were not used. 

174 
 
 
 
Table 1.1: thresholds for providing biological data 

1.2  Data availability 

The data was finalised and available by the data call deadline. 

1.3  Coverage 

General comments: 

Belgium  provided  fleet  specific  landings  data  for  the  period  2015-2018  derived  from 
official logbook databases for all vessels ≥10 meters. The data covers all areas in which 
the  Belgian  fleets  are  active  and  conform  to  the  requested  aggregation.  There  is  no 
information  on  misreporting.  Gear  types  such  as  trammels  and  seine  nets  are  missing 
mesh  size  information.  The  beam  trawl  fleet  targeting  demersal  fish  with  an  engine 
power  smaller  or  equal  to  221  kW  was  not  randomly  sampled  and  therefore  no  refusal 
rate  was  calculated.  In  2018  the  sampling  strategy  changed  and  all  the  vessels  were 
selected  ad  hoc,  therefore  no  information  on  refusal  rate  was  available.  Belgium 
provided  effort  data  for  the  period  2015-2018  for  all  relevant  areas  where  the  Belgian 
fleets are operational.  

Data were marked as CONFIDENTIAL if the data relate to less than 3 vessels.  

Comparison with EUROSTAT data:  

*There’s a different FAO code used for reporting anglerfish landings in the FDI data set 
versus  the  EUROSTAT  data  set.  In  the  EUROSTAT  data  all  landings  of  anglerfish  are 
reported  as  ‘ANF’  whereas  in  the  FDI  data,  the  FAO  code  is  different  according  to  the 
stock.  The  landings  in ICES  area 27.4.a,  27.4.b, 27.4.c (stock  anf.27.3a46)  and  27.7.a 
(no stock defined for this area) are reported as ‘ANF’. The landings in ICES area 27.7.d, 
27.7.e,  27.7.f,  27.7.g,  27.7.h,  27.8.a  and  27.8.b  are  reported  as  ‘ANK’  (stock 
ank.27.78ab) or ‘MON’ (stock mon.27.78ab). The sum of the landings of ANF, ANK and 
MON in the FDI data set (1118 t in 2015, 1450 t in 2016 and 1597 t in 2017) matches 
with the total landings of ANF in the EUROSTAT data set (1104 t in 2015, 1433 t in 2016 
and 1578 t in 2017). The BSA landings should be excluded from the FDI data set to sum 
up the landings for anglerfish, as the EUROSTAT data set doesn’t cover the BSA area. 

*There’s a smaller amount of Raja spp. (‘SKA’) reported in 2016 and 2017 under the FDI 
data  call  (12,34  t  in  2016  and  1,31  t  in  2017)  compared  to  the  EUROSTAT  landings  of 
‘SKA’  (66,7  t  in  2016  and  142,8  t  in  2017).  For  the  landings  of  rays  by  species,  no 
substantial difference could be recorded. 

YearVariableTripsHaulsExtraExtraExtradiscard quantity2and30andstock is caught in minimum 15% of the sampled haulsdiscards length distribution 2and30andstock is caught in minimum 15% of the sampled haulsand100 length measurementslandings length distribution 2and30andstock is caught in minimum 15% of the sampled haulsand100 length measurementsdiscard quantity2and65discards length distribution 2and65landings length distribution 2and65discard quantity2and65discards length distribution 2and65landings length distribution 2and652and652and>=70 kg landings sampled weight2and>= 20 kg discards sampled weight2and652and>=70 kg landings sampled weight2and>= 20 kg discards sampled weightanddiscard ratio < 0.22and>= 20 kg discards sampled weightand100 length measurements2and652and>=70 kg landings sampled weight2and>= 20 kg discards sampled weightand100 length measurements2and>= 20 kg discards sampled weightanddiscard ratio >=0.2Sampled2015201620172018discard quantitydiscards length distribution landings length distribution 175 
  
* The number of vessels in table J of the FDI data set is less than the number of vessels 
reported in the EUROSTAT data set. For capacity, although the regulation states that the 
population is the fleet on the 1st of January, the most recent vessel configuration 
throughout the year was selected. This might explain the minor difference in the number 
of vessels.  

Comparison with AER data:  

For the AER data call, the fleet was not considered on the 1st of January. The most 
recent vessel configuration throughout the year was selected to determine kWDays, 
GTDays, kWFishDays and GTFishDays. For the FDI data call, the engine power and gross 
tonnage are related to the fleet throughout the year.  

For the AER data call, the days at sea and fishing days calculation algorithm is analogues 
to the one applied by the fecR package. However, the calculated days at sea for a trip 
are split proportionally to the hours at sea over the ICES areas on which hours at sea 
were registered. Whereas in the fecR algorithm, the calculated days at sea for a trip is 
split equally over dates on which fishing occurs and the effort for each fishing date is 
split equally over the fishing activity on that date. For active gears in the AER data call, 
each fishing date has 1 fishing day that is split proportionally to the fishing hours over 
the ICES areas on which fishing occurs. Whereas in the fecR algorithm, each fishing date 
has 1 fishing day that is split equally over the ICES areas on which fishing occurs. The 
passive gears are treated equally. So, the total days at sea and fishing days in the FDI 
data set matches with the totals in the AER data set but the distribution by area is 
different.  

1.4  Problems encountered 

No other comments. 

1.5  Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

2  Bulgaria 

2.1  Methodology 

All  fishermen  in  Bulgaria  are  obliged  to  use  fishing  logbook  based  on  the  Bulgarian 
legislation.  The  logbook  data,  sales  notes  and  fleet  register  data  is  stored  in  the 
database  administrated  by  the  Executive  agency  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture.  On  the 
base  of  the  data  from  logbook  are  calculated  the  number  of  fishing  trips,  days  at  sea, 
fishing days and hours at sea.  

Regarding  Bulgarian  legislation  there  is no  difference  between  small  scale  fleet  and  the 
large scale fleet. All owners of vessels used fishing logbook during the period covered by 
the FDI data call 2015- 2018.  

Estimation  procedures  were  not  used  because  the  sampling  strategy  in  Bulgaria  is 
census and data was available for each vessel.  

The methodology used for calculation of effort was the same for all DCF data calls, but 
neither  the  R  script  have  been  used  nor  its  logics  been  implemented  in  SQL  or  other 
software.  

The  scientific  data  related  to  landings  is  collected  by  the  Bulgarian  scientific  institutes 
involved in data collection program.  

There are no derogations, which are applicable for Bulgaria.  

176 
2.2  Data availability 

All the data was finalised and available by the data call deadline. The data for capacity, 
landings  and  effort  is  available  at  the  end  of  January  for  the  previous  year  and  the 
scientific data is available in May-June. 

2.3  Coverage 

There are no discrepancies between landings and effort tables. The only mismatch from 
the last year’ data call – the difference between the landings and effort with GNS in 2015 
and 2016 in regards to the mesh size range was edited in the 2019 data call. For 2015 
and 2016 the reported effort with GNS was divided into effort with GNS with mesh size 
00D14 and effort with GNS with mesh size 400DXX.  

General comments 

The  sampling  strategy  used  in  Bulgaria  data  collection  program  is  census,  so  the 
provided data covers the whole Bulgarian fleet, which operates only in the Black sea. The 
data  by  rectangle  is  based  on  VMS  data  for  large  scale  fleet,  vessels  with  active  gears 
<12m  and  vessels  which  owned  turbot  quota,  because  they  are  also  monitored  by  the 
VMS  center.  For  the vessels under 12 m with  passive gears  the  catch was  allocated by 
rectangles based on the landing port.  

The only difference in the provided data between FDI data call and other data calls is the 
data reported to the fleet-economic data call in which the required data for kW*Fishing 
days,  GT*fishing  days,  kW*hours  at  sea  and  GT*hours  at  sea  is  only  for  dredges  and 
trawls  only (in  Bulgaria  the  dredges  are  forbidden, so we provided  these  variables  only 
for the trawls). For FDI these variables are calculated for all fishing gears.  

The provided data for discards is only from the logbook data.   

Comparison with Eurostat data. 

The number of vessels is different in FDI data and Eurostat data because the number of 
vessels  provided  to  Eurostat  includes  the  inactive  vessels,  while  the  data  in  the  FDI  is 
only for the active vessels.   

Publication of confidential data 

The  data  provided  in  this  data  call  is  not  considered  as  confidential.  The  value  of  the 
sales  is  calculated as the  landings  are  multiplied  by  the average  price  per species  from 
the sales notes for the whole fleet. 

2.4  Problems encountered 

Problems related to data collection 

The only problem faced during the preparation of the data call was related to the spatial 
landings  and  spatial  effort.  The  reason  for  this  is  because  the  catch/landing/effort  data 
and  the  VMS  data  are  stored  in  two  different  data  bases.  Table  H  and  Table  I  were 
prepared  manually  by  combining  the  information  from  both  data  bases.  Measures  have 
been taken to link the two databases for the next data call. 

Problems related to data submission 

There were no problems related to data submission.  

2.5  Other comments if relevant 

The provided data for the discards is from the official data sources. 

177The de-minimis is not applicable for Bulgaria. The only survivability exemption is defined 
in the Commission Delegated Regulation EU) 2017/87 of 20 October 2016 establishing a 
discard plan for turbot fisheries in the Black Sea.  

3  Croatia – text from 2018 

3.1  Methodology 

 Data collected and derogations (if applicable) 

(1)  No  derogations  are  used  for  data  on  fishing  activities  (catch,  landings,  discard, 

effort) and capacity. 

(2)  Data  collection  on  biological  -  metier-related  variables  and  biological  -  stock-
related variables is according to Table 1 - Data Collection specification, at the end 
of this document. 

Estimation procedures (in case something been used, e.g. estimation of landings and 
effort for the small scale fleet)  
No  estimation  procedures  are  being  used  for  reporting  on  landing,  discard  and  effort 
data.  Data  on  landing,  discard  and  effort  data  is  collected  on  a  census  basis  from  the 
entire fleet (active and inactive vessels). For vessels below 10m LoA using passive gears 
a  monthly  fishing  report  is  applicable  in  which  case  fisherman  report  data  for  each 
fishing  trip.  Data  for  landing  value  is  estimated  using  average  prices  from  sales  notes. 
Biological estimates are made on the basis of official landings and discard data. 

For  certain  species  fisherman  report  landing  data  on  genus  level  (Eledone  spp  and 
Trachurus spp), therefore landing data in table A is reported as such. However, biological 
data  on  species  level  for  those  species  is  estimated  on  the  basis  of  MEDITS  sampling 
data  and  detailed  analysis  of  landing  during  monitoring  of  metiers,  including  the 
following  species:  Eledone  cirrhosa,  Trachurus  trachurus,  Eledone  moschata,  Trachurus 
mediterraneus.  

Discard calculation 
Official discard data is used. 

Calculation  of  effort  (following  joint  methodology  or  not).  Tell  us  if  R  script  have  been 
used or its logics been implemented in SQL or other software. 
All effort calculation procedures are implemented in SQL following the logic agreed within 
the WS on Transversal variables. 

Specific indicators (e.g. refusal rate) 
Currently refusal rate is not recorded. 

3.2  Data availability 
Please  comment  if  all  the  data  was  finalised  and  available  by  the  data  call  deadline. 
When it can be available and provided in case there is a delay.   
All the data was finalised and available by the data call deadline. 

3.3  Coverage 
Please  have  a  look  at  quality  checks  in  Tableau  and  provide  your  comments  regarding 
the data collected and provided during the data call.  

General comments 
Provide general comments related to data coverage, explain why data is missing (in case 
something is missing) 

178 
Landings vs Effort 
The  errors  reported  in  Tableau  (null  fish  days/sea  days)  are  due  to  the  fact  that  effort 
data  is  aggregated  to  secondary  (clustered)  fleet  segments,  while  data  contained  in 
Table  A  is  aggregated  to  primary  (unculstered)  fleet  segments.  In  fact  there  is  no 
missing data, as the effort is attributed to the relevant main fleet segments.  

The  fleet  segmentation  procedure  is  done  each  year  for  the  previous  year  where  fleet 
segments are calculated on the basis of fishing activity data and capacity data. Data on 
primary  and  secondary  fleet  segments  is  attributed  to  each  vessel  and  stored  in  the 
national  data  base.  These  fleet  segments  present  sampling  and  reporting  units  for  the 
Fleet economic data call. The FDI data-call does not specify if the same units should be 
used or if a separate aggregation should be done where data is statistically aggregated 
on  the  basis  of  fishing  technique  and  vessel  length  categories.  It  should  be  clearly 
specified  if  effort  should  be  assigned  to  vessels  and  attributed  fleet  segments  or  if  a 
separate statistical aggregation should be made. 

Wghtlandg vs Vallandg (Data with Totwghtlandg > 0 and Totvallandg = 0 (in table A) 
The errors reported in Tableau are not errors but reflect the real situation in the Bluefin 
tuna  fisheries.  Namely,  the  total  landed  weight  corresponds  to  total  PS  catch  which  is 
transferred  to  cages  for  farming  purposes.  As  there  is  no  PS-BFT  landing  per  se,  the 
landing  value  is not  provided.  All  income  related  to  PS-BFT  catch  is afterwards realized 
by the BFT farms (BFT catching vessels are owned by the farms). 

Domains Landings (table A & E; A & F and Domains Discards (table A & C; A & D) 
Comparison  among  domains  between  table  A  and  tables  C,  D,  E  and  F  showed 
incompatibilities  in  codification  of  domains  between  tables.  The  main  reason  was  the 
format  of  table  A  that  is  disaggregate  at  quarter  level  while  other  tables  have  annual 
disaggregation.  Domain  codification  was  done  following  criteria  stated  in  Appendix  7  of 
official  letter.  The  errors  reported  in  Tableau  were  fixed  upon  resubmission  of  table  A 
with updated Domain codification that match ones in tables C-F.  
Some  errors  remain  regarding  reporting  the  data  at  genus  level  for  some  species  as  it 
was already stated in above. 
Domain Landings total; Domain Discards total 
The differences in total weight of landings value reported in table A among table E and F 
are  insignificant.  The  average  value  of  statistical  error  between  landings  among  tables 
for certain type of fisheries and species is 0.9 %. 

The differences in total weight of discards value reported in table A among table C and D 
are  insignificant.  The  average  value  of  statistical  error  between  discards  among  tables 
for certain type of fisheries and species is 3.9 %.  

Domain Discards (table C & D) 
Comparison  among  domain  discards  from  table  C  and  from  table  D  showed  rows  with 
absent domain discards in one of the tables. Improved methods will be implemented in 
SQL or data quality check based on R scripts to avoid further errors.   

Comments  in  case  there  is  any  difference  with  other  STECF  data  calls,  e.g.  effort 
calculation  for  economic  data  call,  or  something  missing/more  data  provided  compared 
to economic or meds data calls) 
Although  the  same  logic  is  used  to  calculate  effort,  depending  on  the  data  aggregation 
levels  the  results  may  differ  (economic  fleet  segment,  FDI  domain,  metier  level  6; 
temporal and geographic stratification). 

Comparison with Eurostat data. 

179  
 
 
Provide  any  relevant  comments  regarding  comparability  of  the  data  set  provided 
(landings and capacity) with Eurostat data. Explain reasons for difference in case there is 
any difference. 
Data for EUROSTAT for 2014-2016 was updated by the end of August to include the final 
landing statistics and in order to harmonize the data sets. Additionally, the difference in 
the number of vessels (ESTAT vs FDI data) is due to the fact that FDI does not include 
inactive vessels. In case the Tableau is updated with the latest ESTAT data, there should 
be no significant differences. 

Publication of confidential data. No apparent confidentiality issues. 

3.4  Problems encountered 
Problems related to data collection 
No apparent problems encountered. 

Problems related to data submission 
Major  problem  associated  with  the  data  submission  deadline  (3rd  July  2018).  FDI  data 
call  deadline  coincided  with  the  Mediterranean  &  Black  Sea  data  call  deadline.  Even 
though  the  data  is  mostly  the  same,  the  reporting  formats  are  different  and  require 
separate data handling procedures and data management.  

Additionally, several GFCM DCRF tasks should be transmitted to GFCM by 30th June, 
including the following: 
DCRF Task II.1 - Landing data  
DCRF Task II.2 - Catch data per species 
DCRF Task V.1 Effort data per fleet segment 
DCRF Task V.2 Effort data per fishing gear 
DCRF Task V.3 Effort data CPUE 
DCRF Task VII.5 - Red coral 
As this is the period when MEDITS survey is scheduled, it is very difficult to dedicate 
time and personnel for additional reporting. 

3.5  Other comments if relevant 
Significant numbers of duplicate rows were recognized by the Data Validation tool (DVT), 
mostly  for  DRB  and  FPO  gear  types.  At  national  level  these  gears  are  disaggregate 
according to mesh size. At the same time, DVT does not allow input of mesh size range 
for  these  tools  and  it  should  be  replaced  by  “NA”  as  it  is  stated  in  Appendix  7.  The 
results of this procedure is recognition of the rows as duplicates This false recognition of 
duplicates  could  seriously  affect  further  analysis  of  data.    In  order  to  resolve  this 
situation further consultation should be done. 

4  Cyprus – no information provided 

5  Denmark 

5.1  Methodology 

Denmark has a database for transversal data, where logbook data and sales notes data 
are merged by trip, and information from the fleet register is added. Landings and value 
of landings are based on sales notes, while information on gear and ICES rectangle are 
from the logbooks. For industrial fisheries targeting sprat, sandeel and norway pout, the 
main species is reported in the logbooks but there might also be a small amount of other 
species in the landings. Samples are taken to find the species composition of the landing 
by area, ICES rectangle, month and target species. This is done by the Danish Fisheries 

180 
Agency,  and  the  species  composition  is  applied  to  official  landings,  and  also  to  the  FDI 
datacall. 

Fishing technique (FISHING_TECH) is added from a file from Statistics Denmark that has 
defined the fishing techniques for each vessel for the STECF fleet economic datacall.  

Vessels  less  than  10  m  oal  (8  m  oal  in  the  Baltic)  are  not  required  to  report  logbooks. 
For  these  vessels,  sales  notes  are  reported  for  each  landing.  Using  the  species 
composition  for these  trips  and  the  gear  reported in  the fleet  register,  a procedure  has 
been developed to estimate métiers, gear and mesh size range. 

If there are less than three vessels in the aggregation level in tables A, G, H and I, they 
are marked as confidential.  

The  SPECON  codes  “GRID35”  and  “SELTRA”  are  based  on  logbook  registrations  on 
selection  panels  in  areas  27.3.a.20  and  27.3.a.21.  In  the  Baltic,  BACOMA  and  T90  are 
not  registered  in  logbooks  and  therefore  these  codes  are  not  reported  in  the  FDI 
datacall. 

The  biological  data  on  discards,  length  and  age  distributions  have  been  processed  to 
output to both ICES datacalls and the FDI datacall and is based on sampling data from 
two  sampling  programs:  the  at-sea  observer  programme  and  the  at-market  sampling 
programme conducted under the DCF. Domains have been defined, corresponding to the 
sampling programmes and are inserted in Table A. Discards are estimated based on the 
at-sea  sampling  data.  For  species  that  have  corresponding  landings  within  the  same 
quarter,  vessel  length  group,  métier,  discards  domain  and  subregion,  the  discards  are 
distributed to the aggregation of table A based on landings. If the species doesn’t have 
corresponding landings, the discards are distributed to the aggregation of table A based 
on  effort.  This  means  that  there  can  be  lines  with  discards  but  no  landings.  In  some 
cases there are length measurements for species (table D and F), where there is no age 
reading (table C and E). 

Landings  below  minimum  conservation  reference  size  (BMS  landings)  are  found  from 
sales notes and landing declarations and added to the total landings. There can be BMS 
landings without value of landings if they are not sold. 

Refusal rates from the at-sea observer programme have been uploaded to table B.  

In table A, the discards are partitioned by landings within the same year, quarter, vessel 
length group, métier, discards domain, sub region and species. If there is no samples of 
discards within that aggregation, the code “NK” is inserted. 

Effort calculations are based on the principles agreed at the 2nd workshop on transversal 
variables  in  Nicosia  2016,  but  implemented  in  SAS.  For  vessels  without  logbooks,  the 
effort  calculation  is  based  on  sales  notes  where  a  trip  (vessel-id  +  landing  date)  is 
assigned one day at sea and one fishing day. 

5.2  Data availability 

Transversal  data  (logbooks,  sales  notes,  fleet  register)  is  transferred  from  the  Danish 
Fisheries  Agency  to  DTU  Aqua  every  night.  Some  errors  may  be  corrected  in  the  data 
from a previous year, but that is mainly done during the first quarter, so the data were 
available  by  the  data  call  deadline.  The  processing  of  the  biological  data  need  to  be 
finalized before the ICES data call and stock assessments, during the spring. 

1815.3  Coverage 

5.3.1  Data checks 

The  effective  effort  (table  I)  is  often  smaller  than  the  total  fish  days  (table  G).  This  is 
because in table I only effort by ICES rectangle from vessels with logbooks is known. In 
table  G  the  total  fishing  days  is  calculated  based  on  fishing  days  reported  in  logbooks. 
For  vessels  without  logbooks,  sales  notes  are  available,  and  for  each  trip  (vessel  id  + 
landing date) one fishing day is assumed. 

Some  species  have  a  length  measurement,  but  no  age  reading.  This  means  that  there 
can  be  domains  in  table  F  (length  measurements)  that  does  not  exist  in  table  E  (age 
readings). 

The total landings were lower in 2016 compared to 2015 and 2017 because of a very low 
sandeel  quota. 

5.3.2  Confidentiality 

If there are less than three vessels in the aggregation level in tables A, G, H and I, they 
are marked as confidential. 

5.4  Problems encountered 

No problems encountered. 

5.5  Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

6  Estonia 

6.1  Methodology 

Official  Information  on  landings/catches  and  effort  by  species,  areas,  gear  types  and 
mesh  size  was  obtained  from  the Estonian  Fisheries  Information  System (EFIS).     EFIS 
compiles  all  logbook  information  as  well  as  information  on  prices,  sales  etc.  Fisheries 
data collection takes place according to DCF methodology and no derogations have been 
applied.  Estonian  fishing  fleet  is  operating  mainly  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  to  a  limited 
extent also in the Northern Atlantic. 

Estonian  fishing  fleet  in  the  Baltic  Sea  consists  of  pelagic  trawlers  targeting  sprat  and 
herring, and of small boats operating in coastal fishery of herring (with fixed pound nets) 
and other species, incl. freshwater fish. The discarding is prohibited by law and may only 
take  place  in  very  limited  scale  (if  any)  e.g.  in  case  of  catches  of  below  MCRS  fish  in 
coastal  fishery  (salmon  and  perch).  The  official  discard  estimates  are  provided  in  the 
dataset. 

In  case  of  collection  of  biological  data  the  minimum  threshold  of  100  fish  for  length 
measurements  and  50  specimens  for  age  measurements  are  applied  in  sampling  of 
pelagic  fleet  and  in  sampling  of  herring  coastal  fishery.  No  threshold  is  applied  in 
sampling of coastal small scale fishery.  

All  effort  calculations  were  performed  using  the  logbook  information  and  landing 
declarations. No R script has been used in effort calculations. 

For  fleet  segments  landing  values  were  estimated  based  on  prices  derived  from  sales 
slips multiplying by weight from landing declarations.  

No refusals in getting biological samples and other relevant information were reported in 
2015-2018. 

1826.2  Data availability 

All requested information was provided by the FDI data call deadline.  

6.3  Coverage 

Provided data covers all Estonian commercial fishing fleet, which operates in Baltic Sea. 
Information about recreational fishery in Baltic Sea were not provided. 

General comments 

Discrepancies  between  “Landings  vs.    Effort”  (Tables  A  vs  Table  G)  is  caused  by  the 
missing information on effort of small (below 10 m) boats in coastal fishery. In case of 
the  small  boats,  only  information  of  Sub-region  level  is  available.  The  scarcity  of 
respective  information  prevents  presenting  the  effort  estimates  by  the  statistical 
rectangles. 

Discrepancies between “Spatial effort and Effort” (cases where the total fishing effort in 
Table  I  was  greater  than  in  Table  G),  were  due  to  typing  errors.  The  issue  was  solved 
during the EWG meeting  and the respective tables were re-uploaded. 

Discrepancies described in the table “Wghtlandg vs. Vallandg” were caused by the lack of 
information on first sale prices for some species in the coastal small-scale fishery (small 
boats under 10 m) . 

On  overall,  most  of  the  requested  information  was  available  and  presented  except  the 
effort of the small (under 10m) boats.  

Comparison with Eurostat data. 

Landings  and  capacity  data  provided  was  very  close  to  the  information  reported  to 
Eurostat. The observed differences may be partly explained with the counting of inactive 
vessels in Eurostat dataset. 

All information provided by the Member State during the FDI data call is regarded as not 
confidential. 

6.4  Problems encountered 

Member  state  encounters  persistent  problems  in  obtaining  effort  information  from  the 
small, under 10 m boats operating with passive gears (coastal fisheries). In case of the 
small  boats  only  information  of  Sub-region  level  is  available.  The  scarcity  of  respective 
information prevents presenting the effort estimates by the statistical rectangles.  

Additionally, obtaining of the value estimates for the long distant fleet, what lands 
outside of Estonia is complicated. 

6.5  Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

7  Finland 

7.1  Methodology 

Data collected and derogations (if applicable) 

Commercial marine fishery statistics comprise information on the number of commercial 
marine fishermen, the volume and value of the catch and the spatial distribution of the 
catch and fishing effort. The data are based on periodic catch declarations by commercial 

183 
 
fishermen.  Everyone  engaged  in  commercial  marine  fishery  in  Finland  is  obliged  to 
provide  catch  declaration.  Captains  of  vessels  that  are  at  least  10  meter  in  length  are 
using the EU log-book to submit catch data for the monitoring authority. Fishers using a 
vessel less  than  10 meter  in  length  submit  the  data  by  a coastal  fishing  journal  that  is 
aggregated  by  a month. However, he  is applying  a  landing declaration  if he  is catching 
salmon, sprat, cod or herring (more than 50 kg of herring per day). 

Estimation  procedures  (in  case  something  been  used,  e.g.  estimation  of  landings  and 
effort for the small scale fleet)  

Estimation  procedures  haven’t  been  used.  The  statistics  are  compiled  based  on  the 
assumption that everyone engaged in commercial fishing in the sea areas has complied 
with the statutory obligations and submitted catch reports.  

Discards calculation 

Nominal  catch  refers  to  the  catch  landed  by  fishermen  or  transshipped  at  sea.  For 
statistical purposes, this is reported in kilograms live weight, i.e. the weight of ungutted 
fish. Discards, for example fish damaged by seals, are not included in the nominal catch. 
The  major  cause  for  discarding  in  the  Finnish  commercial  marine  fishery  is  damage 
caused  by  seals,  cormorants  and  other  predatory  species  on  the  fish  trapped  or 
entangled in the fishing gear. Discards are not included in the landings data.  

In  the  revision  process  at  the  STECF  it  has  been  highlighted  that  in  the  Landings  vs 
Discards  (table  A),  Comparison  of  Totwghtlandg  and  Discards,  there  are  cases  where 
Discards>Totwghtlandg. We confirm that these data are correct. 

Calculation  of  effort  (following  joint  methodology  or  not).  Tell  us  if  R  script  have  been 
used or its logics been implemented in SQL or other software. 

The number of units of fishing gear in any spatial statistical unit is calculated as the sum 
of  fisherman-specific  highest  number  of  units  of  gear  simultaneously  deployed  in  the 
area. The number of fishing days is the total number of fishing days of all fishermen for 
the corresponding gear, regardless of there was any catch being reported. Fishing gear 
is deployed for a variety of duration and also the number of gear varies. This variation is 
taken  into  account  in  fishing  gear  days  (trap  net,  gillnet  and  trawl  days),  for  example 
five days of fishing with ten nets totals fifty net days. 

Specific indicators (e.g. refusal rate) 

Information of refusal rates was not collected in Finland between 2016-2018. 

7.2  Data availability 

Please  comment  if  all  the  data  was  finalised  and  available  by  the  data  call  deadline. 
When it can be available and provided in case there is a delay.   

All  the  data  was  finalised  and  available  by  the  data  call  deadline.  Corrections  asked  by 
the Commission have been completed and data re-uploaded to the database. 

7.3  Coverage 

Please have a look at quality checks in Tableau and provide your comments regarding 
the data collected and provided during the data call.  

General comments 

Biological  data  was  not  raised  to  total  landings  weights.  Sampling  probabilities 
required  to  produce  comfortable  raising  for  herring  and  sprat  data  will  be  available 
2019 onwards. 

184 
Provide  general  comments  related  to  data  coverage,  explain  why  data  is  missing  (in 
case something is missing) 

Nothing is missing. 

Comments  in  case  there  is  any  difference  with  other  STECF  data  calls,  e.g.  effort 
calculation  for  economic  data  call,  or  something  missing/more  data  provided 
compared to economic or meds data calls) 

Comparison with Eurostat data. 

Provide  any  relevant  comments  regarding  comparability  of  the  data  set  provided 
(landings and capacity) with Eurostat data. Explain reasons for difference in case there 
is any difference. 

There is no difference between Eurostat and FDI data call data. 

Publication of confidential data 

Data  call  material  includes  confidential  information  and  it  is,  therefore,  forbidden  to 
reveal or publish the data outside the original purpose, i.e. the FDI data call. 

7.4  Problems encountered 

Problems related to data collection 

None. 

Problems related to data submission 

This data call should be about 1 month earlier next year (during June) in order to have 
staff available. 

We  remain  uncertain  whether  the  discards  should  be  included  in  the  landings  data. 
Discards are not included in the landings data in Finland for the sake of coherence of the 
time series. Please, advise us about the matter. 

7.5  Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

8  France 

8.1  Methodology 
In  accordance  with  the  French  DCMAP  working  plan  2017-2020,  the  French  data 
submission for this data call is based on the following sources of information: 

1.  French  fleet  register  (vessel  characteristic  (length  overall,  kilowatt,  gross 

tonnage, age of the vessel), geographical indicator, total number of vessels) 

2.  Annual fishing activity calendars survey1 (active/inactive vessels, typological 
classification of vessels by fleet/fishing technique coding, fishing area, métier) 

1 Annual fishing activity survey is conducted by fishing observers  yearly in France on the basis of preliminary 
documentation provided by available data (fleet register, logbooks, monthly declarative forms, sales note data, 
geolocalisation data, on-site samplings data). It covers the whole of the reference population (also vessels not 
cover by available data), take place every year in the first month of the year on the previous year and aim at 
characterizing each year the inactivity or activity of all the vessels each month of the year and, in the latter 
case, the métiers practiced and the main fishing areas (Berthou et al., 2008). These data provide information 
on the part of fishing activity not included in available declarative data  (completeness check of the available 

185 
 
                                                            
3.  Logbooks  (over  10m’vessels)  and  monthly  declarative  forms  (less  10m’ 
vessels,  declarative  forms  adapted  to  the  special  features  of  the  small-scale 
coastal  fisheries)  (total  weight  of  landings  by  species,  fishing  effort  (number  of 
trips,  days  at  sea,  fishing  days  and  hours  at  sea),  fishing  area,  gear  and  mesh 
size) 

4.  Sales note data (total weight and value of landings by species) 
5.  Geolocalisation  data  (inc.  VMS  data)  (fishing  effort  (number  of  trips,  days  at 

sea, fishing days and hours at sea), fishing area) 

6.  Complementary  on-site  sampling  of  trips2  (catch  assessment  survey)  (total 
estimates  of  weight  and  value  of  landings  by  species,  fishing  effort  estimates 
(number  of  trips,  days  at  sea,  fishing  days  and  hours  at  sea),  fishing  area, 
métier) 

7.  Scientific  observer  sampling  data  (discards  estimates,  length  and  age 

distributions) 

The  definition  of  the  reference  fleet  population  follow  the  definition  of  Commission 
decision 2016/1251 (any vessel registered on 31 december or which has fished at least 
one  day  in the  year up  to  31 december)  in  order to  have  a comprehensive  view  of  the 
fishing activity applied during the year. 
The  definition  of  all  the  fishing  trips  of  the  French  fleet  with  their  associated  features 
(dates,  fishing  area,  métier,  gear and  mesh  size,  total  weight  and  value  of  landings  by 
species)  is  based  on  a  cross-validation  tool:  SACROIS3  of  the  different  available  data 
(fleet  register,  annual  fishing  activity  calendars,  logbooks,  monthly  declarative  forms, 
sales  note  data,  geolocalisation  data)  aiming  to  provide  the  best  possible  fishing 
statistics data. 

A specific algorithm is included into SACROIS to estimate the value of landings based on 
sales  note  data  available  (sometimes  directly  deducted  from  them)  or  estimation  of  an 
average  price.  For  some  fleet  segment,  estimated  price  based  on  expert  knowledges  is 

declarative  data)  and  also  the  basis,  if  necessary,  to  re-evaluate  available  fishing  activity  data  estimates  (in 
case of incomplete data for example). 

2  Complementary  on-site  sampling  of  trips  (catch  assessment  survey)  is  used  to  estimate  fishing  activity 
variables  estimates  of  vessels  for  which  the  coverage  and  precision  of  their  available  declarative  data  are 
insufficient to meet the end-users needs. The sampling scheme is based on the frame survey (Activity survey) 
useful to optimise the strategy of the spatio-temporal on-site sampling plan. Fishing trips features, effort and 
catches and weekly activity calendar (effort) are sampled directly on-site, when the fishers come back to the 
harbour. The raising method is based on a post-stratification of the fishing trips and weekly calendar sampled 
and the use of the percentile bootstrap to estimate the precision. In 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, this applies 
for vessels under 12m in the Mediterranean continental area (GSA 07), Réunion (geographical indicator: RE), 
Mayotte (YT), French Antilles (Martinique – MQ and Guadeloupe - GP) and French Guiana (GF). 

3  SACROIS  (http://sih.ifremer.fr/Description-des-donnees/Les-donnees-estimees/SACROIS)  is  a  validation  tool 
for  the  fisheries  statistics,  aiming  at  cross-checking  data  from  different  declarative  sources,  as  demanded  in 
article  145  of  the  EU  control  Regulation  (EC  Reg.  404/2011).  The  application  is  crossing  information,  at  the 
most disaggregated level, from the fishing fleet register, logbooks, monthly declarative forms, sales notes data,  
geolocalisation  data  and the scientific  census  of  annual fishing  activity calendars,  in order to build  a  dataset 
compiling the most accurate and complete information for each individual fishing trip. The application verifies 
and  controls  the  different  sources  of  data,  with  the  aim  of  displaying  validated  and  qualified  landings  per 
species  and  effort  data  series.  The  application  provides  also  several  quality  indicators  and  evaluates  the 
completeness of the data flows.  

186 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                         
also used. This algorithm allow to estimate value of almost every landings, only 
few species/fleets do not have value assigned. The two principal fleets without 
value assigned are the tropical purse seiner and the Guiana shrimp trawler. 

SACROIS  include  also  the  allocation  of  a  single  metier  to  a  fishing  trip,  based  on  the 
dominant  landed  specie  (or  group  of  species)  in  value,  the  vessel’  activity  calendar 
survey  and  eventually  the  declared  gear  (see  detailed  methodology  explained  in  
‘Anonymous, metier workshop report, 2018’).  

For French fleets for which the coverage and precision of their available declarative data 
(basically  SACROIS  data)  is  insufficient  to  meet  the  end-users  data  needs  (e.g.  DCF 
requirements):  1)  complementary  on-site  sampling  data  could  be  collected  (catch 
assessment  survey)  and-or  2)  re-evaluation  methodology  (on  the  basis  on  the  annual 
fishing  activity  calendars  survey)  could  be  applied,  in  order  to  calculate  the  reference 
fishing activity’ estimates. 

Based on that, fishing capacity and activity’ estimates could be calculated for the whole 
of  the  reference  population  (French  fleet  register  including  overseas  fisheries,  long 
distance fisheries and small-scale fleets). They are conform to the requested aggregation 
(by year, quarter, vessel length classes, fishing technique, gear and mesh size, métier, 
fishing area) and cover all the areas where French vessels are operated.  

Fishing  effort  estimates  (number  of  trips,  days  at  sea,  fishing  days  and  hours  at  sea) 
have  not  been  calculated  by  using  the  generic  R  script  provided  for  this  data  call  as  is 
not  suitable  for vessels  without  logbooks  and  for vessels  outside  FAO  area  27  (need  to 
have  ICES  rectangle).  Nevertheless,  the  common  joint  methodology  developed  during 
the 2nd transversal variables workshop was implemented on our data (development of an 
adapted R script) in order to calculate the estimates and answer the datacall. 

Discards  and  length/age  distributions  estimates  have  been  calculated  based  on  the 
scientific observer sampling data (at sea and port-sampling program).  The discards data 
from logbooks were not used. 

Spatial  distribution  asked  in  the  tables  H  (landings  by  rectangle)  &  I  (effort  by 
rectangle)  are  derived  from  the  SACROIS  data  which  are  spatialized  at  the  most 
disaggregated  spatial  level  available  in  the  declarative  data  (logbooks,  monthly 
declarative  forms)  and  the  vessel’  activity  calendar  survey.  They  have  been  completed 
for  geolocalised  vessels  (inc.  VMS’  vessels)  to  provide  spatial  information  at  C-square 
level. 

Unlike fishing capacity and activity’ estimates (see above), biological data estimates are 
not  available  at  the  level  of  disaggregation  requested  (notably  for  discards  estimates 
asked in table A). Indeed, discards and length/age distribution estimates are calculated 
following specific strata definition in space, time and metier in respect with the sampling 
design. They are estimated after a post-stratification process where metier, fishing area 
and  quarter  could  be  aggregated  in  order  to  maximize  the  number  of  sample  by  strata 
and  provide  the  most  complete  information  possible  for  a  given  stock  (i.e.  level  of 
disaggregation  available  is  determined  by  the  number  of  samples).  Additionally,  strata 
definition are annually specific for each stock assessed. As an example, for the sole stock 
in 27.7.d and for the ICES datacall in 2018, the OTB_DEF_70-99_0_0 metier submitted 
in  Intercatch  encompass 
following  declared  metier:  OTB_CEP_70-99_0_0, 
OTB_DEF_70-99_0_0,  OTB_MOL_70-99_0_0,  OTB_SPF_70-99_0_0,  OTT_CEP_70-
99_0_0, OTT_CRU_70-99_0_0 and OTT_DEF_70-99_0_0.  

the 

187 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This  complex  process  applied  annually  specifically  by  stock  (based  on  expert’  analysis) 
do not allow to provide biological data estimates strictly following the domain definition  
requested in the FDI datacall (notably for the mesh size range). Nevertheless, a domain 
(following as far as possible the domain definition detailed in the Appendix 8) has been 
associated  to  each  of  the  validated  biological  estimates  calculated  by  expert  (e.g.  by 
ICES  stock  assessor)  and  submitted  in  the  tables  C-D-E-F  following  the  strata  they 
retained to extrapolate the sample  (e.g. submitted ICES strata). This has the benefit 
to provide only approved biological data estimates. 

Strata  have  been  re-coded  in  order  to  fully  follow  the  domain  definition  but,  in  most 
cases, do not reflect all the métiers/fishing area aggregated in order to build the strata 
(see example above). Consequently, it is not possible to use straight the domain 
definition available in tables C-D-E-F to link biological data estimates provided 
in  these  tables  with  information  available  in  table  A  and  “domain_discards”  and 
“domain_landings” information were therefore not submitted in table A. 

Finally,  the  partitioning  of  discards  estimates  available  in  tables  C-D-E-F  (according  to 
strata used to calculate the estimates) into detailed categories asked in table A was also 
requested  by  the  FDI  datacall  following  the  conclusion  of  the  STECF  Expert  Working 
Group  17-12  which  nevertheless,  and  in  the  same  time,  emphasizes  the  limited 
meaningfulness  behind  any  partitioned  estimates  (‘estimates  will  likely  not  be 
statistically sound and may be biased because for example of the need to assume equal 
discard  rates  among  the  disaggregated  levels  contained  within  the  retained  strata’). 
Regarding  that  discards  information  available  in  table  A  are  of  major 
importance  for  the  EWG  and  nevertheless  the  issues  raised  above,  discards 
estimates  partitioned  were  provided  in  table  A  based  on  the  methodology 
described below. Nevertheless, it is reemphasized here that approved discards 
estimates could be only found in tables C-D. 

The  methodology  followed  for  partitioning  the  discards  estimates  at  the  level  of 
disaggregation asked in table A is: 1) aggregation of the discards estimates available in 
table  C  by  year,  quarter,  sub_region,  gear_type  and  species,  2)  sum  of  landings 
provided in table A by year, quarter, sub_region, gear_type and species and calculation 
of  the  landings  percentage  for  each  of  the  concatenated  row  and  3)  discards  estimates 
partitioned  by  row  proportionately  to  the  landings  using  the  values  calculated  in  1  &  2 
(total discards * landings percentage). 

So  far,  only  very  few  data  have  been  highlighted  as  being  confidential  because  a 
common  approach  is  missing.  However,  there  are  many  issues  related  to  these  data 
where  certain  lines  hold  information  for  less  than  3  vessels.    Before  any  data  are 
published (e.g. in dissemination tools), a further check is needed to identify issues based 
on  a  common  agreed  approach  in  line  with  European  law.  In  addition,  often  not  all 
variables  are  regarded  as  being  problematic.  For  example,  information  on  the  value  of 
landings  or  discards  is  more  sensitive  than  landings.  Options  are  missing  to  define  in 
more detail what is confidential and what not. 

8.2  Data availability 

Complete  French  data  have  been  uploaded  before  the  deadline  of  the  data  call  also 
taking  into  account  the  different  checks  done  during  the  upload  process.    Some 
adjustments of the data have been done before the operational deadline and during the 
first  two  days  of  the  EWG  taking  into  account  the  data  checks  carried  out  on  the  data 
at 
call 
provided 

available 

during 

online 

and 

FDI 

the 

188 
 
 
 
https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en_US/data-analysis/fdi. The current data can be 
regarded as final given current knowledge. However, data could be improved/completed 
before next datacall and in this case they will be re-upload for the next year datacall.    

8.3  Coverage 
French data available in the FDI database for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 cover all the 
French fleets including overseas fisheries, long distance fisheries and small scale fleets. 

Comparison with Eurostat data. 

Minor differences occurred between FDI data and Eurostat likely caused by differences in 
time and completion status of available data when the estimates were provided. Mainly, 
species and areas reported in Eurostat are available in the FDI database and vice versa. 

Nevertheless,  some  issues  could  occur  on  the  codification  of  species  used  that  could 
differ  between  the  two  database  (as  an  example  in  2016,  ‘ANF-  Lophiidae’  is  used  for 
EUROSTAT when ‘MNZ- Lophius spp’ was used for FDI). 

8.4  Problems encountered 

No more problems have been encountered. 

8.5  Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

9  Germany 

9.1  Methodology 

The German data submission for this data call is based on the following sources of 
information: 

1. Logbook and Landings data (landings, value, effort, spatial effort and spatial landings 
etc.)  

2. German fleet register (Number of vessels, Fleet determination etc.) 

3. Scientific observer data (Discards, length and age distributions) 

Effort  has  been  estimated  by  using  the  generic  R  script  provided  for  this  data  call. 
Germany  provides  information  for  all  vessels  with  an  obligation  to  report  all  necessary 

189 
information  in  logbooks.  Vessels  <10m  in  the  North  Sea  and  and  vessels  <  8m  in  the 
Baltic do not have an obligation to fill in logbooks.  

Discards  were  estimated  based  on  observer  data  and  not  from  logbook  information  as 
the landing obligation was still not fully implemented in 2018 (last year of the data call). 
For metiers that were not sampled, an NK for “not known” was provided to allow for JRC 
raising routines to be used to fill gaps.   

Germany  has  so  far  not  highlighted  data  as  confidential.  However,  there  are  issues 
related  to  these  data  where  certain  lines  hold  information  for  less  than  3  vessels.  It 
needs to be made clear upfront what type of data and in which detail (aggregation level) 
the data will be made public to make the confidential field useful.  Options are missing to 
define in more detail what is confidential in a table (e.g., landings are unproblematic, but 
value of landings by metier may be problematic). 

The discard and biological data sampled in a certain domain are used in Table A in a finer 
disaggregation  level.  The  distribution  of  total  discards  at  the  domain  level  to  the  more 
detailed disaggregation level in table A is done by using the landings information in Table 
A.    Because  of  this,  it  needs  to  be  born  in  mind  that  discards  rates,  age  and  length 
distributions are assumed to be the same inside a sampling domain although differences 
may occur in reality.  

9.2  Data availability 

All  requested  data  were  uploaded before  the deadline of the  data  call.  With the help  of 
the JRC checking routines smaller issues were encountered. Therefore, Tables A-F were 
re-uploaded before the operational deadline.  The current data can be regarded as final 
given  current  knowledge.  However,  the  German  administration  implemented  a  new 
database for logbook and landings data in 2017. This could have led to problems not yet 
encountered.    

9.3  Coverage 

For  the  four  years  all  requested  data  were  provided  for  all  tables  before  the  deadlines. 
For  some  metiers  with  small  importance  (i.e.  trips  with  mussels  as  target  species) 
catches  were  reported  but  no  effort.  The  metier  field  makes  it  likely  that  for  the  same 
trip slightly different allowed codes are used if different people work on different tables 
(ie. landing and effort). On a similar aggregation level, but without using the metier field 
and instead the columns holding the gear, mesh size and target assemblage information, 
effort and landings may still match.   

Comparison with Eurostat data. 

Only  very  minor  differences  (<1%  for  EU  waters)  occurred  between  FDI  data  and 
Eurostat for 2015 and 2016. More differences in landings weight occurred for 2017 only. 
This  was  the  year  when  the  German  administration  introduced  its  new  database.  While 
logbooks  were  corrected  and  updated  during  2018  and  2019,  submissions  to  Eurostat 
may not have been updated. Therefore, the FDI data are likely more representative than 
the Eurostat data for this particular year. 

9.4  Problems encountered 

Vessels without logbook data (small vessels u8m in the Baltic and u10m elsewhere) are 
problematic.  A  common  approach  to  answer  the  data  call  for  these  vessels  where  data 
by fishing trip is not available would be beneficial before useful summaries over different 
countries can be achieved. An extra table with less details for these vessels could also be 
an option.  

190The metier field in its current format is not useful as various codes can be used for one 
single gear and mesh size combination in a given area. This makes it difficult to compare 
between countries but it also creates problems inside the country if different people work 
on different tables.  Further guidance is needed to ensure that all use the same metier 
definition  in  the  same  situation.  In  general,  the  metier  field  could  be  deleted  as  all 
important  information  is  already  provided  in  the  other  columns  including  the  target 
assemblage. 

Especially  the  target  assemblage  DEF  is  not  very  helpful.  Too  many  different  fisheries 
count as DEF. A further differentiation (e.g., roundfish vs. flatfish) could be beneficial.  

There are some cases where for the same domain, species and length class two entries 
with  different  numbers  at  age  or  length  are  in  the  database.  This,  however,  is 
unproblematic as these can simply be summed over the domain, species and age/length 
class.  The  SOPs  have  been  checked  and  perfectly  match  the  landings  and  discards  in 
weight  when  summing  over  the  domain.  Never  the  less,  an  additional  check  by  JRC 
during the upload could help to spot such cases early in the process next time.  

9.5  Other comments if relevant 

As requested in the data call, Germany provided discard information based on scientific 
observer trips. Therefore, all uncertainties related to catch sampling and raising at fleet 
level  applies  to  the  values  provided.  Next  to  this,  unsampled  metiers  were  filled  with 
information  from  other  countries  by  JRC  (so  called  fill  ins).  This  adds  further  potential 
uncertainties and potential bias. However, in the result tables discards with and without 
fill-ins are provided and therefore both values can be easily compared. 

For  the  first  time,  this  year  the  length  frequency  data  have  been  used  to  calculate  the 
percentage of undersized fish in the landings and discards. Similar to the overall discard 
rates it needs to be highlighted that this is based on observer data and a limited number 
of  sampled  trips.  The  length  frequencies  were  used  as  being  representative  in  a  much 
wider context. E.g., when a sampled length frequency was only available for quarter 3, it 
was  assumed  that  it  is  representative  for  the  whole  year.  This  can  introduce  a  serious 
bias  as  fish  grow  over  the  year  and  recruits  are  often  entering  the  fishery  in  the  third 
quarter. Therefore, the results have to be interpreted carefully and always in conjunction 
with information on the sampling coverage. 

10  Greece 

10.1  Methodology 
Greece has a National Centralize Database (NCD) for storing all the data collected in the 
framework  of  the  Data  Collection  Framework  (DCF).  The  NCD  is  a  subsystem  from  the 
integrated  fisheries  information  system  (with  acronym  IMAS-Fish)  that  is  hosted  in  the 
Hellenic  Centre  for  Marine  Research  (HCMR)  (Kavadas  et  al.,  2013).  Confidential  data 
from  Vessel  Monitoring  System  (VMS)  and  Electronic  Reporting  System  (ERS)  are 
provided  by  the  Ministry  of  Shipping  and  Island  Policy  and  the  Ministry  of  Rural 
Development  and  Food  respectively  in  order  to  support  the  effort  and  landings 
estimations  of the  part  of the  professional  fishing  fleet  that  is obligated to be equipped 
with a control positioning system. The VMS data are used to estimate the fishing effort 
from vessels with total length >=12 m (all trawlers and purse seiners are included), the 
boatseines that can be operate according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 
2017/929 and the vessels having a specific fishing license (large pelagic fishing). For this 
part  of  the  fishing  fleet,  the  spatial  fishing  effort  is  estimated  by  a  predefine  cell  size 
(usually  2x2  Km)  and  by  GFCM  statistical  rectangle  for  the  FDI  datacall,  using  a 
methodology proposed by Kavadas et al. 2014 and Maina et al., 2016. For the rest small 
scale  fishing  vessels  (who  are  the  majority  of  the  Greek  fishing  fleet)  effort  data  are 

191collected at the port on monthly basis from a representative number of vessels. Specific 
routines  (written  in  R)  have  been  constructed  in  HCMR  to  support  the  analysis,  raising 
and estimation of effort from small scale fishing vessels by major area (according to the 
Greek DCF sampling scheme, the country has been divided in 12 major areas) and GSA. 
Concerning  the  estimation  of  landings,  ERS  data  are  used  for  trawlers,  purse  seiners, 
boatseines  and  large  pelagic  fishery  given  by  GFCM  statistical  rectangle  for  the  FDI 
datacall. For the rest small scale fishing vessels landings data are collected at the port on 
monthly basis from  a representative number of  vessels. Specific  routines  (written  in  R) 
have  been  constructed  in  HCMR  to  support  the  analysis,  raising  and  estimation  of  the 
landings from small scale fishing vessels by major area and GSA. Information related to 
the  fleet  capacity  is  provided  by  the  Ministry  of  Shipping  and  Island  Policy  or  is 
downloaded 
website 
from 
(http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet). 
Sales data also are included in the  database collected monthly by questionnaires in the 
port  (from  small  scale  fishing  vessels)  or  those  that  are  reported  in  the  ERS  by  vessel 
and  trip  from  vessels  with  LOA  >=12  m.  Information  on  gear  and  statistical  GFCM 
rectangle are from the logbooks. If there are less than three vessels in the aggregation 
level in tables A, G, H and I, they are marked as confidential.  

European 

register 

official 

fleet 

the 

The  length  and  age  distributions  were  processed  to  support  both  MED&BS  and  FDI 
datacalls  using  the  at-sea  observer's  data  and  the  biological  sampling  data  collected  in 
the  framework  of  DCF.  Domains  have  been  defined,  corresponding  to  the  DCF  and  are 
inserted  in  Table  A.  Discards  Ratio  and  Discards  are  estimated  based  on  the  at-sea 
sampling  data.  In  some  cases  there  are  length  measurements  for  species  (table  D  and 
F), where there is no age reading (table C and E). 

Landings below minimum conservation reference size (BMS landings) are not reported in 
the  ERS  but  this  information  is  provided  in  Table  F  (length  frequency  distribution)  and 
added to the total landings.  

Refusal rates from the at-sea observers have not been reported.  

10.2  Data availability 

FDI data for the year 2015 is provided only for the period October to December because 
of abnormal execution of DCF, so their use makes no sense. Only effort data `related to 
the operation of trawlers and purse seiners cover all the year and can be considered for 
analysis  purposes.  FDI  data  for  the  year  2016  is  provided  for  the  period  March  to 
December because of abnormal execution of DCF, except landings and effort information 
for trawlers and purse seiners is given for all months. Data for 2017 are missing because 
the DCF was executed in the last quarter of the year covering a small part of the Greece. 
Nevertheless,  effort  and  landings  data  for trawlers and  purse  seiners is provided  for all 
months. Related to 2018, complete data sets are provided due to the normal execution 
of DCF. The Transversal data (VMS, logbooks, sales notes, fleet register) are provided by 
the  Ministry  of  Shipping  and  Island  Policy  and  the  Ministry  of  Rural  Development  and 
Food  Agency.  Related  to  small  scale  fisheries,  data  are  collected  in  the  framework  of 
DCF.    

10.3  Coverage 

Data checks 

Provided  data  covers  the  Greek  commercial  fishing  fleet  which  operates  in  GSA-20 
(Eastern  Ionian  Sea),  GSA-22  (Aegean  Sea)  and  GSA-23  (Cretan  Sea).  The  given 
information is related to trawlers, purse seiners and artisanal boats using trammel nets, 
gillnets,  bottom  longlines,  pots  and  traps  for  the  periods  2015  (October  to  December), 

192 
2016  (April  to  December)  and  2018  (January  to  December).  For  boat  seiners,  the 
available information cover the periods October to December 2017 (on 1st October 2017 
the  boat  seines  started  to  operate  according  to  the  Commission  Implementing 
Regulation  (EU)  2017/929)  giving  spatial  effort  data  (based  on  VMS  data)  and  spatial 
landing data (based on ERS data) as well as for the year 2018 providing except spatial 
effort and spatial landings also landing length. 

Confidentiality 

If there are less than three vessels in the aggregation level in tables A, G, H and I, they 
are marked as confidential.   

Comparison with Eurostat data. 

In term of the fishing fleet, no significant differences exists between EUROSTAT and FDI 
data  call.  In  terms  of  landings,  no  comparison  can  be  performed  due  to  irregular 
execution of DCF in 2015 and 2017 while for 2016, no data is provided by EUROSTAT. 

10.4  Problems encountered 

The problems encountered are related to irregular execution of DCF for years 2015 and 
2017.  

10.5  Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

References 
Kavadas,  S.,  Damalas,  D.,  Georgakarakos,  S.,  Maravelias,  C.,  Tserpes,  G., 
Papaconstantinou,  C.,  et  al.  (2013).  IMAS-Fish:  Integrated  Management  System  to 
support  the  sustainability  of  Greek  Fisheries  resources.  A  multidisciplinary  web-based 
database  management  system:  implementation,  capabilities,  utilization  &  future 
prospects 
fisheries  stakeholder.  Medit.  Mar.  Sc.  14(1),  109-118.  doi: 
10.12681/mms.324 

for 

Kavadas,  S.,  Barberá,  C.,  Belardinelli,  A.,  Carpi,  P.,  Cataudella,  S.,  Croci,  C.,  et  al. 
(2014).  Common  methodological  procedures  for  analysis  of  VMS  data,  including  web-
based  GIS  applications  related  to  the  spatial  extent  and  intensity  of  fishing  effort. 
PERSEUS Project report, ISBN no: 978-960-9798-14-3, pp 40 + annexes. 

I.  Maina,  S.  Kavadas,  S.  Katsanevakis,  S.  Somarakis,  G.  Tserpes,  S.  Georgakarakos 
(2016).  A  methodological  approach  to  identify  fishing  grounds:  A  case  study  on  Greek 
trawlers, 
326-339, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.06.021. 

Research, 

Fisheries 

Volume 

183, 

pp 

11  Ireland 

11.1  Methodology 

The Irish data submission is based on the following sources:  

1. Logbook (vessels >10m) and Sales Notes (vessels <=10m) data (wanted catch, 
value, spatial effort and landings etc.)  

2. Fleet register (Number of vessels, Fleet determination etc.) 

3. Scientific observer data (discards, length and age distributions) 

Estimates  of  discards  were  raised  from  the  national  sampling  scheme,  for  which  the 
strata are defined within the variable “Domain_discards”. No estimates of discards were 

193 
provided  for  unsampled  strata,  and  were  marked  as  “NK”.  Only  estimated  values  of 
discards were provided in table A. Estimates of discards were raised to the fleet level for 
each year, quarter, gear, area, and species. Fishing effort (hours fished) was used for all 
species  as  the  auxiliary  variable.  The  discard  rate  (kg/h)  and  age  composition  (where 
applicable) were then applied across the remaining strata (vessel_length; mesh, fishery; 
specon_tech)  based  on  the  effort  (fishing  hours)  in  each  of  these  strata.  Discards  that 
were  observed  to  be  zero  are  included.  Age  and  length  distributions  for  landings  were 
estimated from market sampling and the at sea sampling programme.  

Irish biological landings information is not recorded with mesh size information; this was 
re-constructed by linking to the logbooks database, where possible. The age composition 
of  the  landings  was  estimated  for  each  quarter  by  gear,  area  and  species  (any  further 
disaggregation  would  violate  the  sampling  design).  The  age  compositions  were  then 
assigned  to  each  of  the  remaining  strata  (vessel_length;  mesh,  fishery;  specon_tech) 
based on the reported landings in each of these strata.  

Effort  was  calculated  using  the  fecR  package.  Refusal  rates  could  not  be  provided  this 
year  as  Ireland  is  currently  in  the  process  of  implementing  a  new  sampling  plan  and 
refusal rate system. This system was implemented at the end of 2017 and will be ready 
to provide data for 2019 FDI datacall.  

11.2  Data availability 

Logbook and sales not information was finalised and deemed complete in Aril 2019. The 
landings  

And effort information for vessels >10m is derived from logbooks, whereas for vessels it 
is derived from sales notes. The effort information which is estimated from sales notes is 
done so by applying very broad assumptions for certain species/gears, after which there 
are  a  number  of  trips  of  vessels  under  10m  for  which  we  cannot  make  these 
assumptions and therefore do not estimate the effort.  

11.3  Coverage 

Data was provided for all three years requested (2015 – 2018) for all tables before the 
deadlines.  

-  Tableau checks: Overall there was good consistency between table A and tables 
containing  biological  samples  (C,D,E  &F).  There  were  no  domain  names  in  the 
biological  tables  that  could  not  be  matched  to  metiers  in  table  A.  There  were 
some  minor  SOP  issues  with  table  C.  These  issues  related  to  a  very  small 
proportion  of  the  discards  <1%  and  are  related  to  few  individual  trips  in  which 
the  weight  of  discards was  not  entered.  They  could  not  be  fixed  within  the  time 
frame  of  the  meeting  but  are  not  considered  a  major  issues  as  they  relate  to  a 
very small volume of discards. 
The  tableaux  checks  also  identified  a  discrepancy  between  Domain  Landings 
weight (Totwghtlandg) in three tables (A, E and F) of JAX, horse mackerel, in one 
strata (approx. 500 tonnes difference). This difference a result of the mismatch in 
naming  conventions  used  by  legislation,  the  data  call,  the  FAO  short  code,  and 
fishers. This topic will be discussed in more detail under ToR 2.  

-  Eurostat  data  comparison:  There  is  generally  good  consistency  between 
Irelands FDI submission and the Eurostat extraction. The only major difference is 
in  the  vessel  numbers,  however  the  Eurostat  list  works  on  vessel  numbers  that 
include inactive vessels.  

194 
 
-  Confidentiality:  Ireland  considers  that  any  aggregated  operation  that  contains 
less than three vessels should be marked as confidential. There is a need for the 
Commission  to  clarify  the  legal  requirements  and  methodology  which  should  be 
applied in this section.  

11.4  Problems encountered 

No problems were encountered during the data collection or submission process.  

11.5  Other comments if relevant 

As with last year the data call was very limited in description of variables and context, as 
a  result  there  was  too  much  room  to  interpret,  and  this  could  lead  to  member  state 
specific inconsistencies. Time should be given during the working group to address these 
issues.   

12  Italy 

12.1  Methodology 

Capacity, effort and landings data are produced considering all the available information 
at the most disaggregated level: 

• 
Fishing  fleet  register.  The  fishing  technique  actually  used  by  each  vessel  is 
checked  on  a  quarterly  basis.  This  activity  includes:  field  surveys  through  the  data 
collectors network used in sample surveys, cross-checking with the information reported 
in logbooks, VMS data, comparison with previous fleet structures. 

• 
Logbooks and landing declarations. Basic and regular checks are implemented on 
the  gear  used  and  on  the  species  caught  and  landed.  These  declarative  forms  are  the 
unique  source  of  information  for  dredgers,  purse  seiners,  bigger  trawlers  and  vessels 
operating outside the Mediterranean. 

• 
Sales notes data. In addition to fundamental checks on the average price for the 
species  at  the  highest  level  of  geographical  and  technical  detail,  this  source  of 
information is also used to validate the data on the quantities landed by species. 

• 
VMS data. The information on the geo localization covers 95% of the fleet => 15 
meters (1600 boats). In addition to providing information about of the effort distribution, 
they  are  used  as  a  control  tool  for  the  activity  through  crossing  with  the  logbook 
declarations and the sample survey. They can also provide information on the gear used, 
therefore on the metier. 

• 
Sample  survey.  It  is  the  prevalent  source  of  information  for  the  fleet  <  10 
meters; sales notes data are also used to cross-checks sample data. The sample survey 
is also applied to the fleet > 10 m to integrate the information derived from the Control 
Regulation if needed. 

Specific  procedures  are  applied  to  verify  the  information  obtained  from  the  different 
sources, relating to a same variable (gears, days, catch and price for species), with the 
goal of identifying and validating the actual figures and get an exhaustive picture of the 
fishery for scientific purposes. 

Effort calculations are based on the definitions reported in the EUMAP, ie.: 

- days at sea: any continuous period of 24 hours (or part thereof) during which a vessel 
is present within an area and absent from port; 

- fishing days: any calendar day at sea in which a fishing operation takes place. 

Therefore,  based  on  these  definitions,  the  day  at  sea  is  relative  to  the  vessel  and 
includes the time of navigation, while the fishing day is relative to the time of use of a 

195 
fishing  gear.  Translated  in  terms  of  data  collection,  days at  sea  can  be  associated  with 
the fleet segment (group of vessels), while fishing days can be associated with the gear 
(or  by  metìer).  The  FDI  and  the  MED  data  call  requires  effort  (days  at  sea  and  fishing 
days) both by segment and by gear. In order to provide data at this level of aggregation,  
Italy is following the methodologies proposed by the Workshops on Transversal Variables 
of Zagreb (2015) and Nicosia (2016) that proposed a harmonized approach to associate 
days at sea to the gear starting from the information at fleet segment level. 

Biological  data  on  discards,  length  and  age  distributions  are  collected  through  the 
protocols and the statistical procedures reported in the Italian Work Plan. 

In  particular,  since  2010,  RCGMED&BS  created  a  regional  view  of  the  discard  sampling 
programme  in  order  to  optimize  the  spatial,  time  and  metiers  coverage.  RCGMED&BS 
prepared  a  complete  list  of  métiers  important  to  sample  and  provide  scientific 
justification for not sampling certain metiers for discards (see RCGMED&BS 2010 - table 
7  page  34,  RCM  Med&BS  2016-  annex  IX).  The  discard estimates  presented  in  the  FDI 
data call reflects this regional sampling agreement. It has also to be considered that the 
discard sampling program is aimed at providing basic data for stock assessment purpose 
and  not  for  monitoring  LO  implementation.  Several  species  under  LO  (annex  III  of 
RegMED)  are  caught  by  artisanal  fleets  for which  there  is no  obligation  to  implement  a 
discard monitoring program according to the Italian DCF WP.  

In table A, the discards are partitioned by landings within the same year, quarter, vessel 
length  group,  métier,  discards  domain,  sub  region  and  species.  An  ad  hoc  routine  in  R 
has  been  developed.  This  routine  splits  the  discard  volume  starting  from  the  estimates 
reported  in  table  D  according  to  the  estimated  proportions  on  production  per  quarter, 
métier  and  fleet  segment  as  reported  in  table  A.  The  splitting  procedure  can  be 
summarized into 2 steps: 

1. 

the proportions of the production by metier and vessels length are estimated; 

the proportions at point 1 are applied to the discard volume reported in the table 

2. 
D at metier level , according to “DOMAIN_DISCARDS”. 

The  splitting  is  based  on  certain  assumptions  and  was  accomplished  because  the 
sampling  scheme  for  biological  sampling  is  not  stratified  by  fleet  segment,  but  only  by 
metier and quarter.  

12.2  Data availability 

All the data was finalized and available by the data call deadline. 

12.3  Coverage 

The Italian tables cover all the time series 2015-2018 and all the métiers.  

The quality checks provided in the tableau does not highlight any incorrect data and/or 
inconsistencies  among  the  data  provided  in  the  different  tables  requested  by  the  data 
call. 

Also  the  SOPs  for  table  C  MBS  (comparison  between  Discards  [tonnes]  and  the  sum  of 
products  [tonnes]  =  no_age[number  in  thousand]*mean_weight  [kg])  are  not  to  be 
considered  as  an  issue  because  the  differences  reported  in  the  SOPs  are  due  to  the 
rounding of the three-digit MEAN_WEIGHT. 

Comparison with Eurostat data 

There is no difference between Eurostat data and FDI data call data. 

Confidentiality 

No confidentiality issue. 

19612.4  Problems encountered 

No problems encountered in the preparation of the file.  

12.5  Other comments if relevant 

Table A takes into account different degrees of aggregation compared to Tables C and D, 
thus it's not possible to match each single record of table A with a "discard" estimation 
as  reported  in  Tables  C  &  D.  Indeed,  in  tables  C  &  D  the  VESSEL_LENGTH  and  the 
FISHING_TECH categories are not taken into account because the biological sampling is 
implemented  by  métier  (as  reported  in  the  EUMAP,  in  the  WPs  and  in  RCGMEd&BS 
reports).  Extrapolating  the  discard  to  the  fleet  segment  involves  assumptions  that  can 
generate bias. In order to avoid to receive a data issue, in the 2019 FDI data call, an ad 
hoc routine in R has been developed and applied by the institutes involved in the Italian 
program  of  biological  sampling.  This  routine  simply  splits  the  discard  volume  starting 
from  the  estimates  reported  in  table  D  according  to  the  estimated  proportions  on 
production per quarter, métier and fleet segment as reported in table A. This implies the 
assumption  that the  discard volume  is distributed  among  the  vessels of  different  LOAs, 
though belonging to the same métier, as the landing, although there is no evidence that 
this assumption is met from the observed data. 

This routine has been applied only to avoid receiving again a data compliance issue, but 
the structure of the FDI data call should be adjusted because the information on discard 
provided in table A is not derived from specific observed data. 

13  Latvia 

13.1  Methodology 

All  data  on  fishing  operations  e.g.  gear,  mesh  size,  area  etc.  are  obtained  from  official 
logbooks,  which  are  stored  in  Integrated  Control  and  Information  System  for  Latvian 
fisheries  (ICIS).  These  logbooks  cover  all  the  areas  where  Latvian  fishing  fleet  is 
operating including the small scale fleet. Information about fleet capacity is synchronised 
with  Latvian  Fleet  register  and  is  stored  in  ICIS.  Central  Statistical  Bureau  of  Latvia 
(CSB)  provides  annual  average  prices  per  species,  based  on  questionnaire  “1-Fishery”, 
which all fishing companies are obliged to fill in. 

For small scale fleet effort was calculated as one day at sea is equal to one fishing day, 
because information in coastal logbooks is provided on daily basis. 

Information  about  discards  are  based  on  fishery  observer  estimations.  This  category  is 
the part of the catch, which is thrown overboard into the sea.  

During the work in the sea on the board of ship or boat in small scale fishery observer is 
collecting  information  from  each  fishery  act  by  species  and  catch  categories  (Landings, 
BMS, Discards).  

All discarded fishes by species are measured and weighted, except in the case when the 
discard  is  very  large,  in  which  case  a  subsample  weight  is  taken.  All  sub-samples  are 
weighted. The sorting of fish into catch categories is made by the fishers.  

All  available  discards  data  are  calculated  for  each  species,  by  quarters,  Sub-divisions, 
gear and fleet segment. 

Discard rates are calculated by formula: 

Discard rate trip,species = Discard (kg) trip,species  / Landing (kg) trip,species 

197 
 
 
After obtaining Discard rate, discard rate is applied to landing of species by quarter, SD, 
gear and fleet segment.  

Discard (ton) Time,SD,Fleet segment,Species = Discard rate Time,SD,Fleet 
segment,Species X  
Landing (ton) Time,SD,Fleet segment,Species 

No thresholds were applied. 

R script have been used for effort calculation in case of offshore fishery. 

In period of 2015-2018 no refusals to take observers on board were recorded. 

13.2  Data availability 

Latvian  data  were  provided  on  time  and  in  accordance  with  required  format.  Average 
prices  per  species  for 2018  were used  from  2017. Prices for 2018  could  be  available  in 
autumn of 2019.  

13.3  Coverage 

Quality  checks  in  Tableau  showed  that  in  2017  and  2018  for  vessel  length  segment 
VL40XX  two  different  fishing  techniques  were  used  instead  of  one,  that  was  happened 
due  to  fishing  gear  changes  during  the  year.  In  the  next  year,  this  mistake  will  be 
corrected. 

In table J Capacity information about inactive vessels was not provided. It is planned to 
submit this information in the next year. 

Provided  data  covers  all  Latvian  commercial  fishing  fleet,  which  operates  in  Baltic  Sea, 
CECAF  and  NEAFC  areas.  Information  about  recreational  fishery  in  Baltic  Sea  were  not 
provided.  Due  to  confidentiality,  information  about  distant  fleet  is  provided  as 
confidential  all  other  information  is  provided  as  not  confidential.  Data  were  calculated 
and provided in the same way as for economic data call. 

Comparison  with  Eurostat  data  did  not  show  big  difference.  As  information  about 
recreational fishery was not provided, there are small differences in landings values for 
fresh water species between the two datasets. 

13.4  Problems encountered 

No problems were encountered related to data collection or related to data submission. 

13.5  Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

14  Lithuania 

14.1  Methodology 

Data collected  

For  all  fleet  segments  by  regions  the  transversal  variables  is  deriving  from  database 
system  FDIS,  which  contains  the  primary  data  referred  to  Commission  Regulation  (EC) 
No 26/2004 of 30 December 2003 on the Community fishing fleet register in Annex I and 
Council  Implementing  Regulation  (EC)  No  404/2011  in  Annex  X.  Community  fishing 
vessels  from  8  to  12  metres’  length  overall  are  obliged  to  keep  a  fishing  logbook  and 
submit  landing  declarations.  Fishing  vessels  of  18  metres’  length  overall  or  more,  the 
fishing  logbook  is  in  electronic  form  and  the  landing  declarations  are  submitting 
electronically. The Lithuanian fleet does not consist of any active vessels with the length 
class of 12 to 18 meters. 

198Biological  data  is  collected  under  the  Lithuanian  National  Programme  according  to  the 
sampling strategy.  

Estimation procedures  

For  estimating  discarded  catches  have  been  used  two  data  sources:  data  collected  by 
observers on board and sampling of releases. For flounder discards counted against total 
landings,  for  other  species  by  number  of  voyages.  The  ratio  of  discards  calculated  for 
landings per trip and multiplied by the total landings per strata.  

Data  on  landings  for  vessels  less  than  8  m  length  overall  was  derived  from  the 
combination of the monthly declarative forms which have been cross-checked with sales 
notes. Combination of information from sale notes and declarative form provide the key 
details on the species, presentation, location of landings, weight and value of fish being 
landed.  To approach  reliable  and  high  quality of  data  Lithuania  uses a “census” type  of 
declarative  form  for  vessel.  Data  derived  from  national  logbook  are  completing  by  a 
company engaged in commercial fishing in the Baltic Sea coastal area. Small scale fleet 
has a daily activity and 1 Day at Sea assumed as equivalent to 1 Fishing Day, 1 Fishing 
trip and 24 hours. For the fishing technique (FISHING_TECH) defining has been applied 
the same rules as for the fleet economic data call.  

For  all  fleet  segments  value  is  estimating  based  on  prices  derived  from  sales  notes 
multiplying by weight from landing declarations.  

Submitted refusal data set constitutes of the sampling frames based on metier by areas. 
Unfortunately, refusal rates at the Baltic Sea region are not available recently.  

Spatial  data  was  prepared  using  “0.5*1”  resolution  for  the  Lithuanian  fleet  in  all 
operating areas. In cases of occurring any missing or incorrect fishing positions recorded 
in the logbooks fishing activities were identified using the VMS data.  

Methodology for partition of discards  from tables C-D to table A. 

The discard applied to the landings at each stratum, by species, for each year, quarter, 
gear, area within a domain_discards. No estimates of discarded catch were provided for 
unsampled strata, and were marked as “NK”. If the species doesn’t have corresponding 
landings, the discards are distributed to the aggregation of table A based on effort. This 
means that there can be lines with discards but no landings.  

No thresholds for submitting biological data were applied.  

R script was used for calculations of days at sea and fishing days. 

14.2  Data availability 

Transversal data by 1 February and biological data by 1 April are available for previous 
year.  

14.3  Coverage 

2015-2018  period  submitted  data  covers  all  areas  requested  in  the  data  call  and 
conforms  to  the  requested  aggregation,  by  quarter,  area,  gear  and  mesh  sizes.  Any 
meaningful data quality issues demanding correction and re-submission of data sets was 
raised  during  quality  checks.  Data  set  submissions  complied  with  the  required  deadline 
dates.  In  respect  of  data  check  reports,  four  (TABLE_C_NAO_OFR_DISCARDS_AGE, 
TABLE_E_NAO_OFR_LANDINGS_AGE,TABLE_H_LANDINGS_BY_RECTANGLE,TABLE_I_EF
FORT_BY_RECTANGLE)    revised  data  sets  were  also  resubmitted  by  the  operational 
deadline.  Any  significant  discrepancies  have  been  noticed  in  the  data  checks  of  the 
Lithuanian data. 

Comparison with Eurostat data 

199Between Eurostat and FDI data calls, some discrepancy in value and landings data might 
occur  with  regards  to  fishing  trips  which  extended  over  two  different  years  where  the 
landing was presented in the final year. In that case, effort with catch and landed value 
were provided parcelling by two years for the FDI data call. As for the Eurostat data call, 
the submission is based on the landing or sales dates. Driver of the difference in vessels 
number is that for Eurostat the fleet is considered on a snapshot date, whereas FDI looks 
at the total fleet in a whole calendar year. Therefore comparing Eurostat and FDI vessels 
number like-with-like some small differences were revealed.  

Publication of confidential data 

Data  that  considered  subject  to  confidentiality  and  were  flagged  in  “CONFEDINTIAL" 
column allows statistical unit vessel to be identified, either directly or indirectly, thereby 
disclosing  individual  information.  The  confidential  data  can  be  used  for  EWG  ToRs 
purposes.  Aggregated  and/or  published  data  should  be  on  the  level,  which  does  not 
allow any identification of the statistical unit. 

14.4  Problems encountered 

Information  between  vessels  where  observers  are  welcomed  and  vessels  where 
observers  are  refused  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region  shall  be  improved  as  recently  is  it  not 
available. In some cases, allocation of metier to trip or fishing operation was highlighted 
as issue. There are no general concepts on the target species (or target assemblage) as 
a  definition  criterion,  nether  clarification  on  target  assemblage  specification  in  case  of 
efforts  without  landings.  That  could  lead  to  inconsistency  between  Member  States. 
However, there is intersessional between RCG meetings working group which is working 
on developing of guidance on target species referring to metier. No problems with data 
submission were encountered 

14.5  Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

15  Malta – no information provided 

16  Poland 

16.1  Methodology 

Official fisheries data of the Polish fleet from the period 2015-2018 were collected from 
the database administrated by the Ministry of Maritime Economy and Inland Navigation.  

Polish  fishery  is  located  mainly  in  the  Baltic  Sea,  therefore  sampling  effort  is 
concentrated  in  this  area,  except  one  sampling  trip  per  year  in  the  Eastern  Arctic. 
Additionally,  Poland  is  a  member  of  the  multilateral  agreement  to  cooperate  in  the 
biological data collection on pelagic fisheries in CECAF and SPRMFO waters. 

Discards were estimated from trips sampled at sea. Domains used to estimate discards 
result from the sampling plan applied. For the Baltic Sea the domains consist of quarter, 
FAO subdivision, gear type, target assemblage, mesh size range (one or more) and  are 
used for all vessel length classes, species and commercial categories. For Eastern Arctic 
the domains consist of FAO division, gear type, target assemblage, mesh size range and 
are applied to whole year, all vessel length classes, species and commercial categories.  

Fishing  effort  was  calculated  following  the  methodology  agreed  on  DCF  Transversal 
Workshops. The fecR package was not used directly because the input data has a higher 
level  of  spatial  aggregation  (national  sub-polygons  of  the  ICES  rectangles  in  the  Baltic 

200 
 
Sea). Therefore, the logic of the fecR calculation algorithm was re-implemented in the R 
environment. 

For vessels with length of <10 m the information on the start and end of the trip is not 
registered.  In  that  case,  it  is  assumed  that  one  fishing  day  is  one  fishing  trip  lasting  8 
hours at sea. 

Refusal rates were calculated as a number of refusals from vessel owners divided by the 
number of approaches where the contact was successfully made. 

The total value of landings was calculated using an average annual price per species. An 
average annual exchange rate was used to provide the value in Euro. 

Spatial  data  was  prepared  using  “0.5*1”  resolution  for  all  areas.  For  FAO  area  27 
information  on  ICES  rectangle  was  used  to  identify  the  coordinates.  In  the  case  of 
distant waters, the fishing location was identified using the VMS data. 

Segmentation of the fishing fleet in terms of vessel length classes and fishing technique 
was carried out in the same way as in the economic data call. 

16.2  Data availability 

All the data was finalised and available before the data call deadline. 

16.3  Coverage 

General comments 

The  data  analysis  allows  to  state  that  all  variables  seem  to  be  consistent  across  years. 
Very few issues have been identified and are described below. 

Information  on  the  value  of  fish  landed  by  the  fleet  operating  outside  the  Baltic  Sea  is 
not  available.  Additionally,  for  some  minor  species  in  the  Baltic  Sea  the  value  is  not 
available. There are also records in which the landing weight was so low that the value 
was rounded to zero. 

Comparison with Eurostat data. 

The  comparison  with  Eurostat  data  did  not  show  any  significant  differences.  Unlike  FDI 
data, the number of vessels in the Eurostat data also includes inactive vessels.  

Publication of confidential data 

In  the  period  2015-2018  Poland  had  3-5  vessels  fishing  outside  the  Baltic  Sea.  Due  to 
the  national  statistical  law  it  was  decided  to  mark  the  data  about  their  activity  as 
confidential to avoid the risk of identifying a single vessel. 

16.4  Problems encountered 

Problems related to data collection 

At the beginning of 2017 a new sampling design was implemented in Poland. The major 
change  was  a  move  towards  statistically  sound  sampling  and  random  selection  of 
sampling  units.  As  a  consequence  the  refusal  rates  were  provided  only  for  2017  and 
2018  as  in  the  previous  years  the  sampling  design  was  based  on  the  opportunistic 
selection  of  sampling  units.  Moreover,  2017  was  a  transitional  period  between  old  and 
new  sampling  design.  Not  all  contacts  to  vessel  owners  were  available  and  as  a 
consequence, many ad-hoc expert trips were done.  

Problems related to data submission 

No problems with data submission were encountered.  

20116.5  Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

17  Portugal 

17.1  Methodology 
In  general,  Portugal  uses  3  different  data  sources:  fleet  register,  logbooks,  and  sales 
notes.  

Transversal  data  are  obtained  from  logbooks  and  sales  notes  taking  into  account  the 
Control Regulation and the national Work Plan. This data are combined to get the more 
accurate  information  from  both  sources  when  available  for  the  same  vessel.  Daily 
routines from established business rules are performed to detect and correct errors push 
from the data sources to the statistical database. 

As Landings and Effort are requested at a metier level, Portugal developed a procedure 
that  classifies  each  trip  in  a  metier.  The  procedure  is  split  into  different  methodologies 
concerning the characteristics of each vessel. For vessels, without logbook, it is used as 
a Data Integration software to apply all the conditions laid down in the algorithm based 
on  Sales  Notes  and  Fishing  Permissions  (licenses).  Each  condition  similar  set  of  data 
(landings/trip)  is  allocated  to  a  metier.  For  vessels  with  electronic  logbook,  the 
methodology is based in SQL scripts and uses the information recorded in the Electronic 
Recording  and  Reporting  System  (ERS)  reports,  such  as  gear  and  reported  catches  for 
each  haul  in  each  Fishing  Activity  Report  (FAR).  The  present  version  of  ERS  does  not 
have  the  definition  of  TRIP  connecting  all  the  reports.  The  new  version  is  in 
implementation  tests  and  the  new  data  model  can,  possibly,  bring  an  improvement  in 
data quality. The approach for FDI data call is based on the concept of TRIP. In that way, 
each  trip  is  classified  in  terms  of  date,  area,  gears,  metier,  species  composition,  catch 
(kg), discards (kg) and catch value. 

Concerning the spatial information requested, for vessels with logbook, it was used the 
coordinates  reported  on  the  FAR,  at  the  haul  level.  In  the  case  of  vessels  without 
logbooks  (small  scale  fisheries  -  SSF),  coordinates  of  the  landing  harbour  were 
considered. 

Value of landings 

For  vessels  with  logbooks,  the  value  of  landings  is  calculated  multiplying  the  weight  of 
landings by the average price determined for the species and fishing area. For SSF, the 
weight  and value  of  landings  are the  ones  that  are  recorded  in  Sales  Notes.  All vessels 
are obliged to sell at the auction market. 

Discards estimation 

Discards values on tables C and D are estimates based on biological sampling. In these 
cases, discards were provided only for the trawlers for 27.9.A area and for longliners in 
27.10.A area. 

Regarding discards estimates values for trawlers, these are the values reported to ICES 
for  stocks  assessment,  based  on  data  collected  at  the  observers  sampling  program  on-
board  of  demersal  fish  and  crustacean  trawlers  in  area  27.9.A.  Using  the  procedure  to 
raise  discards  from  haul  to  fleet  level  in  the  Portuguese  trawl  fisheries  (Jardim  and 
Fernandes,  2013),  species  with  low  frequency  of  occurrence  or  abundance  in  discards 
(i.e., with a large number of zeros in the data set) cannot be reliably estimated at fleet 
level.  The  frequency  of  occurrence  and  abundance  of  most  species  in  discards  of  the 
Portuguese bottom trawl fleet was below 30%.  

202For  the  remaining  sampled  fleets  in  27.9.A  (GNS_GTR,  LLS_DWS,  PS_SPF,  and 
TBB_MCD) discards estimation procedures are still being discussed/developed. The main 
difficulties for their conclusion are related to the multi-gear trips and the need to choose 
an  adequate  auxiliary  variable  (with  consistent  information  from  the  population)  to  use 
in the raising procedures.  

Consequently,  annual  trawl  discards  volumes  and  length  frequencies  at  the  fleet  level 
are  only  estimated  for  some  species  and  years.  Landings  by  species  for  the  metiers 
coded  as  OTB_CRU_>=55_0_0  and  OTB_DEF_>=65_0_0  in  Tables  C  and  D  were  the 
results  of  aggregation  of  landings  of  more  than  one  trawl  metier  reported  in  Table  A, 
according  to the  table  below.  Discards estimates are  reported for the  same  aggregated 
metiers, which are the groups covered by the sampling program. 

Metiers from Table A - CATCH  Metiers in Tables C to E 

OTB_CRU_55-59_0_0 
OTB_CRU_>=70_0_0 
OTB_DEF_0_0_0 
OTB_DEF_65-69_0_0 
OTB_DEF_>=70_0_0 

(with biological data) 

OTB_CRU_>=55_0_0 

OTB_DEF_>=65_0_0 

In what concerns to discards information provided in Table A, discard values were based 
on  the  annual  discard  estimates  for  each  sampled  fleet  (OTB_DEF  and  OTB_CRU), 
proportionally distributed according to the landings at metier/quarter/vessel_length. This 
is  not  the  best  procedure  because  OTB  discards  estimates  were  raised  using  effort  as 
auxiliary variable and, for this purpose, we are assuming that landings and discards are 
correlated, which may not be true. 

Landings and Discards Age and Length data 

Age data (Tables C and E) were provided only for the species that have age information, 
which  are  horse  mackerel  (HOM),  mackerel  (MAC),  sardine  (PIL)  and  blue-whiting 
(WHB),  in  area  27.9.A.  Table  C  contains  age  information  only  for  WHB,  because  this  is 
the only aged species present in discards. 

Length data (Tables D and F) are provided for all species assessed by ICES and metiers 
sampled  in  areas  27.1.B,  27.2.A,  27.2.B  (onboard  sampling)  and  27.9.A  (market  and 
onboard  sampling).  Table  D  contains  length  data  for  hake  and  blue-whiting,  species  in 
which frequencies of occurrence in discards is higher than 30%, as previously referred. 
In  each  DOMAIN_LANDINGS,  TOTWGHTLANDG  weight  was  converted  in  number 
(dividing  by  the  MEAN_WEIGHT_LANDG)  and  then  distributed  by  age  and/or  length, 
using  the  proportions  of  each  age  or  length  class  in  the  total  distribution.  The  same 
procedure  was  applied  for  the  discards.  Refusal  rates  were  recorded  regularly  since 
2017. 

Effort 

Logbook information is used to calculate effort (fishing days) by fishing area using SQL 
scripts. This is a powerful tool for that aim, however, in situations where the trip is not 
well  constructed  in  the  logbook,  the  estimated  effort  is  not  correct.  For  SSF,  it  is 
assumed that one Sales Note corresponds to one trip and one fishing day. 

17.2  Data availability 

Portugal has submitted all data before the deadline. It should be remarked that the final 
output for JRC database submission depends on different institutions involved (including 

203 
Outermost Regions). This process is very time-consuming once not all data handlers has 
the same level of access to the data needed neither the same skills. In addition to these 
difficulties,  there  is  also  the  fact  that  the  Portuguese  fleet  is  extremely  extensive  and 
diverse operating in a spread number of FAO areas. Due the fact that the data check tool 
has not been available this year, the proximity of the deadline to the holiday period and 
the  disposal  of  data  check  reports  during  the  holiday  period  and  didn’t  cover  all  the 
issues  (duplications  and  some  inconsistencies  between  tables)  it  was  not  possible  to 
correct  inconsistencies  in  time.  That  is  why  Portugal  needed  to  upload  data  during  the 
meeting. 

17.3  Coverage 
Portugal went through all the tableau pages and analysed the quality checks to evaluate 
potential  incorrect  data  and/or  inconsistencies  between  the  data  provided.  Almost  all 
issues  were  resolved  during  the  meeting,  and  only  minor  issues,  not  exactly  errors, 
remained. The extracting data scripts were reviewed to correct incompatibilities between 
tables and other errors encountered. 

The data submitted to FDI data call are consistent with the Eurostat data. The difference 
observed  in  terms  of  the  total  number  of  vessels  is  because  the  total  fleet  (including 
inactive  vessels)  is  reported  to  Eurostat  while  for  the  FDI  only  active  vessels  are 
considered.  Concerning  to  the  weight  of  landings,  the  values  reported  to  FDI  are  lower 
than the reported to Eurostat once the FDI concerns to landing weight and the Eurostat 
to live weight. 

Publication of confidential data 

The  field  introduced  into  tables  A,  G,  H  and  I  to  flag  confidential  data  was  with  the 
proposal of reflect the MS approval in providing the access and handling of detailed data 
to EWG members and JRC IT team. 

All the data that relate to less than 3 vessels were considered Confidential. 

17.4  Problems encountered 
A  large  amount  of  data  at  a  very  disaggregation  level,  plus  the  changes  from  year  to 
year and weak guidelines turns this data call into the most difficult, time-consuming and 
with  the  lower  rate  of  confidence  in  the  match  between  the  request  and  what  is 
delivered. This is a big burden for MS and is not clear if all the information requested is 
needed. 

Effort 

For effort calculation, logbook information is used to determinate fishing and days at sea 
using SQL scripts. The logbook is a powerful data source for effort estimation; however, 
in situations where trips are not well finished in the logbook, the effort estimates are not 
correct since it is not possible to determine the end of each trip. 

The number of fishing days is difficult to estimate for SSF once there are no logbooks for 
vessels < 10m LOA. A common approach is used to estimate the fishing days from the 
sales notes, assuming that 1 sale note corresponds to 1 fishing day. Albeit this common 
approach, in the Azores Autonomous Region, a different pattern among fleet segments is 
observed as the number of fishing days per sale note is different. 

Problems related to data submission 

The  validation  of  “EEZ-indicator  and  Sub-region  fields”  was  not  available  on  the  upload 
checks since the beginning of the opening of the upload facilities. The introduction of this 
check  was  very  useful  for  the  MS  that  allowed  us  to  perform  some  corrections  and 

204retyping  the  SQL  scripts  to  extract  the  correct  combinations  of  codes.  However, 
verification  of  this  data  combination  was  available  too  late  and  it  was  not  possible  to 
correct the data in time. 

17.5  Other comments if relevant  

Since the data providers from the outermost regions are different from the mainland, it 
would  be  very  useful  if  data  check  tool  includes  Geo  Indicator  on  the  filter.  Portuguese 
Experts consider that is very important some kind of workshop within the data providers, 
between the  launch  of  the  request  and  the  submission  deadline. This  workshop  doesn’t 
have to be face-to-face, Skype is enough. This could be a place to data providers to ask 
for  clarifications,  to  change  methodologies,  best  practices  to  extract  data  in  order  to 
provide the best and on time data to the EWG.  

18  Romania – no information provided 

19  Slovenia – no information provided 

20  The Netherlands 

20.1  Methodology 

Landings and effort information is based on official  logbook data, provided by the RVO, 
the  executive  body  of  the  Dutch  Ministry  of  Economic  Affairs  and  Climate  Policy. 
Wageningen  Marine  Research  provided  biological  data  on  discards,  length  and  age 
distributions have been processed to output to both ICES data calls and the FDI data call 
and  is  based  on  sampling  data  from  at-sea  and  market  sampling  programs  conducted 
under  the  Data  Collection  Framework  (DCF).  Biological  data  are  integrated  with  the 
official  recording  on  landings  and  effort.  Discards  are  estimated  based  on  the  at-sea 
sampling  data.  For  species  that  have  corresponding  landings  within  the  same  quarter, 
vessel length group, metier, discards domain and sub region, the discards are distributed 
to  the  aggregation  of  table  A  based  on  landings.  In  cases,  monitoring  programmes  not 
provide  discard  information,  because  there  was  no  sampling  coverage,  a  “NK”  (not 
known) was applied. 

In some cases there are length measurements for species (table D and F), where there 
is no age reading (table C and E). 

Effort, days at sea, are calculated based on the period between leaving and entering the 
port. Period is rounded by whole days. Number of fishing days are the number of unique 
fishing days within a fishing trip. For active fishing gear there can only be one fishing day 
by gear. For passive gear, a multiple gears, or gear units, can be applied during one day. 
For example, a vessels sets 3 different gillnets, this is counted as 3 fishing days.  

20.2  Data availability 

The data was finalised and available by the data call deadline. However, during the work 
group tables, A, C and D were adjusted and re-uploaded, because of increased insight on 
how  to  improve  biological  data  integration,  enabling  to  incorporated  more  discard 
information. 

20.3  Coverage 

The Netherlands provided fleet specific landing and effort data for the period 2015-2018. 
The  data  covers  all  areas  in  which  the  Dutch  fleets  are  active  and  conform  to  the 
requested aggregation. There is no information on misreporting, although the reliability 
of  the  official  discard  records  in  the  official  logbook  registration  is  believed  to  be 

205 
questionable  and,  therefore,  not  used.    Discard  estimates  were  provided  for  all  species 
caught  in  fisheries  sampled  under  the  Dutch  monitoring  programme.  Within  this 
monitoring programme for discard/catch and biological data a study fleet is used, which 
sample catch data. The participating group of vessels is representative for the complete 
demersal Dutch fleet, on the aggregation level of metier, the combination of gear type, 
target assemblage and mesh size range . Pelagic, shrimp and passive gear (small scale) 
fisheries are monitored with an observer programme of which the sampling coverage is 
limited.  

Publication of confidential data 

Because  aggregation  levels  are  high,  data  were  not  marked  as  confidential.  Therefore, 
for the submission of FDI data in 2018 no data was considered confidential in the Dutch 
data set.  

20.4  Problems encountered 

Problems related to data collection 

For the monitoring on board commercial fishing vessels refusal rates, refuse to have an 
observer on board, should be recorded, table B. However, for the monitoring of demersal 
fisheries the Netherlands implement a study fleet. Participating fishers sample catch on a 
regular basis,  also  observer go  on board to  validate  the  sampling  programme.  Refusals 
are  never  encountered.  Because  of  the  high  level  of  cooperation  makes  recording  of 
refusal rate oblivious and are therefore not recorded. 

For the monitoring of passive gear/small scale fisheries, attempts of setting up a system 
to  record  refusals  rates  failed  in  previous  years.  Main  reasons  were  incomplete  vessel 
lists and contact details of fishers.  

Problems related to data call 

Data was provided at the requested aggregations levels according to the data call by the 
RVO,  WMR  includes  biological  data  and  submits  data  in  the  JRC  data  portal.  However, 
data  provided  by  RVO  did  contain  a  lot  of  irregularities,  e.g.  mismatches,  missing  data 
(gaps), mistakes, etc., with the data call. Since WMR was obliged with the task of data 
submission, it had to report mistakes back to RVO or correct the  mistakes. But, due to 
the  number  of  irregularities  and  the  available  time  window  of  data  submission,  one 
month,  and  the  lack  of  capacity  of  WMR  data  experts,  this  was  a  demanding  task  and 
had an effect on the submitted data quality, which eventually resulted in data processing 
en resubmitting during the meeting.  

20.5  Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

21  United Kingdom 

21.1  Methodology 

21.1.1 FDF vessel methodology 

There  was  no  consideration  in  the  data  call  for  how  to  denote  those  vessels  that 
participated in the Fully Documented Fisheries (FDF) scheme. Discard estimates for FDF 
vessels are calculated separately from those vessels that would be in the same domain 
due to the difference in fishing behaviour. “_FDF” was appended to the end of the metier 
tag and in the domain names “_FDF” replaced the commercial category.  

21.1.2 Domain name methodology 

UK – Scotland  

206Target  assemblage  –  As  not  all  vessels  within  a  sample  domain  will  target  the  same 
assemblage a target assemblage code had to be entered that was most representative of 
that domain. Bottom trawlers using meshes >=100mm were recorded as targeting DEF, 
bottom trawlers using meshes 70-99mm were recorded as targeting CRU and mid-water 
trawlers were recorded as targeting SPF. 

Mesh  size  range  –  Representative  mesh  size  range  codes  were  applied.  The  mesh  size 
range  codes  requested  in  the  data  call  do  not  fit  with  the  mesh  ranges  of  the  sampled 
strata. As such, three representative codes were used: 32D69, 70D99 and 100DXX.  

Commercial  category  –  As  mentioned,  where  the  domain  covered  FDF  vessels,  FDF 
replaced the commercial category field. 

UK – England  
The Domain name definition for landings and discards followed the way the estimations 
were  performed.  We  tried  to  maintain  the  sampling  programme  stratification,  however 
we post-stratified the data to account for differences, between ICES areas, and different 
fleets 

21.1.3 Discards methodology 

UK – Scotland - Scottish discard estimates were not initially applied to Table A as the 
sampling  domain  data  are  at  a  more  aggregated  level  than  the  level  of  aggregation 
requested  in  Table  A.  As  such,  a  method  of  apportioning  the  estimates  would  be 
required.  There  are  concerns  that  the  data  could  then  be  misinterpreted  as  a  result  of 
the apportioning method. It is unclear how the data will be made available through the 
data  dissemination  tool.  Clarification  on  how  the  data  will  be  disseminated  could  allow 
the application of discard estimates to Table A following an agreed apportioning method. 
For  now the  discard data  in  Tables  C  and  D can  be  linked  to  Table  A  using the  domain 
names and species. 

The discard estimates in Table C and D were later applied to Table A by linking with the 
domain  discards  and  species  fields.  The  estimates  were  apportioned  between  the 
relevant rows scaled to the landed weight. 

In  Table  C,  where  there  is  a  discard  estimate,  but  no  corresponding  age  data  these 
records  were  still  entered  in  Table  C  with  NK  provided  for  any  of  the  age  information 
fields. 

UK – England - D were estimated from the UK- England on-board sampling programme 
conducted  under  the  DCF.  The  estimation  (raising)  was  carried  out  according  with  the 
strata described by “Domain discards”. If no estimate could be achieved from sampling, 
or  a  stratum  was  not  sampled,  no  discards  was  provided.  The  discards  estimates 
achieved for each stratum (“Domain discards”) were then partitioned to the much more 
disaggregated format in table A. The partitioning was done proportionally to the landings 
for the domain species combination.  

For  each  trip,  numbers-at-length  were  raised  to  the  haul,  based  on  an  estimated 
proportion of the total catch volume sampled, then to the trip, based on the proportion 
of  sampled  hauls  and  fished  hauls.  The  length  based  data  was  converted  to  biomass, 
using length-weight relationships for each species collected during various scientific trawl 
surveys  (Cefas,  unpubl.  data).  Trip-raised  estimates  were  summed  for  sampled  vessels 
in  each  stratum  (i.e.  Domain)  and  then  raised  to  total  fleet  using  a  ratio  between  the 
reported  total  fleet  landings  of  stock  and  reported  landings  of  stock  by  the  sampled 
vessels.  When  no  landings  are  reported,  used  effort  (number  of  at  sea  in  domain)  to 
raise the unwanted data. 

207 
21.1.4 Length and age distributions 

For the length and age distributions each UK country provided biological data individually 
based on its national data collections programme.  

UK- England 

Age and length distributions for the discards were estimated based  on the UK- England 
on-board  sampling  programme.  Length  data  was  collected  for  all  fish  species  and 
commercial  molluscs  and  crustacean  species.  For  data  submission,  a  minimum  number 
of  fish  sampled  by  strata  (Domain)  is  applied.  Only  domains  with  20  or  more  fish 
measured  were  submitted.  Age  distributions  for  the  discards  were  provided  to  the 
following species: cod, haddock, megrims, lemon sole, plaice, sole and whiting. 

Age and length distributions for the landings were estimated based on the UK- England 
on-shore sampling programme. Length data was provided for all commercial fish species 
and  commercial  molluscs  and  crustacean  species.  For  data  submission,  a  minimum 
number of fish sampled by strata (Domain) is applied. Only domains with 20 or more fish 
measured  were  submitted.  Age  distributions  for  the  landings  were  provided  to  the 
following species: brill, cod, haddock, herring, megrims, lemon sole, ling, pollack, plaice, 
seabass, sole, turbot and whiting. 

UK – Northern Ireland 

For  Cod,  haddock  and  whiting  Length  frequencies  from  Northern  Ireland  (AFBI)  fleet 
observer trips in specified fleet métiers are raised to the trip level, summed across trips 
during each year or by quarter, then raised to the annual number of trips per year in the 
NI fleet in 7.a to give raised annual LFDs for discards. An age–length key from discards 
trips is then applied to give annual discards by age class and metier. 

For  Nephrops  in  functional  unit  15  the  discards  samples  contain  the  heads  of Nephrops 
tailed at-sea. Using a length–weight relationship, the live weight of Nephrops that would 
have been landed as tails only is calculated from the carapace lengths of the discarded 
heads. Discard estimates of fish species is estimated by summing the discard weight, by 
species, for all samples in a quarter and expressed as a ratio of the summed live weight 
of  Nephrops  in  the  discard  samples  (i.e.  those  represented  as  heads  only  in  the 
samples).  The  reported  live  weight  of  Nephrops  landed  as  tails  only  is  then  used  to 
estimate  the  quantity  of  cod  or  haddock  discarded  using  the  cod  or  haddock:Nephrops 
ratio in the discard samples. The length frequency of cod in the discard samples is then 
raised to the fleet estimate. To provided international estimates this is raised to the by 
the  ratio  of  Northern  Irish  Nephrops  landings  to  international  Nephrops  landings.  In 
years  prior  to  the  self-sampling  scheme  the  ratio  of  numbers-at-age  of  discarded  cod 
and haddock: Nephrops landings in the unsampled year is used to provide an estimate of 
discards. In years where sampling of other fisheries has occurred these are added to the 
international discard estimates of the Nephrops fleet. 

21.1.5 Effort calculation methodology 

The effort measures for all administrations comprising the UK were calculated using the 
method  agreed  at  the  transversal  variables  workshops.  Table  J  was  provided  at  an  UK 
level as this table comes from the economic data call which is assessed at the UK level 
rather than the administration level. 

21.1.6 Refusal rate methodology 
Distinct  sampling  programmes  are  implemented  by  the  administrations  comprising  the 
UK, as such separate refusal rate tables are submitted by each administration.  

208UK  -  Scotland:  As  best  as  was  possible,  the  methodology  used  followed  the  guidance 
presented in the SGPIDS 2012 and 2013 reports. The SGPIDS reports did not necessarily 
cover the categorisation of all possible reasons for a trip not being carried out. Instead of 
having  to  reference  a  large  report  it  would  make  more  sense  to  provide  a  table  of 
reasons  and  classifications.  This  would  standardise  the  methodology  and  reduce 
inconsistency.  One  further  comment  concerns  the  use  of  this  table,  as  it  does  not  and 
cannot link directly to the biological sampling tables. Clarification as to why this table is 
needed and how it will be used is needed. 

UK-  England:  As  best  as  was  possible,  the  methodology  used  followed  the  guidance 
presented in the SGPIDS 2012 and 2013 reports. Below we describe the calculations and 
rationale used for each variable in the table below: 

REFUSAL_RATE 

COVERAGE_RATE 

NONRESPONSE_RATE 

VESSELS_FLEET 

TRIPS_FLEET 

Includes direct and ‘indirect refusals’. A count of all the 
industry non-responses divided by a count of all the 
selections in the year. 
Does not include off draw samples. A count of all the 
successful selections that resulted in a trip divided by a 
count of all the selections in the year. 
A count of all non-responses, non-contacts and offdraw 
selections divided by a count of all the selections in the 
year. 
~ 

~ 

TRIPS_SAMPLED_ONBOAR
D 
UNIQUE_VESSEL_SAMPLED  ~ 

Value includes off draw samples 

VESSELS_CONTACTED 

NOT_AVAILABLE 

NO_CONTACT_DETAILS 

NO_ANSWER 

OBSERVER_DECLINED 

INDUSTRY_DECLINED 

SUCCESFUL_SAMPLE 

Each vessel is only counted once. This figure does not 
include multiple contacts of the same vessel. Each vessel 
is only counted once. As the drawlists are re-created 
quarterly the same vessel may be contacted more than 
once in a year. 
Each vessel is only counted once. This does not include all 
occurrences of and attempts at the same vessel. This will 
also include any vessel selected in sequence that was not 
approached for safety concerns. 
Each vessel is only counted once. This does not include 
multiple visits to the same vessel. 
This is a sum of all the vessel contacts across all quarters 
where there was no answer - if recorded. 
This is a sum of all the vessel contacts across all quarters 
where the observer then declined. This does not include 
where the observer declined to make contact. 
This is a sum of all the vessel contacts across all quarters 
where the observer received a flat no. This does not 
include contacts where the observer was put off or the call 
was ‘inconclusive’ – an indirect refusal. 
Value includes off draw samples 

TOT_SELECTIONS 

Sum of all sequential selections. 

21.2  Data availability 

For  all  the  UK  countries,  all  tables  were  submitted  on  time  in  the  first  instance.  Tables 
have been updated between the statutory submission date and during the first two days 

209 
of  the  meeting  where  significant  errors  were  identified  (e.g.  inconsistent  dates  used  to 
define  quarters  between  landings  and  effort  tables,  inconsistent  attribution  of  FDI 
markers to metiers in landings and effort tables).  

21.3  Coverage 
The UK gathers landings and effort data on two distinct databases, one Scottish and one 
for  the  rest  of  the  UK  (rUK).  The  data  submitted  here  have  their  origins  in  the  rUK 
database  iFish2,  which  is  synced  with  the  Scottish  database.  The  table  below 
summarises the number of records uploaded for each data tables by the UK. 

21.3.1.1 

Data totals for the UK by year 

Table/Variable 
TABLE_A_discards  
TABLE_A_totvallandg  
TABLE_A_totwghtlandg  
TABLE_B_refusal_rate  
TABLE_C_age  
TABLE_C_discards  
TABLE_C_no_age  
TABLE_C_no_samples  
TABLE_D_discards  
TABLE_D_length  
TABLE_D_no_length  
TABLE_D_no_samples  
TABLE_E_age  
TABLE_E_no_age  
TABLE_E_no_samples  
TABLE_F_length  
TABLE_F_no_length  
TABLE_F_no_samples  
TABLE_G_gthrsea  
TABLE_G_hrsea  
TABLE_G_kwhrsea  
TABLE_G_totfishdays  
TABLE_G_totgtdaysatsea  
TABLE_G_totgtfishdays  
TABLE_G_totkwdaysatsea  
TABLE_G_totkwfishdays  
TABLE_G_totseadays  
TABLE_G_totves  
TABLE_H_totwghtlandg  
TABLE_I_totfishdays 
TABLE_J_avgage  
TABLE_J_avgloa  
TABLE_J_maxseadays  
TABLE_J_totgt  
TABLE_J_totkw  
TABLE_J_tottrips  
TABLE_J_totves  

General comments 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

6,665 
57,206 
57,206 
5 
979 
1,128 
979 
1,128 
12,043 
12,043 
12,043 
12,043 
5,852 
5,852 
4,670 
28,005 
28,005 
28,005 
6,090 
6,090 
6,090 
6,090 
6,090 
6,090 
6,090 
6,090 
6,090 
6,090 

7,595 
61,602 
61,602 
5 
1,006 
1,176 
1,006 
1,176 
14,144 
14,144 
14,144 
14,144 
6,052 
6,052 
4,691 
29,091 
29,091 
29,091 
6,283 
6,283 
6,283 
6,283 
6,283 
6,283 
6,283 
6,283 
6,283 
6,283 

7,108 
54,951 
54,951 
16 
971 
1,072 
971 
1,072 
12,982 
12,982 
12,982 
12,982 
5,849 
5,849 
4,392 
27,776 
27,776 
27,776 
6,141 
6,141 
6,141 
6,141 
6,141 
6,141 
6,141 
6,141 
6,141 
6,141 

6,704 
48,738 
48,738 
16 
1,000 
1,119 
1,000 
1,119 
14,362 
14,362 
14,362 
14,362 
5,310 
5,310 
4,015 
24,914 
24,914 
24,914 
5,646 
5,646 
5,646 
5,646 
5,646 
5,646 
5,646 
5,646 
5,646 
5,646 
271,013  287,399  264,895  244,845 
17,288 
56 
56 
51 
56 
56 
56 
56 

18,326 
58 
58 
53 
58 
58 
58 
58 

18,655 
51 
51 
46 
51 
51 
51 
51 

17,856 
52 
52 
47 
52 
52 
52 
52 

UK  laboratories  have  created  a  shared  workspace  to  coordinate  the  FDI  data  call  and 
have  worked  from  the  MMO’s  UK  wide  iFish2  database  to  ensure  consistency.  This  has 

210 
decreased the number of inconsistencies reported last year. More of the processes have 
been  automated  using  R  and  SQL  scripts  to  extract  and  process  data  into  FDI  format. 
This  automation  has  reduced manual  processing  errors and  made  correcting  processing 
errors more straightforward. 

Comparison with Eurostat data 

Overall the difference between Eurostat and FDI in 2015, 2016 and 2017 was relatively 
small  (see  table  19.3.1.2),  with  landed  live  weight  being  no  more  than  0.9%  less  on 
Eurostat than 2019’s FDI submission. There was no consistent pattern to the differences 
by  area  or  species.  In  2015,  the  bulk  of  the  differences  were  for  shellfish  landings,  in 
2016  it  was  demersal  species  (principally  cod)  and  in  2017  a  mix  of  shellfish  and 
mackerel. Across all years the majority of differences were in FAO Area 27 (NE Atlantic), 
which is unsurprising given the pattern of activity of the UK fleet. It is important to note 
that  the  extracts  of  data  for  these  two  products  were  on  different  dates.  Given  the 
dynamic  and  live  nature  of  our  fisheries  database  exact  matches  between  different 
snapshots  in  time  are  not  to  be  expected.  Quality  control  processes  are  undertaken 
regularly on UK databases and data are amended where errors are discovered. The fleet 
size differences were larger but still small overall varying between 1.7 and 1.8% greater 
vessel  numbers  on  FDI  than  Eurostat  (see  table  19.3.1.3).  Again  the  snapshot  dates 
differ for these extracts. Additionally the methodology for Eurostat vessel counts differs 
to FDI. In Eurostat the number of registered vessels in the UK’s commercial sea fishing 
fleet on a given date are counted. For FDI the number of vessels registered at any point 
in  a  given  calendar  year  are  counted.  Given  this  difference  in  methodology  the  higher 
numbers for FDI than Eurostat is expected and unsurprising. 

21.3.1.2 

Data totals (landings, tonnes) for the UK by year 

Year  FDI 

2019 

2015  708,191  701,769 
2016  701,736  699,842 
2017  724,860  722,691 

Eurostat  % Dif (vs. 
Eurostat) 
0.9% 
0.3% 
0.3% 

21.3.1.3 

Data totals (vessels) for the UK by year 

Year  FDI 

2019 
2015  6,347 
2016  6,347 
2017  6,304 

Eurostat  % Dif (vs. 
Eurostat) 
1.8% 
1.8% 
1.7% 

6,232 
6,235 
6,199 

Publication of confidential data 

The UK has not flagged any data in this call as confidential. We continue to monitor the 
content  of  data  calls  and  will  ensure  any  confidential  data  is  flagged  if  requested  in 
future  data  calls.  The  UK  believes  that  a  consistent  definition  of  what  constitutes 
confidential data should be provided as the benchmark used seems to differ significantly 
between member states. 

The  UK  uses  the  principles  set  out  in  the  GDPR  regulation  (EC  2016/679) to determine 
whether data are confidential in the sense that their disclosure would place personal data 
into  the  public  domain  in  a  way  that  violates  the  data  subjects’  rights  under  GDPR.  As 
FDI  data  are  aggregated  and  pseudo-anonymous  we  do  not  believe  publication  of  this 
data (which lacks any vessel identifiers), even where the record covers only one vessel’s 
activities,  would  disclose  personal  data  in  a  harmful  or  potentially  harmful  way. 
Moreover, we believe that the public interest and benefit of making such data on the use 

211 
of  shared  natural  resources  public  in  a  pseudo-anonymous  way  greatly  outweighs  any 
potential  risks  and  that  the  processing  and  dissemination  of  such  data  is  for  a  clearly 
defined and lawful purpose and furthers EU marine environmental sustainability and food 
security objectives. 

21.4  Problems encountered 

Consideration needs to be made as to how to present Nephrops discard information, as 
the currently requested level of aggregation in Table A means combining estimates from 
different functional units that are likely to have differing discard rates. The addition of a 
means to identify functional unit in Table A would allow Nephrops discard estimates to be 
presented by functional unit.  

21.5  Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

22  SPAIN 

Spain  has  provided  2015-2018  data  for  all  the  Spanish  fisheries  from  all  around  the 
world (ICES, Mediterranean Sea, CECAF, Tuna fisheries and Long distant fisheries).    

22.1  Methodology 
Data Procedure: 

- Landings weights (Table A) come from the cross of sales notes and logbooks data. 

-  Discard  information  comes  from  scientific  observers  on  board  programme  by  métier. 
Discard ratio (discard/landings) is multiplied by landings data in each row to obtain each 
discard  data  of  that  row  according  to  the  correspondent  combination  year-quarter-
metier-species  (Table  A).  New  rows  are  added  when  there  is  discard  estimation  and 
there is no row because corresponding landings are zero.  

- Once discard weights are in Table A (Table A is by quarter), Tables C, D, E and F are 
produced (these tables are by year) aggregating Table A data weights. Landings length 
distributions (Tables F NAO OFR and Table F MBS) and landings age data (Tables E NAO 
OFR and Table E MBS) are obtained from the biological sampling and there are raised to 
the weights. Discards length distributions (Table D NAO OFR and Table D MBS) and the 
samples  to  obtain  the  discard  age  distributions  (Table  C  NAO  OFR  and  Table  C  MBS) 
came from the observers programme and raised to the weights. 

-  Refusal  rates  of  Table  B  come  from  observers  programe.  Refusal  rates  collection  has 
been implemented from 2016 on, therefore no data prior to this year is available. 

- Effort data (Table G and Table J) come from the cross of sales notes (vessel length <10 
m) and logbooks data.   

-  Landing  and  effort  by  rectangle  (Tables  H  and  I)  are  obtained  using  the  logbooks 
information.  

22.2  Data availability 

Data were not available by the data call deadline.  

22.3  Coverage 

General comments 

In the comparison among domain landings from Table E and from Table F, it seems that 
there is a huge number of species which size is available, but not ages. This is due to the 
fact that ages are not requested for the respective stock assessment WGs (e.g. hake is 

212currently being evaluated by GADGET and SS3 disaggregated by lengths, instead of ages 
as was required by the former XSA).  

Landings and effort by rectangle of vessel with length < 10 m could not be provided for 
this  data  call  due  to  a problem  with  the  database.  The  problem  was  resolved  later  and 
those data will be available for the next data call. 

Landing  and  effort  by  rectangle  (Table  H  and  I)  were  not  available  for  2018 
Mediterranean  data  because  SUB_REGION  was  empty  (“NK”,  no  GSAs  information), 
which prevents the use of spatial information (coordinates) that were upload. 

Difference with other STECF data calls could not be done due to the delay of the upload 
of the data. 

Comparison with Eurostat data. 

Comparison with Eurostat data could not be done due to the delay of the upload of the 
data. 

Publication of confidential data 

All the Spanish data were non confidential.  

22.4  Problems encountered 

Problems related to data collection 

The overstratified FDI data matrix does not match with the DCR data collection sampling 
strata, this produce artefacts as for example that discard data must be dissagregated by 
vessel length range producing possibly non representatives values.  

Problems related to data submission 

Data were not available by the data call deadline. 

The delay in the provision of the data did not allow carry out all the data quality checks 
that would be advisable, therefore data quality was compromised.  

De-minimis  and  survivability  exemptions  data  could  not  been  carefully  analysed  due  to 
the data upload delay. This delay affected also to the comparison of the two tables with 
data collected and estimated with fills in. 

22.5  Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

23  Sweden 

23.1  Methodology 

Landings, including BMS landings, were retrieved from logbooks for vessels >=10m LOA 
and from monthly coastal journals for vessels <10m LOA  

Discards  were  estimated  from  the  Swedish  on-board  sampling  programme  conducted 
under  the  DCF.  The  estimation  (raising)  was  carried  out  according  to  the  national 
sampling schemes within the strata described by “Domain discards”. If no estimate could 
be  achieved  from  sampling,  or  a  stratum  was  not  sampled,  no  discards  were  provided. 
The  total  discard  estimates  achieved  for  each  stratum  (“Domain  discards”)  were  then 
partitioned  to  the  much  more  disaggregated  format  in  the  STECF  data  call.  The 
partitioning  was  done  proportionally  to  the  variable  used  for  the  raising  (landings  of 
target  species  in  the  fishery  or  fishing  hours,  depending  on  the  fishery).  Proportion  of 
landings  of  the  same  species  was  not  used  for  the  partitioning  of  discards  unless  the 
species was a target species. Age distributions for landings were estimated from market 

213sampling  data.  Age  distribution  data  for  discards  were  collected  from  the  Swedish  on-
board  sampling  programme.  Length  distributions  for  landings  of  cod  (including  BMS 
landings)  and  witch  flounder  were  estimated  from  market  sampling  data.  Length 
distribution  data  for  other  species  provided  were  collected  in  the  Swedish  on-board 
sampling programme.  

Effort was calculated using the fecR package.  

23.2  Data availability 

Data was provided by the data call deadline. 

23.3  Coverage 
Landings data was provided for all species 2015-2018.  

Discard  estimates  were  provided  for  all  species  caught  in  fisheries  sampled  under  the 
Swedish on-board sampling programme 2015-2018.  

Age distribution data for landings was provided for cod, witch flounder, flounder, herring 
and  sprat.  Age  distribution  data  for  discards  was  provided  for  cod,  witch  flounder, 
flounder and plaice. 

Length distribution data was provided for all fish species sampled under the Swedish on-
board sampling programme that met the following criteria: 

1)  The species was encountered in at least two trips in the stratum 
2)  A minimum of 20 individuals were measured in the stratum 

Effort was provided for all vessels in the Swedish fleet 2015-2018. 

General comments 

In the 2019 FDI data call BMS landings were requested as part of the “Landings” fraction 
and not “Unwanted catch” (as was the case previous year). BMS landings are rarely, or 
never,  encountered  in  many  sampling  programmes  and  therefore  often  lack  biological 
information.  In  order  to  still  be  able  to  provide  biological  information  for  landings 
>MCRS, even if the BMS fraction of the landings could not be sampled, landings >MCRS 
and BMS landings were given different “Domain landings” and biological information was 
only  provided  for  the  fraction  >MCRS.  BMS  landings  of  cod  could  only  be  sampled  for 
biological information for fisheries in the Baltic Sea since no BMS landings were available 
for sampling in other areas. 

In  2015  the  number  of  on-board  sampling  trips  achieved  in  the  Baltic  Sea  was  not 
sufficient  for  estimation  of  discards  due  to  very  high  refusals  from  the  fishery  (see 
“Problems encountered”). 

In  the  Swedish  on-board  sampling  programme  many  species  are  encountered  rarely 
and/or in very small numbers. No length distribution data has been provided for species 
for  which  the  sampled  number  of  individuals  was  considered  insufficient  for  estimation 
(see above). 

Some small landings in Table A have a corresponding value of zero for days at sea and 
fishing days in Table G (effort).This is a rounding issue; in those cases the vessel  used 
more than one gear/metier/area in one day. The fishing day was then split between the 
different  gears/areas.  Since  days  at  sea  and  fishing  days  had  to  be  provided  in  whole 
days, sometimes they got rounded to zero. 

214Comparison with Eurostat data 

Differences  between  landings  data  provided  to  Eurostat  and  landings  data  provided  to 
FDI  are  likely  due  to  the  fact  that  different  data  sources  have  been  used.  Landings 
provided  to  Eurostat  are  retrieved  from  landing  declarations,  while  landings  data 
provided to FDI are retrieved from logbooks. The reason for logbooks being used for the 
FDI data call is that the Swedish logbooks contains much more detailed information that 
the  landing  declarations.  Since  Sweden  has  an  extended  logbook,  information  on 
catches,  gears,  geographical  information,  etc.  is  reported  by  fishing  operation  in  the 
logbooks,  which  allows  for  a  data  compilation  with  as  few  assumptions  as  possible. 
However,  in  some  cases  the  landings  between  the  data  sources  differ,  especially  for 
pelagic  species  where  the  species  composition  of  the  catch  is  estimated  in  the  logbook 
before landing. Some of the differences are however due to different FAO species codes 
being  used.  This  is  likely  the  case  when  a  species  is  missing  completely  in  one  of  the 
compared  sources  (For  example,  anglerfish  was  submitted  with  the  FAO  code  “ANF” 
(Lophidae) to Eurostat and “MON” (Lophius piscatorius) to FDI). 

Differences between number of vessels provided to Eurostat and the FDI are explained 
by the fact that only active vessels are included in the data submitted to FDI. 

Publication of confidential data 

For the submission of FDI data in 2019 no data was considered confidential in the 
Swedish data set. 

23.4  Problems encountered 

Problems related to data collection 

In  2015  the  Swedish  on-board  sampling  programme  failed  to  collect  sufficient  discards 
data  in  the  Baltic  Sea.  When  the  landing  obligation  was  introduced  in  the  Baltic, 
fishermen refused to take observers and no Swedish discard data could be collected. To 
support sampling of on-board data, Swedish authorities introduced a new system in late 
2016 which made it mandatory for vessels to accept observers.  

23.5  Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

215Annex 3 - Data associated with anticipated excemptions aggregated at species and sub region level 

Table  1.  Overal  landings  and anticipated excemptions  associated  with  species  and  Sub Regions  reported  to  FDI  for  North 
Sea 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Sub Region 

27.3.A.20 

27.3.A.20 Total 

-    

10  

5,059  

208  

27,299  

27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.3.A.21 
27.3.A.21 

27.3.A.21 Total 
27.4.A 
27.4.A 

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 
27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 

3,130  

Species 
codes  

ARG 

ARG 

ARG Total 
COD 
COD 
COD 

COD 
COD 
COD 

COD 
COD 
COD 

COD 
COD 
COD 

COD 

Exemption Article 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.d 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.c 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.d 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.c 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.f 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.f 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
0.0 

Weight, 
tonnes 
0.0 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 
0 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

0.0 

0.0 
1.5 
0.1 
1.1 

2.7 
0.0 
0.1 

0.1 
4.6 
69.2 

73.8 
30.2 
117.0 

147.1 

0.0 

0.0 
11.6 
4.1 
0.1 

15.8 
n.a. 
5.2 

5.2 
n.a. 
1372.1 

1372.1 
n.a. 
71.6 

71.6 

98% 
100% 
100% 

99% 
n.a. 
100% 

97% 
n.a. 
79% 

74% 
n.a. 
21% 

17% 

0 

0 
12 
4 
0 

16 
n.a. 
5 

5 
n.a. 
1372 

1372 
n.a. 
74 

74 

100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
n.a. 
100% 

97% 
n.a. 
86% 

81% 
n.a. 
43% 

34% 

216 
 
   
 
 
                               
  
 
 
  
                              
  
 
 
   
   
   
                        
  
   
   
                           
  
   
   
                     
  
   
   
                        
  
Exemption Article 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.e 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
0.1 
40.6 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Sub Region 

27.4.C 
27.4.C 

27.4.C Total 

197  

Species 
codes  

COD 
COD 

COD 

COD Total 
HAD 
HAD 

27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 

46,806  

HAD 
HAD 

HAD 
HAD 

HAD 
HAD 

HAD 

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.3.A.21 

717  

27.3.A.21 Total 
27.4.A 

24  

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 

26,350  

27.4.B Total 

1,663  

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.c 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.d 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.c 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 

HAD Total 
HER 

27.3.A.20 

29,240  

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.d 

HER 
HER 

HER 

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.4.B 

12,359  

27.4.B Total 

96,818  

2018/189 Article 3 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
3.6 

3.6 

1468.2 
0.5 
0.5 

1.0 
0.0 

0.0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

1.0 
2.1 

2.1 
n.a. 

n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 
8% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
13 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 
11% 

8% 

32% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

7% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

13 

11% 

1480 
1 
1 

1 
0 

0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

1 
2 

2 
n.a. 

n.a. 

44% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

7% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

40.8 

264.5 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.6 

0.6 
0.0 

0.0 

0.7 
0.0 

0.0 
839.8 

839.8 

217 
 
   
   
                           
  
  
                     
  
   
   
                           
  
   
                              
  
   
                     
  
   
                        
  
  
                     
  
   
 
 
                     
  
 
 
   
                     
  
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Sub Region 

27.4.C 

27.4.C Total 

2,270  

Species 
codes  

HER 

HER 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
15.3 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 

Exemption Article 

2018/189 Article 3 

HER Total 
HKE 

27.3.A.20 

444,162  

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.c 

HKE 
HKE 

HKE 

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.3.A.21 

639  

27.3.A.21 Total 

8  

HKE Total 
HOM 
HOM 

27.4.B 
27.4.B 

15,479  

HOM 
HOM 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 

207  

HOM 

27.4.C Total 

354  

HOM Total 
JAX 

27.4.A 

JAX 
JAX 
JAX 

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 
27.4.B Total 

892  

4  

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.c 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.k 
2018/189 Article 3 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.k 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.k 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.k 

15.3 

855.1 
0.1 

0.1 
0.0 

0.0 

0.1 
c 
8.5 

14.9 
89.4 

89.4 

104.2 
0.0 

0.0 
0.4 
0.4 

n.a. 

2.1 
4.2 

4.2 
1.7 

1.7 

5.9 
c 
n.a. 

n.a. 
1.6 

1.6 

1.6 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 
100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

100% 
c 
n.a. 

n.a. 
12% 

12% 

10% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2 
4 

4 
2 

2 

6 
c 
n.a. 

n.a. 
2 

2 

2 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

0% 
100% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

100% 
c 
n.a. 

n.a. 
21% 

21% 

18% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

218 
 
   
                        
  
  
                   
  
   
                           
  
   
                                
  
  
                     
  
   
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
  
                           
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 
3  

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

JAX 

JAX 

27.4.C 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.k 

27.4.C Total 

840  

JAX Total 
JDP 

27.4.C 

JDP 

27.4.C Total 

JDP Total 
LIN 

27.4.A 

847  

0  

0  

LIN 
LIN 

LIN 

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 

5,246  

27.4.B Total 

99  

LIN Total 
MAC 

27.4.A 

MAC 
MAC 
MAC 

MAC 
MAC 

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 
27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 

5,499  

185,247  

2,671  

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.n 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.n 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.l 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.l 
2018/189 Article 3 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.l 

0.8 

0.8 

1.2 
c 

c 

c 
814.7 

814.7 
0.4 

0.4 

815.1 
0.3 

0.3 
524.6 
45.7 

570.3 
62.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 

c 
34.4 

34.4 
n.a. 

n.a. 

34.4 
2.0 

2.0 
1.6 
n.a. 

1.6 
21.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 

c 
25% 

25% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

25% 
18% 

18% 
0% 
n.a. 

0% 
4% 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 

c 
34 

34 
n.a. 

n.a. 

34 
2 

2 
11 
0 

11 
22 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 

c 
25% 

25% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

25% 
100% 

100% 
0% 
1% 

0% 
64% 

219 
 
   
                           
  
  
                           
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                        
  
   
                              
  
  
                        
  
   
                   
  
   
   
                        
  
   
Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

MAC 

27.4.C Total 

830  

62.1 

21.6 

MAC Total 
NEP 
NEP 

27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 

196,239  

NEP 
NEP 
NEP 

NEP 
NEP 
NEP 

NEP 
NEP 
NEP 

NEP 

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.3.A.21 
27.3.A.21 

27.3.A.21 Total 
27.4.A 
27.4.A 

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 
27.4.B 

4,132  

2,903  

5,874  

27.4.B Total 

7,079  

JR-xx.2019   Art.3.1.b 
JR-xx.2019   Art.3.1.a 

JR-xx.2019   Art.3.1.b 
JR-xx.2019   Art.3.1.a 

JR-xx.2019   Art.3.1.b 
JR-xx.2019   Art.3.1.a 

JR-xx.2019   Art.3.1.b 
JR-xx.2019   Art.3.1.a 

NEP Total 
NOP 
NOP 
NOP 

27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 

19,995  

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.d 

632.7 
3608.8 
289.9 

3898.7 
2540.0 
33.5 

2573.5 
525.9 
9.4 

535.3 
58.2 
23.3 

81.6 

7089.0 
0.0 
0.2 
0.2 

25.3 
711.5 
17.9 

729.4 
505.0 
1.9 

506.9 
0.2 
n.a. 

0.2 
0.1 
n.a. 

0.1 

1236.5 
4.1 
56.2 
56.2 

NOP 

27.3.A.20 Total 

160  

0.5 

116.4 

4% 

0% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
5% 
n.a. 

5% 
32% 
n.a. 

23% 

92% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

22 

34 
712 
18 

730 
505 
2 

507 
0 
n.a. 

0 
0 
n.a. 

0 

1237 
4 
56 
56 

64% 

7% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
5% 
n.a. 

5% 
32% 
n.a. 

23% 

92% 

100% 
100% 

116 

100% 

220 
 
                           
  
  
                   
  
   
   
                        
  
   
   
                        
  
   
   
                        
  
   
   
                        
  
  
                     
  
   
 
 
   
   
                           
  
Species 
codes  

NOP 

NOP 
NOP 
NOP 

NOP 
NOP 

NOP 
NOP 

NOP 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Sub Region 

27.3.A.21 

27.3.A.21 Total 
27.4.A 
27.4.A 

0  

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 

27.4.C Total 

10,489  

4  

0  

10,653  

NOP Total 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 

27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 

PLE 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 

PLE 
PLE 

5,979  

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.3.A.21 
27.3.A.21 
27.3.A.21 

27.3.A.21 Total 
27.4.A 

537  

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
0.0 

Weight, 
tonnes 
0.6 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 
1 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
c 

c 

0.5 
768.3 
1561.8 
688.4 
0.1 

3018.5 
77.2 
c 
8.0 

87.7 
0.2 

0.6 
0.1 
n.a. 

0.1 
0.0 

0.0 
c 

c 

117.1 
1.9 
294.1 
75.5 
0.2 

371.6 
n.a. 
c 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

n.a. 

0% 

c 

c 

95% 
60% 
99% 
95% 
100% 

88% 
n.a. 
c 
2% 

0% 
0% 

1 
0 
n.a. 

0 
0 

0 
c 

c 

117 
2 
295 
76 
0 

373 
n.a. 
c 
0 

0 
0 

n.a. 

0% 

c 

c 

95% 
60% 
100% 
96% 
100% 

89% 
n.a. 
c 
2% 

0% 
0% 

Exemption Article 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 

JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.a 
JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.b 
JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.c 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.d 

JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.a 
JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.b 
JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.c 

JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.a 

221 
 
   
 
 
                                
  
 
 
   
 
 
   
                     
  
   
 
 
                                
  
 
 
   
                                
  
  
                     
  
   
   
   
   
                        
  
   
   
   
                           
  
   
Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

PLE 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 

PLE 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 

PLE 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 

PLE 

27.4.A 
27.4.A 
27.4.A 
27.4.A 

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 
27.4.B 
27.4.B 
27.4.B 
27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 
27.4.C 
27.4.C 
27.4.C 
27.4.C 

5,550  

36,887  

27.4.C Total 

7,537  

PLE Total 
POK 
POK 
POK 

27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 

56,490  

POK 

27.3.A.20 Total 

2,944  

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 
JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.b 
JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.c 
JR-xx.2019   Art.6.2.b 
JR-xx.2019   Art.5 

JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.a 
JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.b 
JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.c 
JR-xx.2019   Art.6.2.b 
JR-xx.2019   Art.5 

JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.a 
JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.b 
JR-xx.2019   Art.6.1.c 
JR-xx.2019   Art.6.2.b 
JR-xx.2019   Art.5 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.c 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.d 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
130.0 
3127.3 
18.2 
0.2 

3275.9 
3194.4 
123.9 
4001.1 
2437.8 
0.1 

9757.3 
59.5 
2.2 
0.5 
40.9 
0.2 

Weight, 
tonnes 
2.1 
56.9 
207.5 
n.a. 

266.5 
0.5 
n.a. 
16.0 
1953.3 
n.a. 

1969.8 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0.0 
202.9 
n.a. 

103.2 

202.9 

16242.6 
0.0 
0.0 
0.5 

2810.9 
0.5 
0.1 
0.1 

0.5 

0.7 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
40% 
92% 
49% 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
2 
65 
208 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
40% 
98% 
100% 
n.a. 

89% 
42% 
n.a. 
73% 
5% 
n.a. 

45% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0% 
4% 
n.a. 

1% 

61% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

275 
0 
n.a. 
25 
2837 
n.a. 

2863 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0 
276 
n.a. 

276 

3787 
0 
0 
0 

1 

96% 
42% 
n.a. 
79% 
48% 
n.a. 

58% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0% 
34% 
n.a. 

13% 

71% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

222 
 
   
   
   
   
                        
  
   
   
   
   
   
                     
  
   
   
   
   
   
                        
  
  
                     
  
   
 
 
   
   
                        
  
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Sub Region 

27.3.A.21 

27.3.A.21 Total 
27.4.A 

4  

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 

36,342  

27.4.B Total 

2,228  

Species 
codes  

POK 

POK 
POK 

POK 
POK 

POK 

Exemption Article 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.c 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 

POK Total 
RJA 

27.4.A 

45,078  

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

RJA 
RJA 

RJA 

27.4.A Total 
27.4.C 

27.4.C Total 

RJA Total 
RJB 

27.3.A.20 

RJB 
RJB 

RJB 
RJB 
RJB 

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.3.A.21 

27.3.A.21 Total 
27.4.A 
27.4.A Total 

2  

0  

2  

17  

0  

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
0.0 

Weight, 
tonnes 
0.1 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
100% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
0 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
100% 

0.0 
2.1 

2.1 
0.0 

0.0 

2.7 
2.2 

2.2 
0.0 

0.0 

2.2 
17.3 

17.3 
0.4 

0.4 
7.1 
7.1 

0.1 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

0.8 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
1.6 

1.6 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

100% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

19% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
98% 

98% 
99% 

99% 
97% 
97% 

0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

1 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
2 

2 
0 

0 
0 
0 

100% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

19% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
100% 

100% 
99% 

99% 
97% 
97% 

223 
 
   
                                
  
   
                     
  
   
                        
  
  
                     
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 
7  

1  

0  

26  

0  

0  

0  

107  

143  

Exemption Article 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

RJB 

RJB 
RJB 

RJB 

27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 

27.4.C Total 

RJB Total 
RJC 

27.2.A 

27.2.A Total 
27.3.A.20 

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.3.A.21 

27.3.A.21 Total 
27.4.A 

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

1.0 

1.0 
c 

c 

25.8 
0.1 

0.1 
0.2 

0.2 
0.2 

0.2 
107.4 

107.4 
142.7 

142.7 
541.0 

0.0 

0.0 
c 

c 

1.6 
n.a. 

n.a. 
6.5 

6.5 
11.7 

11.7 
n.a. 

n.a. 
178.7 

178.7 
184.9 

36% 

36% 
c 

c 

95% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
76% 

76% 
99% 

99% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
31% 

31% 
30% 

30% 

0 

0 
c 

c 

2 
n.a. 

n.a. 
6 

6 
12 

12 
n.a. 

n.a. 
198 

198 
185 

185 

36% 

36% 
c 

c 

97% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
76% 

76% 
99% 

99% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
36% 

36% 
30% 

30% 

27.4.C Total 

541  

541.0 

184.9 

224 
 
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Exemption Article 

RJC Total 
RJF 

27.4.A 

792  

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

RJF 

27.4.A Total 

RJF Total 
RJG 

27.4.A 

RJG 

27.4.A Total 

RJG Total 
RJH 

27.3.A.20 

RJH 
RJH 

RJH 
RJH 

RJH 
RJH 

RJH 

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.4.A 

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 

27.4.C Total 

116  

0  

0  

4  

4  

0  

0  

38  

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

RJH Total 
RJI 

27.4.A 

153  

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

791.5 
0.2 

Weight, 
tonnes 

381.7 
n.a. 

0.2 

0.2 
4.3 

4.3 

4.3 
c 

c 
0.0 

0.0 
37.5 

37.5 
115.5 

115.5 

153.1 
14.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0.0 

0.0 

0.0 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

26% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 

0% 
n.a. 

402 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0 

0 

0 
n.a. 

27% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 

0% 
n.a. 

225 
 
  
                           
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
                           
  
  
                           
  
   
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

RJI 
RJI 

RJI 
RJI 

RJI 

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 

27.4.C Total 

RJI Total 
RJM 

27.3.A.20 

15  

0  

1  

16  

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.4.A 

0  

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 

158  

51  

RJM 
RJM 

RJM 
RJM 

RJM 
RJM 

RJM 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

14.6 
c 

c 
0.7 

0.7 

15.6 
0.0 

0.0 
158.4 

158.4 
51.4 

51.4 
118.0 

n.a. 
c 

c 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
0.0 

0.0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
331.6 

331.6 
354.6 

27.4.C Total 

118  

118.0 

354.6 

RJM Total 
RJN 

27.3.A.20 

328  

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

RJN 

27.3.A.20 Total 

14  

327.8 
14.0 

14.0 

686.2 
0.7 

0.7 

n.a. 
c 

c 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
23% 

23% 
81% 

81% 

33% 
63% 

63% 

n.a. 
c 

c 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
0 

0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
448 

448 
355 

355 

803 
1 

1 

n.a. 
c 

c 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
26% 

26% 
81% 

81% 

33% 
63% 

63% 

226 
 
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                           
  
   
                              
  
   
                           
  
  
                           
  
   
                              
  
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Sub Region 

27.3.A.21 

27.3.A.21 Total 
27.4.A 

0  

Species 
codes  

RJN 

RJN 
RJN 

RJN 
RJN 

RJN 
RJN 

RJN 

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 

27.4.C Total 

RJN Total 
RJO 

27.4.A 

RJO 

27.4.A Total 

RJO Total 
RJR 

27.3.A.20 

RJR 
RJR 

RJR 
RJR 
RJR 

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.3.A.21 

27.3.A.21 Total 
27.4.A 
27.4.A Total 

180  

1  

0  

195  

0  

0  

0  

-    

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
0.2 

Weight, 
tonnes 
0.0 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
73% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
0 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
73% 

0.2 
179.8 

179.8 
0.8 

0.8 
0.0 

0.0 

194.9 
0.2 

0.2 

0.2 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
1.2 
1.2 

0.0 
36.7 

36.7 
0.0 

0.0 
n.a. 

n.a. 

37.4 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
103.4 

103.4 
0.6 

0.6 
10.4 
10.4 

73% 
0% 

0% 
1% 

1% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

5% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
100% 

100% 

44% 
44% 

0 
37 

37 
0 

0 
n.a. 

n.a. 

37 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
103 

103 
1 

1 
13 
13 

73% 
0% 

0% 
1% 

1% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

5% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
100% 

100% 

67% 
67% 

Exemption Article 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

227 
 
   
                                
  
   
                           
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                           
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
 
 
                               
  
 
 
   
                                
  
Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

RJR 

RJR 

27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 

RJR Total 
RJU 

27.4.C 

RJU 

27.4.C Total 

RJU Total 
SKA 

27.3.A.20 

1  

2  

0  

0  

SKA 
SKA 

SKA 
SKA 

SKA 
SKA 

SKA 
SKA 

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.3.A.21 

122  

27.3.A.21 Total 
27.4.A 

2  

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 

38  

17  

SKA 
SKA Total 

27.4.C Total 

4  

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 
1  

Exemption Article 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

1.1 

1.1 

2.3 
0.0 

0.0 

0.0 
122.0 

122.0 
1.6 

1.6 
38.1 

38.1 
16.7 

16.7 
3.5 

3.5 
181.9 

0.0 

0.0 

114.4 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0.0 

34% 

34% 

39% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
99% 

99% 
78% 

78% 
86% 

86% 
65% 

65% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
91% 

0 

0 

117 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0 

36% 

36% 

52% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
99% 

99% 
78% 

78% 
86% 

86% 
65% 

65% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
91% 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

JR-xx.2019   Art.9 

228 
 
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                           
  
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
  
                           
  
Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 
182  

SOL 

SOL 
SOL 
SOL 
SOL 

SOL 
SOL 
SOL 

SOL 
SOL 

SOL 
SOL 
SOL 
SOL 

SOL 
SOL 
SOL 
SOL 

27.2.A 

27.2.A Total 
27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 

0  

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.3.A.21 
27.3.A.21 

187  

27.3.A.21 Total 
27.4.A 

180  

1  

2,555  

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 
27.4.B 
27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 
27.4.C 
27.4.C 

SOL 
SOL Total 

27.4.C Total 

8,294  

Exemption Article 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.a 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.a 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.c 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.a 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.c 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.a 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.a 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.b 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.a 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.b 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

0.1 

0.1 
0.0 
76.2 
0.6 

76.8 
47.2 
1.1 

48.4 
0.0 

0.0 
0.3 
331.9 
753.3 

1085.5 
0.1 
652.4 
2228.1 

2880.6 
4091.3 

n.a. 

n.a. 
0.0 
0.0 
0.8 

0.8 
n.a. 
1.6 

1.6 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
0.0 
230.2 

230.2 
0.0 
2.1 
233.4 

235.5 
468.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

80% 
100% 

80% 
n.a. 
100% 

2% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
3% 
19% 

14% 
n.a. 
2% 
6% 

5% 
9% 

n.a. 

n.a. 
0 
0 
1 

1 
n.a. 
2 

2 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
0 
230 

230 
n.a. 
2 
233 

236 
468 

n.a. 

n.a. 

80% 
100% 

80% 
n.a. 
100% 

2% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
3% 
99% 

70% 
n.a. 
2% 
100% 

78% 
75% 

229 
 
   
                                
  
   
 
 
   
   
                           
  
   
   
                           
  
   
                                
  
   
   
   
                        
  
   
   
   
                        
  
  
                     
  
REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 
11,217  

SPR 
SPR 

SPR 
SPR 

SPR 

27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.3.A.21 

1,354  

27.3.A.21 Total 

2,613  

Exemption Article 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 

SPR Total 
TUR 

27.4.A 

180,471  

126  

2,024  

JR-xx.2019   Art.8 

JR-xx.2019   Art.8 

JR-xx.2019   Art.8 

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 

TUR 
TUR 

TUR 
TUR 

TUR 

c 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 

0.0 
117.5 

117.5 
1841.9 

1841.9 
981.7 

c 
0.0 

0.0 
10.4 

10.4 

10.4 
1.8 

1.8 
145.4 

145.4 
101.5 

27.4.C Total 

1,010  

981.7 

101.5 

TUR Total 
WHB 
WHB 
WHB 

27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 

3,300  

WHB 
WHB 

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.4.A 

106  

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.d 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 

2941.1 
0.0 
0.1 
0.1 

0.1 
0.0 

248.7 
4.7 
0.0 
0.0 

4.7 
1.0 

c 

100% 

100% 
79% 

79% 
21% 

21% 
8% 

8% 

19% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

c 
0 

0 
10 

10 

10 
10 

10 
176 

176 
101 

101 

287 
5 
0 
0 

5 
1 

c 

100% 

100% 
98% 

98% 
61% 

61% 
95% 

95% 

74% 

100% 
100% 

100% 

230 
 
   
   
 
 
                        
  
   
 
 
                        
  
 
 
  
                   
  
   
                           
  
   
                        
  
   
                        
  
  
                        
  
   
 
 
   
   
                           
  
   
 
 
Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 

2,939  

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 

7  

27.4.C Total 

-    

20,516  

WHB Total 
WHG 
WHG 
WHG 
WHG 
WHG 

27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 
27.3.A.20 

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.3.A.21 
27.3.A.21 
27.3.A.21 

27.3.A.21 Total 
27.4.A 
27.4.A 

214  

153  

WHB 
WHB 

WHB 
WHB 

WHB 

WHG 
WHG 
WHG 
WHG 

WHG 
WHG 
WHG 

WHG 
WHG 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.g 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.g 
JR-xx.2019   Art.5 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.c 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.d 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.g 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.g 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.c 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.f 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
c 

c 

0.1 
137.3 
22.5 
0.0 
0.2 
0.0 

160.0 
8.4 
c 
0.3 

8.6 
0.0 
100.1 

100.1 
51.0 

1.0 
0.1 

0.1 
c 

c 

5.8 
796.8 
13.6 
2.3 
15.5 
14.6 

842.8 
313.5 
c 
6.9 

320.5 
n.a. 
813.5 

813.5 
848.9 

c 

c 

100% 
100% 
99% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
79% 
c 
100% 

80% 
n.a. 
58% 

58% 
24% 

1 
0 

0 
c 

c 

6 
798 
14 
2 
15 
15 

844 
546 
c 
7 

553 
n.a. 
813 

813 
849 

c 

c 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
100% 
c 
100% 

100% 
n.a. 
98% 

98% 
91% 

27.4.A Total 
27.4.B 

10,832  

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.h 

231 
 
                        
  
 
 
   
 
 
                                
  
 
 
   
                               
  
  
                     
  
   
   
   
   
   
                           
  
   
   
   
                           
  
   
   
                     
  
   
Species 
codes  

WHG 
WHG 

WHG 
WHG 
WHG 

Sub Region 

27.4.B 
27.4.B 

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 
27.4.C 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

2,278  

Exemption Article 

JR-xx.2019   Art.5 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.f 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.h 
JR-xx.2019   Art.10.e 

WHG 

27.4.C Total 

1,321  

WHG Total 
SAN 

27.3.A.20 

14,800  

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 

SAN 
SAN 

SAN 
SAN 

SAN 

27.3.A.20 Total 
27.4.B 

8,312  

27.4.B Total 
27.4.C 

192,327  

27.4.C Total 

161  

SAN Total 

201,484  

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 

JR-xx.2019   Art.10.m 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
2.3 
510.8 

564.2 
315.4 
900.4 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
1153.1 

2002.0 
1022.6 
273.5 

1215.8 

1296.1 

2048.7 
c 

5274.9 
c 

c 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 

c 

c 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 
56% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
1432 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 
76% 

53% 
3% 
9% 

8% 

30% 
c 

c 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

2281 
1029 
362 

1390 

5881 
c 

c 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

77% 
99% 
43% 

57% 

68% 
c 

c 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

c 

232 
 
   
   
                        
  
   
   
                        
  
  
                     
  
   
                        
  
   
                   
  
   
                           
  
  
                   
  
 
 
 
Table  2.  Overal  landings  and anticipated excemptions  associated  with  species  and  Sub Regions  reported  to  FDI  for  North 
Western Waters 

Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Sub Region 

27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

1  

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

2,735  

27.7.K Total 

1,168  

Species 
codes  

ALB 

ALB 
ALB 

ALB 
ALB 

ALB 

ALB Total 
ARG 

27.6.A 

3,905  

Exemption Article 
190/2018 Article 3a.b 

190/2018 Article 3a.b 

190/2018 Article 3a.b 

XX/2019 Article 8.j 

XX/2019 Article 8.j 

27.6.A Total 
27.6.B 

27.6.B Total 

0  

0  

0  

ARG 
ARG 

ARG 

ARG Total 
BOR 

BOR 
BOR Total 

27.7.J 

XX/2019 Article 8.i 

27.7.J Total 

1,197  

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
1.1 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 

1.1 
1896.2 

1896.2 
1129.9 

1129.9 

3027.1 
0.1 

0.1 
0.0 

0.0 

0.2 
c 

c 
c 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 
c 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 
c 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 
c 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 
c 

233 
 
   
                                
  
   
                        
  
   
                        
  
  
                        
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                        
  
  
                        
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

HAD 

HAD 
HAD 

HAD 
HAD 

HAD 
HAD 

HAD 
HAD 

HAD 

HAD 

HAD 
HAD 

HAD 
HAD 

HAD 

4,288  

4,314  

209  

50  

1,167  

27.6.A 

27.6.A Total 
27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 
27.7.C 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 

443  

27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

1,733  

2,425  

XX/2019 Article 8.k 

534.5 

789.3 

XX/2019 Article 8.d 

XX/2019 Article 8.d 

XX/2019 Article 8.d 

XX/2019 Article 8.d 

XX/2019 Article 8.d 

XX/2019 Article 8.d 

XX/2019 Article 8.d 

534.5 
164.2 

164.2 
46.8 

46.8 
1125.2 

1125.2 
390.7 

390.7 

1581.4 

1581.4 
2340.8 

2340.8 
375.3 

789.3 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
5062.2 

5062.2 
320.6 

320.6 

1437.9 

1437.9 
4891.6 

4891.6 
31.4 

27.7.J Total 

573  

375.3 

31.4 

14% 

14% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
90% 

90% 
15% 

15% 

18% 

18% 
68% 

68% 
33% 

33% 

865 

865 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
5119 

5119 
321 

321 

1530 

1530 
4892 

4892 
31 

31 

85% 

85% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
92% 

92% 
15% 

15% 

37% 

37% 
71% 

71% 
55% 

55% 

234 
 
   
                        
  
   
                           
  
   
                              
  
   
                        
  
   
                           
  
   
                        
  
   
                        
  
   
                           
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Sub Region 

27.7.K 

27.7.K Total 

2  

Species 
codes  

HAD 

HAD 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 8.d 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
1.8 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 

HAD Total 
HER 

27.7.D 

17,200  

190/2018 Article 3a.c 

HER 

27.7.D Total 

42,970  

HER Total 
HMM 

27.7.D 

60,161  

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

HMM 
HMM 

HMM 
HMM 

HMM 
HMM 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

HMM 

27.7.J Total 

HMM Total 
HOM 

27.6.B 

0  

2  

1  

0  

3  

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

1.8 

n.a. 

6560.6 
4.5 

12533.0 
0.0 

4.5 

4.5 
0.1 

0.1 
0.1 

0.1 
1.0 

1.0 
0.0 

0.0 

1.2 
0.0 

0.0 

0.0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
7.4 

n.a. 

48% 
1% 

1% 

1% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

12757 
0 

0 

0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
7 

n.a. 

61% 
96% 

96% 

96% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

235 
 
   
                                
  
  
                     
  
   
                     
  
  
                     
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
 
 
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

HOM 
HOM 

HOM 
HOM 

HOM 
HOM 
HOM 

HOM 
HOM 

HOM 
HOM 

HOM 
HOM 

HOM 
HOM 

HOM 
HOM 

27.6.B Total 
27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 
27.7.C 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.D 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

-    

3,179  

325  

9,444  

1,433  

394  

401  

8,532  

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 
190/2018 Article 3a.c 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

0.0 
1.7 

1.7 
0.9 

0.9 
537.7 
25.7 

563.4 
152.0 

152.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.5 

0.5 
1.6 

1.6 
3.9 

7.4 
4.9 

4.9 
101.1 

101.1 
224.0 
1.6 

225.5 
98.3 

98.3 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0.9 

0.9 
21.4 

21.4 
303.4 

0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 
17% 
69% 

20% 
39% 

39% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 
0% 

7 
5 

5 
101 

101 
224 
2 

226 
98 

98 
n.a. 

n.a. 
1 

1 
21 

21 
303 

0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 
41% 
69% 

42% 
64% 

64% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 
0% 

236 
 
                               
  
 
 
   
                        
  
   
                           
  
   
   
                        
  
   
                        
  
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
   
                        
  
   
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

HOM 
HOM 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

470  

HOM 

27.7.K Total 

0  

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

HOM Total 
JAD 

27.7.G 

43,946  

XX/2019 Article 5 

JAD 

27.7.G Total 

JAD Total 
JAX 

27.6.A 

JAX 
JAX 

JAX 
JAX 
JAX 

JAX 
JAX 

JAX 

27.6.A Total 
27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 
27.7.D 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 

230  

-    

-    

19,339  

5,985  

2,470  

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 
190/2018 Article 3a.c 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

3.9 
0.4 

0.4 

724.4 
c 

c 

c 
4.1 

4.1 
0.5 

0.5 
105.2 
0.2 

105.4 
12.4 

12.4 

303.4 
11.7 

11.7 

774.6 
c 

c 

c 
21.2 

21.2 
1.3 

1.3 
5.0 
n.a. 

5.0 
23.2 

23.2 

0% 
0% 

0% 

23% 
c 

c 

c 
0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 
4% 
n.a. 

4% 
7% 

7% 

303 
12 

12 

775 
c 

c 

c 
21 

21 
1 

1 
5 
n.a. 

5 
24 

24 

0% 
0% 

0% 

46% 
c 

c 

c 
0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 
4% 
n.a. 

4% 
9% 

9% 

237 
 
                           
  
   
                                
  
  
                     
  
   
                               
  
  
                               
  
   
                     
  
   
                        
  
   
   
                        
  
   
                           
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

335  

1,560  

Sub Region 

27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 

1,474  

Species 
codes  

JAX 

JAX 
JAX 

JAX 
JAX 

JAX 

JAX Total 
JDP 

27.7.D 

31,620  

JDP 
JDP 

JDP 
JDP 

JDP 

JDP Total 
LEZ 
LEZ 
LEZ 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 

27.7.A 
27.7.A 
27.7.A Total 

0  

0  

0  

0  

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

XX/2019 Article 8.e 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 
XX/2019 Article 8.h 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
0.0 

Weight, 
tonnes 
10.9 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 
11 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

0.0 
0.3 

0.3 
3.6 

3.6 

126.4 
0.2 

0.2 
0.1 

0.1 
0.1 

0.1 

0.4 
0.6 
5.2 
5.9 

10.9 
0.4 

0.4 
n.a. 

n.a. 

62.1 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

0% 

0% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

4% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

11 
0 

0 
n.a. 

n.a. 

63 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

0% 

0% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

4% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

238 
 
   
 
 
                           
  
 
 
   
                        
  
   
                        
  
  
                     
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
   
                              
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

LEZ 

LEZ 
LEZ 

LEZ 
LEZ 
LEZ 

LEZ 
LEZ 
LEZ 

LEZ 
LEZ 
LEZ 

LEZ 
LEZ 
LEZ 

LEZ 
LEZ 

17  

540  

1,138  

1  

229  

269  

1,612  

27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 
27.7.C 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.D 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 
XX/2019 Article 8.h 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 
XX/2019 Article 8.h 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 
XX/2019 Article 8.h 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 
XX/2019 Article 8.h 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

246.9 

246.9 
714.3 

714.3 
0.1 
0.1 

0.2 
36.0 
110.0 

145.9 
4.5 
242.8 

247.3 
104.7 
769.6 

874.3 
284.9 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
0.0 

0.0 
0.2 
30.1 

30.3 
n.a. 
30.4 

30.4 
2.7 
39.4 

42.2 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
100% 

58% 
3% 
100% 

76% 
n.a. 
100% 

98% 
9% 
32% 

29% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
0 

0 
0 
30 

30 
n.a. 
30 

30 
3 
39 

42 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
100% 

58% 
3% 
100% 

76% 
n.a. 
100% 

98% 
9% 
32% 

29% 
n.a. 

239 
 
   
                           
  
   
                        
  
   
   
                                
  
   
   
                           
  
   
   
                           
  
   
   
                        
  
   
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

1,019  

4,625  

Sub Region 

27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

27.7.K Total 

136  

Species 
codes  

LEZ 

LEZ 
LEZ 
LEZ 

LEZ 
LEZ 

LEZ 

LEZ Total 
MAC 

27.6.A 

MAC 
MAC 

MAC 
MAC 

MAC 
MAC 

MAC 
MAC 

27.6.A Total 
27.6.B 

27.6.B Total 
27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 
27.7.C 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.D 

11,600  

138,936  

3  

10,234  

9  

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 
XX/2019 Article 8.h 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 

XX/2019 Article 8.f 

XX/2019 Article 8.f 

XX/2019 Article 8.f 

XX/2019 Article 8.f 

XX/2019 Article 8.f 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
282.4 

Weight, 
tonnes 
59.6 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
100% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
60 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
100% 

567.4 
1293.4 
c 

1295.1 
56.1 

56.1 

4153.3 
1832.6 

1832.6 
2.9 

2.9 
4.2 

4.2 
1.9 

1.9 
3002.1 

59.6 
n.a. 
c 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

162.5 
45.4 

45.4 
51.4 

51.4 
2.4 

2.4 
33.6 

33.6 
25.7 

50% 
n.a. 
c 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

21% 
0% 

0% 
100% 

100% 
0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 
12% 

60 
n.a. 
c 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

162 
45 

45 
51 

51 
2 

2 
34 

34 
26 

50% 
n.a. 
c 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

21% 
0% 

0% 
100% 

100% 
0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 
73% 

240 
 
   
                        
  
   
   
                        
  
   
                           
  
  
                     
  
   
                   
  
   
                                
  
   
                     
  
   
                                
  
   
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 
190/2018 Article 3a.c 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
445.2 

Weight, 
tonnes 
0.4 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
89% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
0 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
89% 

Species 
codes  

MAC 

MAC 
MAC 

MAC 
MAC 

MAC 
MAC 

MAC 
MAC 

MAC 
MAC 

MAC 
MAC 

MAC 

Sub Region 

27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

5,377  

1,060  

365  

28  

193  

6,822  

XX/2019 Article 8.f 

XX/2019 Article 8.f 

XX/2019 Article 8.f 

XX/2019 Article 8.f 

XX/2019 Article 8.f 

XX/2019 Article 8.f 

27.7.K Total 

0  

MAC Total 
MEG 
MEG 

27.7.E 
27.7.E Total 

163,049  

XX/2019 Article 8.h 

3447.3 
523.1 

523.1 
0.3 

0.3 
0.9 

0.9 
2.4 

2.4 
37.5 

37.5 
0.4 

0.4 

5853.6 
38.8 
38.8 

26.1 
42.8 

42.8 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0.3 

0.3 
16.0 

16.0 
224.0 

224.0 
2.5 

2.5 

444.5 
n.a. 
n.a. 

22% 
80% 

80% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 

20% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

26 
46 

46 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0 

0 
16 

16 
224 

224 
2 

2 

448 
n.a. 
n.a. 

75% 
91% 

91% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 

52% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

241 
 
   
                        
  
   
                        
  
   
                           
  
   
                              
  
   
                           
  
   
                        
  
   
                                
  
  
                   
  
   
                              
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

MEG 

MEG 
MEG 

MEG 
MEG 

MEG 
MEG 

MEG 
MEG 

MEG 

87  

47  

302  

830  

63  

27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

27.7.K Total 

5  

1,444  

9,003  

MEG Total 
NEP 

27.6.A 

NEP 
NEP 
NEP 

NEP 

27.6.A Total 
27.7.A 
27.7.A 

27.7.A Total 

6,067  

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

1.4 

1.4 
0.5 

0.5 
74.4 

74.4 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 

115.2 
1316.5 

1316.5 
10.6 
129.4 

140.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
0.5 

0.5 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
2% 

2% 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
1 

1 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
2% 

2% 

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 

XX/2019 Article 8.h 

XX/2019 Article 3.1.a 

XX/2019 Article 3.1.a 
XX/2019 Article 3.1.b 

242 
 
   
                              
  
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
  
                        
  
   
                        
  
   
   
                        
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

565  

985  

1  

12  

11  

3,023  

898  

Exemption Article 
XX/2019 Article 3.1.b 

XX/2019 Article 3.1.b 

XX/2019 Article 3.1.b 

XX/2019 Article 3.1.b 

XX/2019 Article 3.1.b 

XX/2019 Article 3.1.a 
XX/2019 Article 3.1.b 

XX/2019 Article 3.1.b 

XX/2019 Article 3.1.a 
XX/2019 Article 3.1.b 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
35.2 

Weight, 
tonnes 
2.7 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
32% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
3 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
32% 

35.2 
257.5 

257.5 
1.3 

1.3 
11.5 

11.5 
10.5 

10.5 
0.0 
1662.7 

1662.7 
884.8 

884.8 
c 
162.1 
162.1 

2.7 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0.0 

0.0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
40.4 

40.4 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 
11.6 
11.6 

32% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
16% 

16% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 
35% 
35% 

3 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0 

0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
45 

45 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 
16 
16 

32% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
34% 

34% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 
43% 
43% 

Species 
codes  

NEP 

NEP 
NEP 

NEP 
NEP 

NEP 
NEP 

NEP 
NEP 

NEP 
NEP 
NEP 

NEP 
NEP 

NEP 
NEP 
NEP 
NEP 

Sub Region 

27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 
27.7.C 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 
27.7.J 
27.7.J Total 

243 
 
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
                              
  
   
   
                        
  
   
                           
  
   
   
                           
  
Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

266  

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

NEP 

NEP 

27.7.K 

XX/2019 Article 3.1.b 

27.7.K Total 

1,814  

NEP Total 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 

27.7.D 
27.7.D 
27.7.D 

22,648  

5,005  

1,643  

196  

XX/2019 Article 6.1.a 
XX/2019 Article 6.1.b 
XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 

XX/2019 Article 6.1.a 
XX/2019 Article 6.1.b 

XX/2019 Article 6.1.a 
XX/2019 Article 6.1.b 

XX/2019 Article 6.1.a 
XX/2019 Article 6.1.b 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 

227  

PLE 
PLE 
PLE 

PLE 
PLE 
PLE 

PLE 
PLE 
PLE 

PLE 

545.4 

545.4 

5027.5 
436.3 
2128.6 
42.4 

2607.3 
82.5 
382.0 

464.5 
1.8 
77.0 

78.8 
0.2 
112.7 

112.9 

2.8 

2.8 

57.9 
492.6 
4924.7 
n.a. 

5417.3 
0.2 
123.4 

123.5 
n.a. 
9.0 

9.0 
0.2 
7.4 

7.6 

PLE Total 

7,943  

3263.6 

5557.4 

2% 

2% 

7% 
99% 
94% 
n.a. 

94% 
15% 
95% 

81% 
n.a. 
9% 

8% 
0% 
33% 

33% 

88% 

17 

17 

82 
493 
4926 
n.a. 

5418 
0 
126 

126 
n.a. 
9 

9 
0 
11 

11 

5565 

9% 

9% 

14% 
99% 
94% 
n.a. 

94% 
15% 
97% 

83% 
n.a. 
9% 

8% 
0% 
44% 

44% 

88% 

244 
 
   
                        
  
  
                     
  
   
   
   
                        
  
   
   
                        
  
   
   
                           
  
   
   
                           
  
  
                        
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 5 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
2.0 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 

2  

5  

1  

0  

8  

0  

-    

1  

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

2.0 
4.7 

4.7 
1.1 

1.1 
0.2 

0.2 

8.0 
0.1 

0.1 
0.0 

0.0 
c 

c 
0.0 
0.0 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
9.8 

9.8 
1.3 

1.3 
c 

c 
1.0 
1.0 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 

c 

c 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 

c 

c 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
10 

10 
1 

1 
c 

c 
1 
1 

Species 
codes  

RJA 

RJA 
RJA 

RJA 
RJA 

RJA 
RJA 

RJA 

Sub Region 

27.6.A 

27.6.A Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 

RJA Total 
RJB 

27.6.A 

RJB 
RJB 

RJB 
RJB 

RJB 
RJB 
RJB 

27.6.A Total 
27.6.B 

27.6.B Total 
27.7.A 

27.7.A Total 
27.7.B 
27.7.B Total 

245 
 
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
 
 
                               
  
 
 
   
                                
  
   
 
 
                               
  
 
 
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

RJB 

RJB 
RJB 

RJB 
RJB 

RJB 
RJB 

RJB 
RJB 

RJB 
RJB 

RJB 
RJB 

RJB 

27.7.C 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

27.7.K Total 

RJB Total 
RJC 

27.6.A 

-    

-    

0  

0  

0  

-    

-    

-    

1  

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

c 

c 
0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 

0.0 

0.0 
c 

c 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 

20.1 

20.1 
c 

c 
80.3 

80.3 
13.7 

13.7 
26.3 

26.3 
54.2 

54.2 
2.4 

2.4 

c 

c 
0% 

0% 
0% 

0% 

20 

20 
c 

c 
80 

80 
14 

14 
26 

26 
54 

54 
2 

2 

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

0.8 
226.5 

208.9 
n.a. 

0% 
n.a. 

209 
n.a. 

0% 
n.a. 

246 
 
   
 
 
                               
  
 
 
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
 
 
                               
  
 
 
   
 
 
                               
  
 
 
   
 
 
                               
  
 
 
  
                                
  
   
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC 
RJC 

227  

21  

212  

16  

9  

1,440  

434  

187  

27.6.A Total 
27.6.B 

27.6.B Total 
27.7.A 

27.7.A Total 
27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 
27.7.C 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 
27.7.G Total 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

226.5 
20.8 

20.8 
211.9 

211.9 
15.8 

15.8 
9.3 

9.3 
1439.9 

1439.9 
434.4 

434.4 
186.7 

186.7 
223.1 
223.1 

n.a. 
0.1 

0.1 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
225.9 

225.9 
79.7 

79.7 
27.4 

27.4 
0.0 
0.0 

n.a. 
9% 

9% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
77% 

77% 
65% 

65% 
37% 

37% 
0% 
0% 

n.a. 
0 

0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
226 

226 
80 

80 
27 

27 
0 
0 

n.a. 
13% 

13% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
77% 

77% 
66% 

66% 
37% 

37% 
0% 
0% 

247 
 
                           
  
   
                              
  
   
                           
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                        
  
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

RJC 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 

223  

10  

25  

27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

27.7.K Total 

2  

RJC Total 
RJE 

27.6.A 

2,805  

RJE 
RJE 

RJE 
RJE 

RJE 
RJE 

RJE 
RJE 

27.6.A Total 
27.7.C 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

0  

0  

13  

8  

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

9.8 

9.8 
24.6 

24.6 
1.7 

1.7 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

2804.5 
0.0 

333.1 
n.a. 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
13.1 

13.1 
8.0 

8.0 
68.0 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
58.3 

58.3 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

52% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
11% 

11% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

334 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
66 

66 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

53% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
12% 

12% 
n.a. 

248 
 
   
                              
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
  
                        
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

RJE 
RJE 

RJE 
RJE 

RJE 
RJE 

RJE 
RJE 

RJE 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

68  

55  

2  

0  

27.7.K Total 

0  

RJE Total 
RJF 

27.6.A 

147  

6  

8  

27.6.A Total 
27.6.B 

27.6.B Total 
27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 

1  

RJF 
RJF 

RJF 
RJF 

RJF 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

68.0 
55.0 

55.0 
2.4 

2.4 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 

146.5 
6.1 

6.1 
7.7 

7.7 
0.7 

0.7 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

58.3 
0.4 

0.4 
0.2 

0.2 
0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

1% 
49% 

49% 
82% 

82% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

66 
0 

0 
0 

0 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

1% 
49% 

49% 
82% 

82% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

249 
 
                              
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                           
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 5 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
2.0 

Weight, 
tonnes 
0.5 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
15% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
0 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
15% 

Species 
codes  

RJF 

RJF 
RJF 

RJF 
RJF 

RJF 
RJF 

RJF 
RJF 

RJF 
RJF 

RJF 
RJF 

RJF 
RJF 

Sub Region 

27.7.C 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

RJF 
RJF Total 

27.7.K Total 

0  

2  

0  

4  

3  

8  

82  

47  

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

2.0 
0.3 

0.3 
3.9 

3.9 
2.9 

2.9 
8.3 

8.3 
82.0 

82.0 
46.8 

46.8 
0.3 

0.3 
160.8 

0.5 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0.0 

0.0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
1.6 

1.6 
9.6 

9.6 
12.2 

12.2 
0.1 

0.1 
24.5 

15% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
29% 

29% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
38% 

38% 
55% 

55% 
47% 

47% 
0% 

0% 
50% 

0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0 

0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
2 

2 
10 

10 
13 

13 
0 

0 
25 

15% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
29% 

29% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
38% 

38% 
55% 

55% 
47% 

47% 
0% 

0% 
50% 

250 
 
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
  
                           
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

161  

6  

0  

0  

0  

6  

4  

68  

1  

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

6.3 

6.3 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 

6.3 
4.0 

4.0 
67.9 

67.9 
0.7 

0.7 
0.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

RJG 

RJG 
RJG 

RJG 
RJG 

RJG 
RJG 

RJG 

27.6.A 

27.6.A Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 

RJG Total 
RJH 

27.6.A 

RJH 
RJH 

RJH 
RJH 

RJH 
RJH 

27.6.A Total 
27.7.A 

27.7.A Total 
27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 
27.7.C 

251 
 
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

RJH 
RJH 

RJH 
RJH 

RJH 
RJH 

RJH 
RJH 

RJH 
RJH 

RJH 
RJH 

RJH 
RJH 

RJH 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

0  

140  

732  

485  

295  

71  

1  

27.7.K Total 

0  

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

0.1 
140.2 

140.2 
731.6 

731.6 
485.4 

485.4 
294.9 

294.9 
70.9 

70.9 
1.1 

1.1 
0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 
81.8 

81.8 
4.0 

4.0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
38.0 

38.0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
27% 

27% 
43% 

43% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
17% 

17% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

RJH Total 

1,797  

1796.7 

123.8 

22% 

n.a. 
82 

82 
4 

4 
n.a. 

n.a. 
38 

38 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

124 

n.a. 
27% 

27% 
43% 

43% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
17% 

17% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

22% 

252 
 
                                
  
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                        
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 5 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
0.1 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 

0  

25  

1  

5  

8  

10  

7  

47  

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

0.1 
25.1 

25.1 
1.5 

1.5 
4.7 

4.7 
7.8 

7.8 
10.0 

10.0 
7.2 

7.2 
46.7 

46.7 
78.4 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0.0 

0.0 
0.2 

0.2 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
28% 

28% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0 

0 
0 

0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
28% 

28% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

Species 
codes  

RJI 

RJI 
RJI 

RJI 
RJI 

RJI 
RJI 

RJI 
RJI 

RJI 
RJI 

RJI 
RJI 

RJI 
RJI 

RJI 
RJI 

Sub Region 

27.6.A 

27.6.A Total 
27.6.B 

27.6.B Total 
27.7.A 

27.7.A Total 
27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 
27.7.C 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 

253 
 
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

RJI 
RJI 

RJI 
RJI 

RJI 
RJI 

RJI 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

78  

12  

24  

27.7.K Total 

4  

RJI Total 
RJM 

27.6.A 

221  

78  

2  

2  

27.6.A Total 
27.6.B 

27.6.B Total 
27.7.A 

27.7.A Total 
27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 

4  

RJM 
RJM 

RJM 
RJM 

RJM 
RJM 

RJM 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

78.4 
12.1 

12.1 
23.5 

23.5 
3.6 

3.6 

220.5 
78.4 

78.4 
1.7 

1.7 
c 

c 
3.5 

3.5 

n.a. 
0.1 

0.1 
0.9 

0.9 
0.0 

0.0 

1.1 
0.1 

0.1 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 
0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
2% 

2% 
0% 

0% 

1% 
19% 

19% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 
0% 

0% 

n.a. 
0 

0 
1 

1 
0 

0 

1 
0 

0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 
0 

0 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
2% 

2% 
0% 

0% 

1% 
19% 

19% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 
0% 

0% 

254 
 
                              
  
   
                              
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
  
                           
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 5 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
1.3 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 

Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

1  

31  

440  

336  

96  

70  

2  

Species 
codes  

RJM 

RJM 
RJM 

RJM 
RJM 

RJM 
RJM 

RJM 
RJM 

RJM 
RJM 

RJM 
RJM 

RJM 
RJM 

Sub Region 

27.7.C 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

1.3 
30.9 

30.9 
440.2 

440.2 
335.5 

335.5 
96.1 

96.1 
69.9 

69.9 
2.0 

2.0 
0.1 

n.a. 
4.3 

4.3 
29.3 

29.3 
39.5 

39.5 
71.1 

71.1 
14.3 

14.3 
2.9 

2.9 
n.a. 

RJM 
RJM Total 

27.7.K Total 

0  

0.1 
1061.4 

n.a. 
161.6 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

n.a. 
4 

4 
29 

29 
40 

40 
71 

71 
14 

14 
3 

3 
n.a. 

n.a. 
162 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 

n.a. 
41% 

41% 
76% 

76% 
4% 

4% 
36% 

36% 
52% 

52% 
45% 

45% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
42% 

n.a. 
41% 

41% 
76% 

76% 
4% 

4% 
36% 

36% 
52% 

52% 
45% 

45% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
42% 

255 
 
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
   
                              
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                        
  
Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

1,061  

RJN 

RJN 
RJN 

RJN 
RJN 

RJN 
RJN 

RJN 
RJN 

RJN 
RJN 

RJN 
RJN 

RJN 
RJN 

RJN 

27.6.A 

27.6.A Total 
27.6.B 

27.6.B Total 
27.7.A 

27.7.A Total 
27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 
27.7.C 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

61  

1  

2  

33  

20  

3  

281  

27.7.F Total 

100  

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

60.9 

60.9 
0.7 

0.7 
1.6 

1.6 
33.1 

33.1 
20.4 

20.4 
3.0 

3.0 
281.3 

281.3 
99.6 

99.6 

1.3 

1.3 
1.3 

1.3 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0.3 

0.3 
8.0 

8.0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
291.4 

291.4 
n.a. 

n.a. 

18% 

18% 
0% 

0% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
52% 

52% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
70% 

70% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

1 

1 
1 

1 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0 

0 
10 

10 
n.a. 

n.a. 
298 

298 
n.a. 

n.a. 

18% 

18% 
0% 

0% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
65% 

65% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
70% 

70% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

256 
 
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

55  

1,015  

309  

Sub Region 

27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

27.7.K Total 

1  

Species 
codes  

RJN 

RJN 
RJN 

RJN 
RJN 

RJN 
RJN 

RJN 

RJN Total 
RJO 

27.6.A 

1,881  

RJO 
RJO 

RJO 
RJO 

RJO 
RJO 
RJO 

1  

43  

22  

27.6.A Total 
27.6.B 

27.6.B Total 
27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 
27.7.C 
27.7.C Total 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 5 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
55.5 

Weight, 
tonnes 
3.8 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
36% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
5 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
37% 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

55.5 
1014.7 

1014.7 
309.1 

309.1 
0.6 

3.8 
144.4 

144.4 
285.5 

285.5 
0.9 

0.6 

0.9 

1880.5 
1.1 

737.0 
n.a. 

1.1 
43.5 

43.5 
22.0 

22.0 
49.7 
49.7 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

36% 
58% 

58% 
66% 

66% 
0% 

0% 

55% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

5 
145 

145 
296 

296 
1 

1 

759 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

37% 
59% 

59% 
75% 

75% 
0% 

0% 

57% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

257 
 
   
                              
  
   
                        
  
   
                           
  
   
                                
  
  
                        
  
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
                              
  
   
                              
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

RJO 

RJO 
RJO 

RJO 
RJO 

RJO 
RJO 

RJO 
RJO 

RJO 
RJO 

RJO 
RJO 

RJO 

50  

1  

0  

0  

29  

149  

276  

27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

27.7.K Total 

2  

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

RJO Total 
RJR 

27.6.A 

574  

XX/2019 Article 5 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

0.6 

0.6 
0.1 

0.1 
0.0 

0.0 
29.2 

29.2 
149.5 

149.5 
276.2 

276.2 
1.7 

1.7 

573.7 
15.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

258 
 
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
   
                                
  
  
                           
  
   
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

RJR 
RJR 

RJR 
RJR 

RJR 
RJR 

RJR 
RJR 

RJR 

27.6.A Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.H 

16  

0  

0  

0  

27.7.H Total 

0  

RJR Total 
RJU 

27.7.A 

16  

0  

0  

27.7.A Total 
27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 

20  

RJU 
RJU 

RJU 
RJU 

RJU 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

15.6 
0.0 

0.0 
0.2 

0.2 
0.1 

0.1 
0.3 

0.3 

16.2 
0.0 

0.0 
0.3 

0.3 
19.9 

19.9 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0.1 

0.1 
915.6 

915.6 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
64% 

64% 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0 

0 
916 

916 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 

0% 
64% 

64% 

259 
 
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

124  

0  

0  

0  

Sub Region 

27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 

-    

Species 
codes  

RJU 

RJU 
RJU 

RJU 
RJU 

RJU 
RJU 

RJU 
RJU 

RJU 

RJU Total 
RJY 

27.6.A 

RJY 
RJY 

RJY 
RJY 
RJY 

27.6.A Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.G 
27.7.G Total 

145  

0  

0  

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
124.0 

124.0 
0.5 

Weight, 
tonnes 

2039.1 

2039.1 
n.a. 

0.5 
0.0 

0.0 
0.4 

0.4 
0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
3.2 

3.2 

145.1 
0.0 

2958.1 
n.a. 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.2 
0.2 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
70% 

70% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

69% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
2202 

2202 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
3 

3 

3121 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
72% 

72% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

71% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

260 
 
   
                           
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
 
 
                               
  
 
 
  
                           
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

0  

0  

7  

1  

1  

3  

1  

0  

0  

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

0.2 
6.8 

6.8 
1.4 

1.4 
0.9 

0.9 
2.6 

2.6 
1.3 

1.3 
0.1 

0.1 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

RJY Total 
SKA 

27.6.A 

SKA 
SKA 

SKA 
SKA 

SKA 
SKA 

SKA 
SKA 

SKA 
SKA 

SKA 
SKA 

SKA 
SKA 

27.6.A Total 
27.7.A 

27.7.A Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

261 
 
  
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

0  

13  

36  

2,317  

1,071  

494  

357  

XX/2019 Article 8.g 

XX/2019 Article 8.b 
XX/2019 Article 8.c 

XX/2019 Article 8.b 
XX/2019 Article 8.c 

XX/2019 Article 8.b 
XX/2019 Article 8.c 

XX/2019 Article 8.b 
XX/2019 Article 8.c 

XX/2019 Article 8.g 

0.0 

13.1 
13.2 

13.2 
942.6 
652.6 

1595.3 
143.9 
63.4 

207.2 
2.7 
317.3 

320.0 
0.2 
252.3 

252.5 
4.7 
4.7 

n.a. 

n.a. 
0.5 

0.5 
29.7 
95.3 

124.9 
0.0 
0.1 

0.1 
n.a. 
33.5 

33.5 
n.a. 
26.6 

26.6 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
4% 
100% 

33% 
n.a. 
100% 

99% 
n.a. 
100% 

100% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
1 

1 
30 
95 

125 
0 
0 

0 
n.a. 
33 

33 
n.a. 
27 

27 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
100% 

100% 
100% 
100% 

100% 
4% 
100% 

33% 
n.a. 
100% 

99% 
n.a. 
100% 

100% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

SKA 

27.7.J Total 

SKA Total 
SOL 

27.7.A 

SOL 
SOL 
SOL 

SOL 
SOL 
SOL 

SOL 
SOL 
SOL 

SOL 
SOL 
SOL 

SOL 
SOL 
SOL 

27.7.A Total 
27.7.D 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.F 
27.7.F 

27.7.F Total 
27.7.G 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.J 
27.7.J Total 

262 
 
                                
  
  
                              
  
   
                              
  
   
   
                        
  
   
   
                        
  
   
   
                           
  
   
   
                           
  
   
                              
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

68  

4,596  

8  

16  

0  

1  

0  

0  

26  

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

SOL Total 
SRX 

27.6.B 

SRX 
SRX 

SRX 
SRX 

SRX 
SRX 

SRX 
SRX 

SRX 
SRX 

SRX 

27.6.B Total 
27.7.D 

27.7.D Total 
27.7.E 

27.7.E Total 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 

SRX Total 
TTR 
TTR 

27.7.E 
27.7.E Total 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

XX/2019 Article 5 

2392.9 
8.0 

185.6 
n.a. 

8.0 
16.3 

16.3 
0.1 

0.1 
0.6 

0.6 
0.5 

0.5 
0.4 

0.4 

25.9 
0.0 
0.0 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

94% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

186 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

94% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

263 
 
  
                        
  
   
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                              
  
   
                                
  
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

0  

0  

0  

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 5 

n.a. 

190/2018 Article 3a.a 

190/2018 Article 3a.a 

151,129  

42,921  

4,738  

162,785  

3  

190/2018 Article 3a.a 

190/2018 Article 3a.a 

190/2018 Article 3a.a 

190/2018 Article 3a.a 

190/2018 Article 3a.a 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 
16095.3 
16095.3 
151129.0 

151129.0 
42921.3 

42921.3 
4737.8 

4737.8 
156711.3 

156711.3 
2.0 

2.0 
0.5 
0.5 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

TTR 

TTR 

TTR Total 
WHB 
WHB 
WHB 

WHB 
WHB 

WHB 
WHB 

WHB 
WHB 

WHB 
WHB 

WHB 
WHB 
WHB 

27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 

27.5.B 
27.5.B Total 
27.6.A 

27.6.A Total 
27.6.B 

27.6.B Total 
27.7.B 

27.7.B Total 
27.7.C 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.G 

27.7.G Total 
27.7.H 
27.7.H Total 

264 
 
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
  
   
                   
  
   
                     
  
   
                        
  
   
                   
  
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

WHB 

WHB 
WHB 

WHB 

1  

174  

27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

27.7.K Total 

8,243  

369,995  

WHB Total 
WHG 
WHG 
WHG 
WHG 

27.7.D 
27.7.D 
27.7.D 
27.7.D 

WHG 

27.7.D Total 

3,552  

190/2018 Article 3a.a 

174.1 

190/2018 Article 3a.a 

190/2018 Article 3a.c 
XX/2019 Article 8.a 
XX/2019 Article 8.a 
XX/2019 Article 8.a 

174.1 
8243.0 

8243.0 

380014.3 
16.7 
3245.2 
154.8 
44.6 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
3909.4 
n.a. 
137.2 

WHG Total 
BOC 

27.7.B 

13,407  

XX/2019 Article 8.i 

BOC 
BOC 

BOC 
BOC 
BOC 

17  

1  

27.7.B Total 
27.7.C 

27.7.C Total 
27.7.G 
27.7.G Total 

XX/2019 Article 8.i 

XX/2019 Article 8.i 

3461.3 

4046.6 

3461.3 
0.0 

4046.6 
1.5 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

1.5 
30.5 

30.5 
0.7 
0.7 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
56% 
n.a. 
98% 

54% 

54% 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
56% 
n.a. 
98% 

54% 

54% 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
3910 
n.a. 
137 

4047 

4047 
2 

2 
31 

31 
1 
1 

265 
 
   
                           
  
   
                        
  
  
                   
  
   
   
   
   
                        
  
  
                     
  
   
 
 
                              
  
 
 
   
 
 
                                
  
 
 
   
 
 
                               
  
 
 
Overal landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

BOC 

BOC 
BOC 

BOC 
BOC 

BOC 

-    

43  

1  

27.7.H 

27.7.H Total 
27.7.J 

27.7.J Total 
27.7.K 

27.7.K Total 

-    

BOC Total 

144  

Exemption Article 

XX/2019 Article 8.i 

XX/2019 Article 8.i 

XX/2019 Article 8.i 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Discards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

7.9 

7.9 
134.4 

134.4 
3.1 

3.1 

178.2 

8 

8 
134 

134 
3 

3 

178 

266 
 
   
 
 
                              
  
 
 
   
 
 
                                
  
 
 
   
 
 
                               
  
 
 
  
                           
  
 
 
 
 
 
Table  3.  Overal  landings  and  anticipated  excemptions  associated  with  species  and  Sub  Regions  reported  to  FDI  for  North 
Western Waters 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

MON 

27.8.A 

MON 
MON 
MON 
MON 
MON 

MON 
MON 
MON 
MON 
MON 

2  

397  

n.a. 

n.a. 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 

MON 

27.9.A Total 

255  

MON Total 
ALB 

27.8.A 

ALB 
ALB 
ALB 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 

654  

943  

n.a. 

Exemption Article 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

2018/188 Article 3.b 

2018/188 Article 3.b 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
c 

Weight, 
tonnes 
c 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
c 

Weight, 
tonnes 
c 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
c 

c 
50.7 
50.7 
8.2 
349.6 

357.8 
0.0 
0.0 
56.2 
184.7 

240.9 

651.7 
562.6 

562.6 
235.9 
235.9 

c 
10.5 
10.5 
0.3 
1.8 

2.0 
0.0 
0.0 
3.9 
0.0 

3.9 

16.9 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

c 
100% 
100% 
11% 
12% 

12% 

42% 
1% 

10% 

19% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

c 
10 
10 
0 
2 

3 
0 
0 
4 
0 

4 

18 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

c 
100% 
100% 
16% 
16% 

16% 

43% 
3% 

12% 

21% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

267 
 
   
                                
  
   
  
   
   
                           
  
   
 
 
  
 
 
   
   
                           
  
  
                           
  
   
                           
  
   
  
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

4,551  

n.a. 

5,510  

Species 
codes  

ALB 

ALB 
ALB 
ALB 

Sub Region 

27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 

ALB Total 
ANE 
ANE 

27.8.A 
27.8.A 

ANE 

ANE 
ANE 
ANE 

ANE 
ANE 
ANE 
ANE 

ANE 
ANE 
ANE 
ANE 

27.8.A Total 

3,055  

27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 
34.1.1 
34.1.1 Total 
34.1.2 

n.a. 

23,143  

n.a. 

13,229  

n.a. 

Exemption Article 

2018/188 Article 3.b 

2018/188 Article 3.b 

2018/188 Article 3.c 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

2018/188 Article 3.d 

2018/188 Article 3.d 

2018/188 Article 3.d 

2018/188 Article 3.d 

2018/188 Article 3.d 

2018/188 Article 3.d 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
443.9 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 

443.9 
4342.2 
4342.2 

5584.5 
102.5 
2267.1 

2369.6 

4453.6 
4453.6 
23065.2 

23065.2 
8.2 
8.2 
13183.2 

13183.2 
111.6 
111.6 
4.3 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0.0 
n.a. 

0.0 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0.9 

0.9 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
42% 
n.a. 

2% 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
32% 

32% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0 
n.a. 

0 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
1 

1 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
42% 
n.a. 

2% 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
54% 

54% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

268 
 
   
                        
  
   
  
  
                        
  
   
   
                        
  
   
  
   
                     
  
   
  
   
                     
  
   
  
   
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

n.a. 

39,427  

421  

785  

n.a. 

n.a. 

Sub Region 

34.1.2 Total 

27.8.A 
27.8.A 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 
27.9.B 

206  

27.9.B Total 

0  

Species 
codes  

ANE 

ANE Total 
ANF 
ANF 

ANF 
ANF 
ANF 
ANF 
ANF 
ANF 

ANF 
ANF 
ANF 
ANF 
ANF 
ANF 

ANF 
ANF 

ANF 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
4.3 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

43195.6 
393.5 
27.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 

420.6 
453.5 
15.2 
468.7 
445.0 
326.2 

771.3 
14.2 
3.9 
18.1 
187.2 
15.0 

202.2 
0.0 

0.0 

0.9 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

10% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

1 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

17% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

269 
 
  
  
                     
  
   
   
                           
  
   
   
  
   
   
                           
  
   
   
  
   
   
                           
  
   
                                
  
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

1,412  

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

1880.8 
0.8 
0.1 

Species 
codes  

ANF Total 
ANG 
ANG 

ANG 
ANG 
ANG 
ANG 

ANG 

Sub Region 

27.8.A 
27.8.A 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 

ANG Total 
ANK 

27.8.A 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 

ANK 
ANK 
ANK 
ANK 
ANK 
ANK 

ANK 
ANK 

1  

0  

1  

4  

n.a. 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

n.a. 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 

15  

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
c 

c 

0.0 
c 

c 
6.9 
0.0 
6.9 
0.0 
1.8 

1.8 
0.0 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 
100% 
n.a. 
100% 
n.a. 
9% 

8% 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
c 

c 

n.a. 
c 

c 
7 
n.a. 
7 
n.a. 
12 

12 
0 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
c 

c 

n.a. 
c 

c 
100% 
n.a. 
100% 
n.a. 
58% 

51% 

0.9 
0.6 
0.6 
c 

c 

1.5 
c 

c 
98.5 
0.0 
98.5 
1.2 
9.3 

10.5 
0.0 

270 
 
  
                        
  
   
   
                                
  
   
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                                
  
   
   
  
   
   
                              
  
   
 
 
Species 
codes  

ANK 
ANK 
ANK 
ANK 

ANK 

ANK Total 
HKE 

27.8.A 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

n.a. 

Sub Region 

27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
0.0 
0.0 
58.3 
111.8 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
0.0 
1.1 
0.1 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 
0% 
38% 
0% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
0 
1 
0 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 
0% 
38% 
0% 

27.9.A Total 

174  

170.2 

1.1 

193  

13,704  

n.a. 

5,143  

n.a. 

2,996  

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.a 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.a 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.a 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.a 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.a 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.a 

283.6 
3506.7 

3506.7 
4300.1 
4300.1 
2077.6 

2077.6 
95.2 
95.2 
1832.4 

1832.4 
0.6 

10.0 
499.8 

499.8 
662.2 
662.2 
1346.2 

1346.2 
3.7 
3.7 
579.4 

579.4 
n.a. 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 
27.9.B 

27.9.B Total 

1  

0.6 

n.a. 

13% 

44% 
21% 

21% 
77% 
77% 
30% 

30% 
65% 
65% 
59% 

59% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

1 

21 
500 

500 
662 
662 
1350 

1350 
4 
4 
579 

579 
n.a. 

n.a. 

13% 

46% 
52% 

52% 
80% 
80% 
100% 

100% 
65% 
65% 
99% 

99% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

HKE 
HKE 
HKE 
HKE 

HKE 
HKE 
HKE 
HKE 

HKE 
HKE 

HKE 

271 
 
   
  
   
   
                           
  
  
                           
  
   
                     
  
   
  
   
                        
  
   
  
   
                        
  
   
                                
  
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

21,842  

429  

441  

n.a. 

n.a. 

Species 
codes  

HKE Total 
HMM 
HMM 
HMM 
HMM 

HMM 
HMM 
HMM 
HMM 
HMM 
HMM 
HMM 

HMM 
HMM 
HMM 
HMM 
HMM 
HMM 

Sub Region 

27.8.A 
27.8.A 
27.8.A 
27.8.A 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 

HMM 
HMM Total 

27.9.A Total 

206  

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 
2018/188 Article 3.c 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

11812.6 
390.9 
4.1 
4.9 
32.4 

432.2 
15.7 
1.3 
200.9 
217.9 
0.3 
439.7 

440.0 
0.1 
0.1 
77.7 
5.4 
115.1 

198.2 
1288.3 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Weight, 
tonnes 

3091.3 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

49% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

3095 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

78% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

272 
 
  
                     
  
   
   
   
   
                           
  
   
   
   
  
   
   
                           
  
   
  
   
   
   
                           
  
  
                        
  
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

1,077  

n.a. 

2,434  

n.a. 

13,954  

n.a. 

Exemption Article 

2018/188 Article 3.d 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 
2018/188 Article 3.c 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 
2018/188 Article 3.c 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

Species 
codes  

HOM 
HOM 
HOM 
HOM 
HOM 
HOM 

HOM 
HOM 
HOM 
HOM 
HOM 
HOM 
HOM 
HOM 
HOM 

HOM 
HOM 
HOM 
HOM 
HOM 

Sub Region 

27.10.A 
27.10.A Total 
27.8.A 
27.8.A 
27.8.A 
27.8.A 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

c 
c 
1101.0 
35.8 
765.1 
1295.5 

3197.4 
69.6 
9.0 
3.9 
310.9 
393.4 
417.6 
305.0 
12931.3 

13653.9 
3.5 
0.0 
4.3 
7.8 

c 
c 
336.5 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

336.5 
1398.2 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
1398.2 
57.2 
6.0 
n.a. 

63.2 
12.8 
n.a. 
n.a. 
12.8 

c 
c 
7% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

2% 
17% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
3% 
16% 
33% 
n.a. 

1% 
0% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0% 

c 
c 
336 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

336 
1398 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
1398 
146 
7 
n.a. 

154 
13 
n.a. 
n.a. 
13 

c 
c 
22% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

8% 
39% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
7% 
99% 
41% 
n.a. 

4% 
0% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0% 

273 
 
   
  
   
   
   
   
                        
  
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
                     
  
   
   
   
  
REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
8249.0 
865.8 
15211.2 

Weight, 
tonnes 
170.6 
0.7 
29.1 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
1% 
3% 
35% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
6087 
3 
37 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
62% 
11% 
47% 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

HOM 
HOM 
HOM 

HOM 
HOM 

HOM 
HOM 
HOM 
HOM 
HOM 
HOM 

27.9.A 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 
27.9.B 

27.9.B Total 
34.1.1 
34.1.1 Total 
34.1.2 
34.1.2 
34.1.2 Total 

24,946  

3  

n.a. 

n.a. 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 

24326.0 
0.0 

200.4 
n.a. 

2018/188 Article 3.d 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.2 
55.1 
55.3 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

HOM Total 
JAD 

27.8.C 

41,336  

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

41633.9 
0.0 

2011.0 
n.a. 

0  

0  

JAD 

27.8.C Total 

JAD Total 
JAX 
JAX 
JAX 
JAX 

27.8.A 
27.8.A 
27.8.A 
27.8.A 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 
2018/188 Article 3.c 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

0.0 

0.0 
274.0 
0.2 
0.6 
72.7 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

22% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

14% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

6127 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

8029 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

51% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

32% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

274 
 
   
   
   
                     
  
   
                                
  
   
  
   
   
  
  
                     
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
   
   
   
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

347  

n.a. 

7,857  

n.a. 

6,977  

n.a. 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

JAX 
JAX 
JAX 
JAX 
JAX 
JAX 
JAX 
JAX 
JAX 
JAX 

JAX 
JAX 
JAX 
JAX 
JAX 
JAX 
JAX 

JAX 
JAX 
JAX 
JAX Total 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 
34.1.2 
34.1.2 Total 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 
2018/188 Article 3.c 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 
2018/188 Article 3.c 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.e 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.f 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

2018/188 Article 3.d 

347.4 
63.9 
0.6 
1.3 
178.7 
244.4 
2400.6 
143.0 
0.0 
5267.1 

7810.7 
c 
0.0 
1.5 
2912.8 
60.7 
3954.1 

6927.7 
117.8 
117.8 
15449.4 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

275 
 
                           
  
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
                        
  
   
   
  
   
   
   
                        
  
   
  
  
                     
  
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

15,181  

3  

1  

4  

0  

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

Exemption Article 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.i 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.i 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.j 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.i 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.i 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.j 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

JDP 

JDP 
JDP 
JDP 
JDP 
JDP 
JDP 

JDP 

JDP Total 
LDB 
LDB 
LDB 
LDB 

LDB 
LDB 
LDB 
LDB 
LDB 
LDB 

27.8.A 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 

27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 
27.9.A Total 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

2.6 

2.6 
1.9 
1.9 
0.0 
0.0 
1.0 

1.0 

5.5 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.1 

0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
29.2 
1.2 
30.4 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
1.5 
1.5 
62.4 
0.0 

62.4 
0.0 
0.0 
30.0 
0.0 
30.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

15% 

15% 

0% 
0% 
0% 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
2 
2 
62 
0 

62 
0 
0 
30 
0 
30 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

15% 

15% 

0% 
0% 
0% 

276 
 
   
                                
  
   
  
   
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
 
 
  
 
 
   
 
 
   
                                
  
   
 
 
  
 
 
   
   
                              
  
REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

31  

31  

507  

617  

n.a. 

n.a. 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

LDB Total 
LEZ 
LEZ 

27.8.A 
27.8.A 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 

LEZ 
LEZ 
LEZ 
LEZ 
LEZ 
LEZ 

LEZ 
LEZ 
LEZ 
LEZ 
LEZ 
LEZ 

LEZ 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.i 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.j 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.i 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.j 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.i 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.j 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.i 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.j 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.i 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.j 

27.9.A Total 

245  

LEZ Total 
MAC 

27.8.A 

1,368  

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.g 

30.5 
489.5 
17.1 

506.6 
181.2 
3.9 
185.1 
602.1 
11.6 

613.7 
14.6 
0.7 
15.3 
242.5 
1.9 

244.3 

1565.1 
3414.1 

93.9 
0.2 
n.a. 

0.2 
2.8 
n.a. 
2.8 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

3.0 
27.7 

0% 
0% 
n.a. 

0% 
8% 
n.a. 
7% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

1% 
4% 

94 
0 
n.a. 

0 
3 
n.a. 
3 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

3 
28 

0% 
0% 
n.a. 

0% 
8% 
n.a. 
7% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

1% 
13% 

277 
 
  
                              
  
   
   
                           
  
   
   
  
   
   
                           
  
   
   
  
   
   
                           
  
  
                        
  
   
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

MAC 
MAC 
MAC 

MAC 
MAC 
MAC 
MAC 
MAC 
MAC 
MAC 
MAC 
MAC 
MAC 

MAC 
MAC 
MAC 
MAC 
MAC 
MAC 
MAC 
MAC 

27.8.A 
27.8.A 
27.8.A 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 

3,553  

n.a. 

31,089  

n.a. 

Exemption Article 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.h 
2018/188 Article 3.c 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.g 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.h 
2018/188 Article 3.c 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.g 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.h 
2018/188 Article 3.c 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.g 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.h 
2018/188 Article 3.c 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.g 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.h 
2018/188 Article 3.d 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
37.4 
2591.7 
76.3 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

6119.4 
1986.8 
46.9 
440.6 
742.7 
3217.0 
11883.6 
194.1 
13.7 
8484.3 

20575.7 
94.3 
0.2 
84.3 
178.8 
1484.9 
183.2 
968.7 

27.7 
1058.1 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
1058.1 
300.1 
23.5 
n.a. 
n.a. 

324.6 
10.5 
n.a. 
n.a. 
10.5 
179.4 
2.6 
10.2 

2% 
5% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
3% 
2% 
41% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

2% 
0% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0% 
11% 
1% 
21% 

28 
1058 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
1058 
2792 
52 
1 
n.a. 

2846 
10 
n.a. 
n.a. 
10 
629 
27 
17 

7% 
14% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
9% 
95% 
62% 
100% 
n.a. 

56% 
0% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0% 
81% 
17% 
37% 

278 
 
   
   
   
                        
  
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
   
                     
  
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

MAC 
MAC 
MAC 
MAC 
MAC 

27.9.A Total 
34.1.1 
34.1.1 Total 
34.1.2 
34.1.2 Total 

2,769  

n.a. 

n.a. 

2018/188 Article 3.d 

2018/188 Article 3.d 

MAC Total 
MEG 
MEG 

27.8.A 
27.8.A 

MEG 
MEG 
MEG 
MEG 
MEG 
MEG 

MEG 
MEG 
MEG 
MEG 
MEG 
MEG 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 

37,411  

1,188  

n.a. 

n.a. 

1  

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.i 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.j 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.i 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.j 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.i 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.j 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.i 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.j 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.i 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.j 

2636.8 
0.3 
0.3 
0.3 
0.3 

32728.4 
1183.7 
4.2 

1187.9 
33.0 
0.5 
33.5 
0.6 
0.0 

0.6 
39.5 
0.0 
39.6 
38.7 
3.7 

192.1 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

1613.1 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
13.2 
0.0 
13.2 
24.4 
n.a. 

24.4 
0.1 
n.a. 
0.1 
12.4 
n.a. 

14% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

3% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 
n.a. 
0% 
59% 
n.a. 

58% 
0% 
n.a. 
0% 
0% 
n.a. 

674 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

4615 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
13 
n.a. 
13 
27 
n.a. 

27 
0 
n.a. 
0 
12 
n.a. 

60% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

42% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 
n.a. 
0% 
79% 
n.a. 

79% 
0% 
n.a. 
0% 
0% 
n.a. 

279 
 
                        
  
   
  
   
  
  
                     
  
   
   
                        
  
   
   
  
   
   
                                
  
   
   
  
   
   
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

MEG 

27.9.A Total 

43  

MEG Total 
MNZ 
MNZ 

27.8.A 
27.8.A 

MNZ 
MNZ 
MNZ 
MNZ 
MNZ 
MNZ 

MNZ 
MNZ 
MNZ 
MNZ 
MNZ 
MNZ 

MNZ 
MNZ 
MNZ 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 
27.9.B 
27.9.B Total 

1,231  

4,217  

n.a. 

n.a. 

59  

31  

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.n 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 

42.3 

1303.9 
3381.6 
826.2 

4207.8 
599.4 
473.0 
1072.3 
12.0 
38.9 

50.9 
207.8 
224.4 
432.3 
24.9 
5.6 

30.4 
0.0 
0.0 

12.4 

50.1 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

0% 

0% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

12 

53 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

0% 

0% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

280 
 
                              
  
  
                        
  
   
   
                        
  
   
   
  
   
   
                              
  
   
   
  
   
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

0  

4,307  

2,107  

n.a. 

n.a. 

2  

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

MNZ Total 
NEP 

27.8.A 

NEP 
NEP 
NEP 
NEP 

NEP 
NEP 
NEP 
NEP 

NEP 
NEP 

NEP 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 
27.9.B 

338  

27.9.B Total 

1  

DA XX/2019 Article 3 

DA XX/2019 Article 3 

DA XX/2019 Article 3 

DA XX/2019 Article 3 

DA XX/2019 Article 3 

DA XX/2019 Article 3 

NEP Total 
PLE 
PLE 

27.8.A 
27.8.A 

2,447  

PLE 

27.8.A Total 

86  

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.k 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.l 

5793.7 
2102.2 

2102.2 
68.3 
68.3 
2.2 

2.2 
0.2 
0.2 
328.2 

328.2 
0.5 

0.5 

2501.7 
45.9 
39.0 

84.9 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
3.1 

3.1 
n.a. 

n.a. 

3.1 
0.5 
0.2 

0.6 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
17% 

17% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

2% 
79% 
100% 

88% 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
3 

3 
n.a. 

n.a. 

3 
0 
0 

1 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
17% 

17% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

2% 
89% 
100% 

94% 

281 
 
  
                        
  
   
                        
  
   
  
   
                                
  
   
  
   
                           
  
   
                                
  
  
                        
  
   
   
                              
  
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

n.a. 

n.a. 

1  

Sub Region 

27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 

37  

Species 
codes  

PLE 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 

PLE 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 
PLE 

PLE 

124  

1,212  

PLE Total 
POL 
POL 

27.8.A 
27.8.A 

POL 
POL 
POL 
POL 
POL 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

Exemption Article 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.k 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.l 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.k 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.l 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.k 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.l 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.k 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.l 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.q 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.r 

n.a. 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.q 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.r 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.q 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
1.9 
4.0 
6.0 
0.0 
0.6 

Weight, 
tonnes 
0.0 
0.9 
0.9 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
63% 
80% 
74% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
0 
1 
1 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
63% 
81% 
75% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

0.7 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
1.2 
32.9 

34.1 

125.7 
100.1 
703.3 

803.4 
4.7 
29.8 
34.6 
1.3 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

1.5 
0.0 
5.2 

5.2 
9.3 
0.0 
9.3 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

63% 
55% 
95% 

90% 
39% 
92% 
85% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

2 
0 
5 

5 
9 
0 
9 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

67% 
55% 
96% 

91% 
45% 
92% 
85% 
n.a. 

282 
 
   
   
  
   
   
                                
  
   
   
  
   
   
                              
  
  
                           
  
   
   
                        
  
   
   
  
   
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

132  

n.a. 

Sub Region 

27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 
27.9.B 

159  

27.9.B Total 

0  

Species 
codes  

POL 

POL 
POL 
POL 
POL 
POL 
POL 

POL 
POL 

POL 

Exemption Article 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.r 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.q 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.r 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.q 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.r 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.r 

POL Total 
RJA 

27.8.A 

1,503  

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 

RJA 
RJA 
RJA 
RJA 

RJA 

RJA Total 

0  

0  

0  

n.a. 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
38.0 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 

39.3 
1.3 
0.4 
1.7 
2.5 
57.5 

60.0 
c 

c 

939.0 
0.1 

0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

n.a. 
0.0 
n.a. 
0.0 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 

14.5 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 
n.a. 
0% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 

80% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
0 
n.a. 
0 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 

14 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 
n.a. 
0% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
c 

c 

81% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

283 
 
   
                           
  
   
   
  
   
   
                           
  
   
                                
  
  
                        
  
   
                                
  
   
 
  
 
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

0  

0  

0  

171  

249  

n.a. 

n.a. 

Species 
codes  

RJB 

RJB 
RJB 

RJB 

Sub Region 

27.8.A 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 

RJB Total 
RJC 

27.8.A 

RJC 
RJC 
RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC 
RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC 

RJC 
RJC Total 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 
27.9.B 

906  

27.9.B Total 

3  

Exemption Article 
DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
0.3 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 

0.3 
0.0 

0.0 

0.3 
170.6 

170.6 
98.2 
98.2 
249.0 

249.0 
1.1 
1.1 
905.7 

905.7 
2.5 

2.5 
1427.1 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
12.0 

12.0 
2.8 
2.8 
27.6 

27.6 
n.a. 
n.a. 
13.0 

13.0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
55.4 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
70% 

70% 
21% 
21% 
62% 

62% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
12% 

12% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
28% 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
12 

12 
3 
3 
41 

41 
n.a. 
n.a. 
53 

53 
n.a. 

n.a. 
108 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
79% 

79% 
22% 
22% 
69% 

69% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
31% 

31% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
42% 

284 
 
   
                                
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                           
  
   
  
   
                           
  
   
  
   
                           
  
   
                                
  
  
                        
  
Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

1,328  

RJE 

RJE 
RJE 
RJE 
RJE 

RJE 
RJE 
RJE 
RJE 

RJE 

27.8.A 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 

22  

0  

n.a. 

n.a. 

27.9.A Total 

52  

Exemption Article 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

RJE Total 
RJF 

27.8.A 

RJF 
RJF 
RJF 
RJF 

RJF 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 

0  

74  

29  

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

n.a. 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

21.8 

21.8 
10.7 
10.7 
0.2 

0.2 
0.2 
0.2 
51.7 

51.7 

84.5 
28.7 

28.7 
0.1 
0.1 
0.0 

0.0 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

285 
 
   
                              
  
   
  
   
                                
  
   
  
   
                              
  
  
                              
  
   
                              
  
   
  
   
                                
  
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

n.a. 

29  

1  

1  

161  

1  

n.a. 

n.a. 

Species 
codes  

RJF 
RJF 

Sub Region 

27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 

RJF Total 
RJG 

27.9.A 

RJG 

27.9.A Total 

RJG Total 
RJH 

27.8.A 

RJH 
RJH 
RJH 
RJH 

RJH 
RJH 
RJH 
RJH 

RJH 
RJH 

RJH 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 
27.9.B 

154  

27.9.B Total 

0  

Exemption Article 
DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
2.6 
2.6 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 
n.a. 

31.4 
0.5 

0.5 

0.5 
161.4 

161.4 
1.2 
1.2 
0.9 

0.9 
0.1 
0.1 
153.8 

153.8 
c 

c 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0.4 
0.4 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0.2 

0.2 
c 

c 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 
0% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0% 

0% 
c 

c 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0 
0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0 

0 
c 

c 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
0% 
0% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0% 

0% 
c 

c 

286 
 
   
  
  
                              
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                           
  
   
  
   
                                
  
   
  
   
                           
  
   
                                
  
REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

316  

18  

0  

n.a. 

n.a. 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

RJH Total 
RJI 

27.8.A 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

27.9.A Total 

8  

RJI Total 
RJM 

27.8.A 

26  

170  

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

n.a. 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 

44  

RJI 
RJI 
RJI 
RJI 

RJI 
RJI 
RJI 
RJI 

RJI 

RJM 
RJM 
RJM 
RJM 

RJM 

317.5 
17.6 

17.6 
3.0 
3.0 
0.2 

0.2 
2.8 
2.8 
8.0 

8.0 

31.6 
170.4 

170.4 
1.3 
1.3 
43.8 

43.8 

0.6 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
5.4 

5.4 

0% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
22% 

22% 

1 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
15 

15 

0% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
39% 

39% 

287 
 
  
                           
  
   
                              
  
   
  
   
                                
  
   
  
   
                                
  
  
                              
  
   
                           
  
   
  
   
                              
  
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

n.a. 

Sub Region 

27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 
DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
0.2 
0.2 
62.4 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
n.a. 
2.4 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
n.a. 
8 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 
n.a. 
1% 

Species 
codes  

RJM 
RJM 
RJM 

RJM 

27.9.A Total 

62  

62.4 

2.4 

RJM Total 
RJN 
RJN 
RJN 

27.8.A 
27.8.A 
27.8.A 

RJN 
RJN 
RJN 
RJN 
RJN 
RJN 
RJN 
RJN 

RJN 
RJN 
RJN 
RJN 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D 
27.8.D 

277  

880  

23  

n.a. 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 
DA XX/2019 Article 4.4 
DA XX/2019 Article 4.4 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 
DA XX/2019 Article 4.4 
DA XX/2019 Article 4.4 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 
DA XX/2019 Article 4.4 
DA XX/2019 Article 4.4 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 
DA XX/2019 Article 4.4 
DA XX/2019 Article 4.4 

278.1 
880.4 
16.3 
855.5 

1752.2 
117.7 
8.6 
107.7 
234.1 
22.6 
3.5 
16.1 

42.1 
41.1 
0.1 
40.9 

7.8 
210.0 
n.a. 
210.0 

420.0 
43.6 
n.a. 
43.6 
87.1 
5.1 
0.0 
4.9 

10.1 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

0% 

3% 
61% 
n.a. 
63% 

61% 
7% 
n.a. 
8% 
7% 
66% 
28% 
76% 

66% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

8 

23 
210 
n.a. 
210 

420 
44 
n.a. 
44 
87 
5 
0 
5 

10 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

1% 

6% 
64% 
n.a. 
66% 

64% 
7% 
n.a. 
8% 
7% 
67% 
29% 
76% 

67% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

288 
 
   
  
   
                              
  
  
                           
  
   
   
   
                           
  
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
                              
  
   
   
   
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

n.a. 

Sub Region 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 

12  

Species 
codes  

RJN 
RJN 
RJN 

RJN 

RJN Total 
RJO 

27.8.A 

915  

RJO 
RJO 
RJO 
RJO 

RJO 
RJO 
RJO 
RJO 

RJO 
RJO 

RJO 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 

0  

0  

n.a. 

n.a. 

27.9.A Total 
27.9.B 

37  

27.9.B Total 

0  

RJO Total 

37  

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 
DA XX/2019 Article 4.4 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
82.0 
12.2 
6.4 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
15.9 
0.0 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 
0% 
0% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
16 
0 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 
0% 
0% 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

18.6 

15.9 

2129.0 
0.3 

533.0 
n.a. 

0.3 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.2 
0.2 
36.6 

36.6 
0.2 

0.2 

37.4 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

53% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

16 

533 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0% 

55% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

289 
 
  
   
   
                              
  
  
                           
  
   
                                
  
   
  
   
                                
  
   
  
   
                              
  
   
                                
  
  
                              
  
Species 
codes  

RJR 

RJR 
RJR 
RJR 
RJR 

RJR 
RJR 
RJR 
RJR 

RJR 

Sub Region 

27.8.A 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 

RJR Total 
RJU 

27.8.A 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0  

0  

0  

0  

13  

Exemption Article 
DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

n.a. 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 

9  

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

RJU 
RJU 
RJU 
RJU 

RJU 
RJU 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
0.1 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 

0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.2 

0.2 

0.3 
12.8 

12.8 
4.2 
4.2 
9.5 

9.5 
0.0 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
75.2 

75.2 
56.2 
56.2 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
84% 

84% 
76% 
76% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
75 

75 
56 
56 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
91% 

91% 
96% 
96% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

290 
 
   
                                
  
   
  
   
                                
  
   
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
  
   
                                
  
   
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

n.a. 

Sub Region 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 
0.0 
50.2 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
0.0 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 
n.a. 
0% 

Weight, 
tonnes 
n.a. 
0 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 
n.a. 
0% 

27.9.A Total 

50  

50.2 

0.0 

Species 
codes  

RJU 
RJU 

RJU 

RJU Total 
SBR 
SBR 
SBR 

SBR 
SBR 
SBR 
SBR 

SBR 
SBR 
SBR 
SBR 

SBR 

72  

22  

79  

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

27.10.A 
27.10.A Total 
27.8.A 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 

93  

DA XX/2019 Article 4.5 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.5 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.5 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.5 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.5 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.5 

SBR Total 
SKA 

27.8.A 

194  

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

76.7 
441.8 
441.8 
16.8 

16.8 
5.0 
5.0 
55.5 

55.5 
5.7 
5.7 
46.8 

46.8 

571.6 
0.0 

131.5 
4.4 
4.4 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

4.4 
n.a. 

0% 

18% 
9% 
9% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

7% 
n.a. 

0 

131 
5 
5 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

5 
n.a. 

0% 

20% 
14% 
14% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

11% 
n.a. 

291 
 
  
   
                              
  
  
                              
  
   
  
   
                              
  
   
  
   
                              
  
   
  
   
                              
  
  
                           
  
   
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

SKA 
SKA 
SKA 
SKA 

SKA 
SKA 

SKA 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

0  

n.a. 

27.8.C Total 
27.9.A 

180  

27.9.A Total 

201  

SKA Total 
SOL 
SOL 

27.8.A 
27.8.A 

SOL 
SOL 
SOL 
SOL 

SOL Total 
SRX 
SRX 
SRX 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 

27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

381  

1,853  

n.a. 

2,458  

n.a. 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.b 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.c 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.b 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.c 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

0.0 
0.1 
0.1 
179.5 

179.5 
201.2 

201.2 

380.9 
519.3 
1310.4 

1829.7 
524.5 
1089.5 
1614.0 

3443.7 
0.0 
0.0 
22.2 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
4.2 
n.a. 

4.2 
38.3 
n.a. 
38.3 

42.5 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
6% 
n.a. 

2% 
51% 
n.a. 
16% 

9% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
4 
n.a. 

4 
38 
n.a. 
38 

43 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
6% 
n.a. 

2% 
51% 
n.a. 
16% 

9% 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

292 
 
                                
  
   
  
   
                           
  
   
                           
  
  
                           
  
   
   
                        
  
   
   
  
  
                        
  
   
  
   
REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

SRX 
SRX 

SRX 

27.8.C Total 
27.9.A 

22  

27.9.A Total 

11  

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

DA XX/2019 Article 4.1 

n.a. 

n.a. 

33  

0  

0  

11  

SRX Total 
TTO 

27.9.A 

TTO 

27.9.A Total 

TTO Total 
TTR 

27.8.A 

TTR 
TTR 
TTR 
TTR 
TTR 
TTR 

TTR 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 
27.9.A 

27.9.A Total 

9  

TTR Total 
WHB 

27.8.A 

20  

2018/188 Article 3.a 

22.2 
11.1 

11.1 

33.3 
0.4 

0.4 

0.4 
11.5 

11.5 
4.8 
4.8 
0.0 
0.0 
8.8 

8.8 

25.1 
1.2 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

293 
 
                              
  
   
                              
  
  
                              
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
   
                              
  
   
  
   
  
   
                                
  
  
                              
  
   
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

7  

n.a. 

19,261  

n.a. 

24,959  

1,165  

0  

n.a. 

n.a. 

2018/188 Article 3.a 

2018/188 Article 3.a 

2018/188 Article 3.a 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.o 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.p 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.o 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.p 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.o 

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.o 
DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.p 

1.2 
0.9 
0.9 
0.2 

0.2 
0.7 
0.7 

2.9 
502.2 
217.7 

719.9 
280.2 
71.4 
351.6 
0.0 

0.0 
0.7 
0.9 
1.6 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0.0 

0.0 
n.a. 
n.a. 

0.0 
67.2 
263.5 

330.6 
17.1 
514.9 
532.0 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
100% 

100% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

7% 
24% 
99% 

47% 
37% 
94% 
49% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
0 

0 
n.a. 
n.a. 

0 
67 
263 

331 
17 
515 
532 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
100% 

100% 
n.a. 
n.a. 

7% 
42% 
100% 

59% 
50% 
95% 
60% 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

WHB 
WHB 
WHB 
WHB 

WHB 
WHB 
WHB 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 

WHB Total 
WHG 
WHG 

27.8.A 
27.8.A 

WHG 
WHG 
WHG 
WHG 
WHG 

WHG 
WHG 
WHG 
WHG 

27.8.A Total 
27.8.B 
27.8.B 
27.8.B Total 
27.8.C 

27.8.C Total 
27.8.D 
27.8.D 
27.8.D Total 

294 
 
                                
  
   
  
   
                     
  
   
  
  
                     
  
   
   
                        
  
   
   
  
   
                                
  
   
   
  
Overall landings 
reported to FDI 
for the species 
and Sub 
Regions, tonnes 

Species 
codes  

Sub Region 

REPORTED FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS 

Discards without fillings 

Dscards with fillings 

Exemption Article 

Total  weight 
of landings, 
tonnes 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % of 
total landings 
reported 

Weight, 
tonnes 

Coverage % 
of total 
landings 

WHG Total 
MVJ 

27.9.A 

1,177  

DA XX/2019 Article 6.1.m 

MVJ 

27.9.A Total 

MVJ Total 

0  

0  

1073.1 
0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

862.7 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

47% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

863 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

59% 
n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

295 
 
  
                        
  
   
                                
  
  
                                
  
 
Annex 4 – Med&BS and FDI calls comparison (electronic) 

Available at https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/fdi 

Annex 5 – Maps of effort and landings (electronic) 

Available at https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/fdi 

296 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest 
you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by electronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 K
J
-
A
X
-
1
9
-
0
1
9
-
E
N
N

-

STECF 

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

162 

doi:10.2760/230618 

ISBN 978-92-76-14096-2