Fisheries dependent information – FDI (STECF-20-10).
Date: 2020-12-10
Institutions: Joint Research Centre, Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
Subjects: aquaculture, conservation of fish stocks, data collection, fishery research, fishing fleet, fishing industry, marine ecosystem, maritime economy, research report

Scientific, Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 
- 
Fisheries Dependent Information 
– FDI 
(STECF-20-10) 

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 

JRC122995 

EUR 28359 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-27166-6 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/61855 

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-20-10). EUR 28359 EN,  Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-27166-6, doi:10.2760/61855, JRC122995. 

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 
2020 virtual 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-20-10 report:  

EWG chairs Vanhee W. and Motova A.  

Experts: Adamowicz, M., Cano, S., Carlshamre, S., Casey, J., Demaneche, S., Egekvist, J., Gibin, 
M.,  Gonzalez  Herraiz,  I.,  Gomez  Suarez,  F.,  Hekim,  Z.,  Ioannou,  M.,  Jakovleva,  I.,  Kavadas,  S., 
Kovsars,  M.,  K.,  Moore,  C.,  Nicheva,  S.,  Nimmegeers,  S.,  Raid,  T.,  Sabatella,  E.,  Helmond  van, 
A., Vermard, Y., Vukov, I., Zanzi, A. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SCIENTIFIC,  TECHNICAL  AND  ECONOMIC  COMMITTEE  FOR  FISHERIES  (STECF)  –  FISHERIES 
DEPENDENT INFORMATION (STECF-20-10) ............................................................................ 9 

REQUEST TO THE STECF ....................................................................................................... 9 

STECF COMMENTS .............................................................................................................. 9 

STECF CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 12 

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

EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG-20-10 REPORT ........................................................................... 17 

1 

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

1.1 

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR EWG-20-10........................................................................... 18 

2      DATA PROVISION AND CHECKS ............................................................................................ 20 

2.1  DCF FDI DATA CALL 2020 ........................................................................................... 20 

2.2  DATA CHECKS ON UPLOADS AND DATA EVALUATIONS BEFORE EWG 20-10 MEETING ........................ 20 

3  RESPONSES TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE ........................................................................... 25 

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 ....................... 25 

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) ......................... 25 

3.1.2  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 2021 .......................................................... 25 

3.1.3  Review data quality checks and produce National methodological chapters ............. 27 

3.2 

PROVIDE LANDINGS AND DISCARDS DATA FOR EXEMPTIONS IN DISCARD PLANS ............................... 28 

3.2.1 

STECF is asked to provide figures for landings and discards in 2019, 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 2021. Where there is insufficient discard 
data for the above task, the STECF is asked to provide estimated catches (landings + 
discards) for 2019, if possible and enough data provided during data call. ............... 28 

3.2.2  Discard estimates by exemption ............................................................................... 31 

3.2.2.1  Baltic Sea region .......................................................................................................... 31 

3.2.2.2  North Sea region .......................................................................................................... 32 

3.2.2.3  North Western Waters .................................................................................................. 36 

3.2.2.4  South Western Waters .................................................................................................. 39 

3.2.2.5  Mediterranean Sea ....................................................................................................... 42 

3.2.3 

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 2021 ....... 51 

3.3 

PRODUCE DISSEMINATION TABLES AND MAPS OF SPATIAL EFFORT AND LANDINGS BY C-SQUARES .......... 54 

3.3.1  Discuss and agree the format of the biological data (FDI Tables C, D, E and F) and of 

the refusal rate data to be publicly disseminated (FDI Table B) ................................ 54 

4 

 
 
 
 
3.3.2 

If GIS technical skills are available in the EWG, produce maps of effort and landings 
by c-square (to be inserted in the EWG report) 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) ...................................................................... 57 

4 

5 

6 

PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE FUTURE DATA CALLS .................................................................... 86 

CONTACT DETAILS OF EWG-20-10 PARTICIPANTS................................................................ 89 

LIST OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS ..................................................................................... 92 

7  ANNEXES .............................................................................................................................. 93 

ANNEX 1. MEMBER STATES SECTIONS ON METHODOLOGY, DATA AVAILABILITY, COVERAGE, PROBLEMS 

ENCOUNTERED AND OTHER COMMENTS .............................................................................. 93 

A1.1 BELGIUM .............................................................................................................................. 93 

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 93 

DATA AVAILABILITY ............................................................................................................. 95 

COVERAGE ....................................................................................................................... 95 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ..................................................................................................... 96 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT .............................................................................................. 96 

A1.2 BULGARIA ............................................................................................................................ 96 

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 96 

DATA AVAILABILITY ............................................................................................................. 97 

COVERAGE ....................................................................................................................... 97 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ..................................................................................................... 97 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT .............................................................................................. 98 

A1.3 CROATIA .............................................................................................................................. 98 

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 98 

DATA AVAILABILITY ............................................................................................................. 99 

COVERAGE ....................................................................................................................... 99 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 101 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 101 

A1.4 CYPRUS .............................................................................................................................. 101 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 101 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 102 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 102 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 102 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 102 

A1.5 DENMARK........................................................................................................................... 102 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 102 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 105 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 105 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 105 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 105 

5 

 
 
A1.6 ESTONIA ............................................................................................................................ 105 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 105 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 106 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 106 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 107 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 107 

A1.7 FINLAND ............................................................................................................................ 107 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 107 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 108 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 108 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 108 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 108 

A1.8 FRANCE .............................................................................................................................. 109 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 109 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 112 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 112 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 113 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 113 

A1.9 GERMANY ........................................................................................................................... 113 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 113 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 114 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 115 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 115 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 115 

A1.10 GREECE ............................................................................................................................ 115 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 115 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 116 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 116 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 116 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 117 

A1.11 IRELAND .......................................................................................................................... 117 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 117 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 120 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 120 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 120 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 121 

A1.12 ITALY ............................................................................................................................... 121 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 121 

6 

 
 
DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 122 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 122 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 122 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 122 

A1.13 LATVIA ............................................................................................................................. 123 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 123 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 123 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 123 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 124 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 124 

A1.14 LITHUANIA ...................................................................................................................... 124 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 124 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 125 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 125 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 125 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 125 

A1.15 MALTA – NO INFORMATION PROVIDED ........................................................................... 126 

A1.16 POLAND ........................................................................................................................... 126 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 126 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 126 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 126 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 127 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 127 

A1.17 PORTUGAL ....................................................................................................................... 127 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 127 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 130 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 130 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 130 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 130 

A1.18 ROMANIA – NO INFORMATION PROVIDED....................................................................... 131 

A1.19 SLOVENIA – NO INFORMATION PROVIDED ...................................................................... 131 

A1.20 THE NETHERLANDS .......................................................................................................... 131 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 131 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 131 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 131 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 132 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 132 

A1.21 SPAIN .............................................................................................................................. 132 

7 

 
 
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 132 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 133 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 133 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 133 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 133 

A1.22 SWEDEN ........................................................................................................................... 133 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 133 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 136 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 136 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 137 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 137 

A1.23 UNITED KINGDOM – TEXT FROM 2019 REPORT ............................................................... 137 

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 137 

DATA AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................... 140 

COVERAGE ..................................................................................................................... 140 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED ................................................................................................... 143 

OTHER COMMENTS IF RELEVANT ............................................................................................ 143 

ANNEX 2. DATA ASSOCIATED WITH ANTICIPATED EXEMPTIONS (ELECTRONIC) ....................................... 144 

ANNEX 3. PERCENTAGE OF FISH ABOVE AND BELOW MCRS (ELECTRONIC) .......................................... 144 

ANNEX 4. MAPS OF EFFORT AND LANDINGS (ELECTRONIC) ............................................................. 144 

8 

 
 
 
SCIENTIFIC,  TECHNICAL  AND  ECONOMIC  COMMITTEE  FOR  FISHERIES  (STECF)  – 
FISHERIES DEPENDENT INFORMATION (STECF-20-10) 

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-20-10 report was reviewed during the winter plenary meeting (09-13 November 2020). 

Background of the EW 20-10 

The  STECF  EWG  20-10  met  virtually  during  14–18  September  2020.  23  experts  attended  the 
meeting  (incl.  4  STECF  members),  representing  expertise  from  18  countries  to  review  the  data 
transmitted by Member States under the 2020 FDI data call in order to judge whether: 

i)  data submitted were complete in terms of areas of fishing, types of fleet segment and gear 

operated and species identified; 

ii)  data  submitted  were  complete  in  terms  of  type  of  data  requested:  capacity  metrics,  effort 

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

The  EWG  was  also  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 was entitled 
to use external sources of data where necessary, as well as expert judgement.  

STECF comments 

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

STECF  considers  that  the  EWG  has  addressed  all  the  Terms  of  Reference.  STECF  observes  the 
following: 

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). Such issues should be reported in full within 2 weeks of the 
end of the EWG. 

STECF acknowledges that the data provided by Member States in response to the 2020 FDI data 
call,  and  incorporated  into  the  FDI  database,  represent  the  most  comprehensive  data  set 
currently available on fishery-dependent information from European fleets. However, STECF notes 
that a small number of shortfalls and gaps remain in the data submitted. The unresolved issues 
that still require to be  addressed by Member  States were all recorded in an Excel version of the 
Data Transmission Monitoring Tool (DTMT), to be submitted subsequently to the online tool that 
was not in operation at the time of the meeting due to COVID-19 and internet security issues. 

1.2. 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 2021. 

STECF notes that the EWG 20-10 reviewed the methodology and outputs of the  ad hoc contract 
(Ref STECF 2076) awarded, as in previous years. This ad hoc contract provided data on landings 
and discards, at a level of aggregation corresponding to the fleet, area and gear type as specified 
in each anticipated exemption contained in the individual discard plans for 2021. STECF observes 
that the methodology used in the  ad hoc contract was appropriate and identical to the one used 
in previous years. 

9 

 
 
The main challenge of this exercise is to provide estimates for exemptions for which the Member 
State  did  not  provide  sufficient  discards  information  (no  or  too  few  discard  samples).  In  the 
absence  of  any  appropriate  samples  at  country  level,  the  estimates  were  derived  using 
extrapolation (‘fill-ins’) using data from other countries in the same métiers. STECF acknowledges 
that in these cases where sampling is insufficient the values provided by the ad hoc contract still 
represent the best available estimate. 

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

STECF  observes  that  data  submitted  by  each  Member  States  were  thoroughly  reviewed.  The 
review  included  the  methodology  used  for  responding to  the  data  call and  the  coverage,  quality 
and  consistency  of  data  submitted.  The  review  sections  by  Member  State  are  reproduced  in 
Annex 1 of the EWG 20-10 Report.  

STECF notes that Member States are responsible for providing checked and validated data. Given 
the complexity, size, and high level of disaggregation of the datasets submitted, some erroneous 
records  are  though  still  expected  to  occur  occasionally,  in  spite  of  the  extensive  automated 
checks already implemented by the JRC.  

STECF notes that transferring biological sampled data (based on national sampling protocol) into 
the very detailed Table A that would include catches at length is of major concern for all Member 
States  as  there  is  no  uniformly  defined  method  to  do  so.  Progresses  towards  achieving  such  a 
unified methodology have been ongoing since the major renewal of the FDI data call in 2017, but 
some more work is still needed to ensure full agreement and adoption by all Member States. 

ToR 2. Provide landings and discards data for exemptions in discard plans  

2.1. STECF is asked to provide figures for landings and discards in 2019, 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 2021. Where there is insufficient discard data for the above task, the STECF is 
asked  to  provide  estimated  catches  (landings  +  discards)  for  2019,  if  possible  and  enough  data 
provided during data call. 

STECF acknowledges that EWG 20-10 attempted to provide discard estimates for each anticipated 
exemption  for  2021.  However,  some  exemptions  required  detailed  information  currently  not 
available in the FDI database (i.e. distance fished from  shore and vessels engine power). Based 
on the feasibility of the EWG to extract the relevant data, exemptions were characterised in three 
groups:  “yes”  (data  were  extracted),  “partially”  (data  were  partially  extracted)  or  “no”  (no  data 
was extracted).  

STECF  agrees  that  a  specific  data  request  asking  Member  States  to  provide  data  relating  to  the 
vessels  to  which  a  proposed  exemption  is  likely  to  apply,  is  a  better  option  than  using  data 
provided to populate the FDI database. This is discussed in ToR 7.2 of this PLEN 20-03 report. 

STECF  observes  that  EWG  20-10  provided  the  discard  information  for  each  exemption  in  2 
separate  formats:  with  and  without  fill-ins.  In  addition,  the  information  was  summarised  in  two 
types  of  tables:  tables  with  landings  and  discards  reported  by  MS  and  estimated  for  the  fleets 
under  exemptions  (Tables  1-8  in  Annex  2)  and  tables  with  FDI  data  reported  and  filled  in 
aggregated by species and sub regions (Tables 9-13 in Annex 2).  

STECF  further  observes  that  the  main  shortcoming  to  provide  precise  estimates  lies  on  the  fact 
that  data  from  MS  sampling  programs  were  not  always  sufficient  to  provide  discard  estimates. 
This is mainly because observer programs undertaken under DCF national sampling programs are 
not designed to specifically sample fisheries with exemptions in place. 

The  STECF  notes  that  the  Member  States  (MS)  sometimes  uses  different  sources  of  discard 
information  (scientific  data,  logbooks  or  a  combination  of  the  two)  when  reporting  to  FDI  data 
call.  Direct  comparisons  between  Member  States  may  therefore  not  only  reflect  a  difference  in 
actual discard levels, but also differences in methodology.  

STECF  notes  that  considering  the  shortcomings  listed  above,  the  resulting  estimates  should  be 
interpreted with caution. 

10 

 
 
2.2.  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 2021.  

STECF  observes  that  proportions  of  discards  above  and  below  MCRS,  in  weight  and  number  by 
species,  were  estimated.  The  information  was  calculated  at  the  level  of  aggregation 
corresponding to the country, year, area, and metier and is presented in the form of tables and 
graphs in the Annex 3 of the EWG 20-10 Report. 

STECF  notes  that  estimates  were  calculated  by  merging  Tables  A  (detailed  catch  table),  D 
(discards  length  data)  and  F  (landings  length  data)  using  the  fields  domain_discards  and 
domain_landings.  The  variable  domains  were  created  to  reflect  the  sampling  programs  of  each 
country  and  to  provide  the  best  scientific  estimates  of  the  length  structure  of  the 
landings/discards. Following the proposal of EWG 19-11 and the suggestion of STECF PLEN 19-03, 
the information on mean weight-at-length was requested from Member States for the first time in 
the FDI 2020 data call. It was used to calculate the discards in weight above and below MCRS.  

ToR 3. Produce dissemination tables and maps of spatial effort and landings by c-
squares  

3.1.  Discuss  and  agree  the  format  of  the  biological  data  (FDI  Tables  C,  D,  E  and  F)  and  of  the 
refusal rate data to be publicly disseminated (FDI Table B).  

STECF  notes  that  it  will  still  be  necessary  to  develop  an  agreed  standard  methodology  for 
combining the biological parameters in Tables C, D, E and F with Table A.  Data will be checked 
for  compliance  with  the  confidentiality  agreements  before  the  estimates  of  the  age  and  length 
composition of catches can be made publicly available. 

STECF agrees that once this method is agreed and applied, the following outputs could be made 
public: 

-  Relative  length  distribution  by  year,  quarter,  species,  area  and  métier.  Separately  for 

landings and discards. 

-  Relative  age  distribution  by  year,  quarter,  species,  area,  métier.  Separately  for  landings 

and discards. 

STECF notes that 2020 data will be disseminated in the same format as agreed in 2019, without 
the need to formally notify to the Member States prior dissemination of data.  

3.2.  If  GIS  technical  skills  are  available  in  the  EWG,  produce  maps  of  effort  and  landings  by  c-
square (to be inserted in the EWG report) 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 waters3  

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.  

STECF notes that a comprehensive set of maps of spatial effort and landings were produced for all 
fishing regions and major gear types. They were included in Annex 4 of the EWG Report and are 
available at the EU level for public access in the STECF web: https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dd/fdi. 

STECF observes that the geographical data validation process adopted last year was implemented 
and documented in a series of scripts. STECF agrees that these checks should be included in the 
FDI data call uploading tool.  

STECF notes that quality of the spatial data provided by Member States has improved compared 
to previous years. The rate of invalid records was considered low (< 1.5 %).  

11 

 
 
EWG 20-10 proposal for actions in 2021 

STECF  observes  that  the  EWG  20-10  proposes  the  following  actions  in  2021  to  achieve  the 
objectives of the ToRs: 

1)  A  data  dissemination  ad  hoc  contract  that  would  come  up  with  a  common  methodology 
proposal  to  merge  Table  A  with  biological  data  Tables  (C,  D,  E  and  F)  and  propose 
appropriate methods to disseminate biological data and quality of estimates.  

2)  The  dissemination  ad  hoc  contract  will  be  followed  by  a  first  EWG  meeting  dedicated  to 
Methodological  issues  (e.g.  processes  and  methods  to  assemble  the  detailed  table  A)  to 
further improve data quality and utility and to ensure appropriate dissemination of the FDI 
data. The EWG meeting would also be used to compile and check the MS data submitted 
through the FDI data call. 

3)  A second, EWG-FDI meeting to provide any advice dependent on FDI data and requested 
by  the  Commission,  especially  if  the  quantification  of  exemptions  under  the  landing 
obligation will continue to be performed with FDI data. 

EWG 20-10 data call 

STECF  observes  that  the  biological  data  from  the  Mediterranean-  and  Black  Sea  were  not 
requested  in  the  2020  FDI  data  call,  on  the  basis  that  they  are  collected  under  the  dedicated 
Mediterranean-  and  Black  Sea  data  call.  To  start  building  consistent  time  series  and  publish  it, 
STECF  suggests  that  the  biological  data  provided  during  the  Mediterranean-  and  Black  Sea  data 
call is incorporated into the FDI database.   

STECF  notes  that  there  is  a  need  to  have  as  long  a  time  series  of  FDI  data  as  possible.  A 
progressive  (one  year  at  the  time)  backward  extension  with  historical  data  (prior  to  2015)  was 
the approach preferred by Member States to achieve this time series. Member States considered 
that assembling and formatting historical data is time-consuming, and it is considered difficult to 
process several years at once.  

STECF conclusions 

STECF concludes that the EWG 20-10 addressed all ToRs appropriately.  

STECF conclusions for ToR 1 and ToR 2 

STECF  reiterates that the  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  the  following  year  has  proven  its  usefulness  over  the  years  and  if 
possible, should be repeated in 2021. 

STECF  concludes  that  the  methodology  used  to  estimate  discards  is  appropriate.  However,  for 
some cases, the low level of sampling or the absence of samples, can lead to imprecise estimates 
or estimates potentially not fully representative of the true (but unknown) level of discarding for 
the relevant fleets.   

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.  The  inclusion  of  the  variable  MEAN_WEIGHT_AT_LENGTH  in 
Tables D and F (discards and landings by length, respectively) has increased the precision of the 
estimates. 

To  ensure  the  quality  of  the  data  and  to  continue  building  standard  procedures  to  maintain  the 
FDI  database,  STECF  reiterates  its  conclusion  from  previous  years  that  two  separate  Expert 
Working  group  meetings  would  be  needed  in  2021.  The  first  Working  Group,  Methodology  FDI 
EWG,  would  be  solely  dedicated  to  compiling  and  checking  the  data  submitted  through  the  FDI 
data call and address the methodological discussions needed to improve comparability of the data 
submitted by MS. This working group could meet just after the deadline of the data call in July if 
the  data  call  can  be  launched  as  previously  in  early  June.  A  second,  Advice  FDI  EWG  meeting 
would  meet  around  the  same  time  as  previously  (mid  September)  and  respond  to  any  requests 

12 

 
 
 
from  the  Commission  dependent  on  FDI  data,  including  the  quantification  of  exemptions  under 
the landing obligation if still required. This second EWG could also focus on the comparison of the 
data with the economic data call as required for the Annual Economic Report.  

If  only  one  EWG  meeting  is  possible  in  2021,  STECF  proposes  that  processes  and  methods  to 
assemble  the  detailed  Table  A  from  the  Member  States’  sample  data  be  thoroughly investigated 
through  a  dedicated  contract  ahead  of  the  2021  FDI  data  call.  This  would  leave  enough  time 
during the EWG meeting to address the other requests.  

STECF conclusions for ToR 3 

STECF concludes that dissemination of EWG outputs in form of sets of capacity, catches and effort 
tables  and  maps  of  EU  fleets  landings  and  effort  is  of  generic  interest  both  within  and  outside 
STECF requirements, as discussed in PLEN 19-03, and is to be encouraged.  

For  the  appropriate  dissemination  of  FDI  data,  ensuring  the  quality  of  the  information  and 
preserving  the  data  confidentiality,  STECF  supports  the  proposal  of  the  EWG  to  issue  a  data 
dissemination  ad  hoc  contract  in  2021.  This  dissemination  contract  will  be  focused  on  merging 
Table A with biological data Tables (C, D, E and F) and proposing dissemination methods. 

STECF conclusions for data call 

To  populate  the  FDI  database  with  the  biological  data  from  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea, 
STECF  suggests  that  DG  MARE  sends  a  letter  to  the  Member  States  requesting  authorisation  to 
transfer data from the Med BS database to the FDI database at JRC using transfer protocol to be 
agreed (the protocol could also be agreed and defined during the methodology EWG meeting). If 
this is not possible, Member States could be asked directly to submit the biological data from the 
Mediterranean and Black Sea under the FDI data call.   

STECF agrees with the suggestion of EWG 20-10 to request historical data backwards one year at 
the time. In 2021, the data call will thus request data for both 2014 and 2020. 

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  on  the  protection  of 
personnel data. For more information: https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/adm-declarations 

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 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Casey, John 

Independent consultant 

Catchpole, Thomas 

Damalas, Dimitrios 

Daskalov, Georgi 

Döring, Ralf (vice-chair) 

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 

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 

blindlemoncasey@gmail.c
om  

thomas.catchpole@cefas.c
o.uk  

shark@hcmr.gr 

Georgi.m.daskalov@gmail
.com 

ralf.doering@thuenen.de 

Gascuel, Didier  

Grati, Fabio 

Ibaibarriaga, Leire  

Jung, Armelle 

Knittweis, Leyla 

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  

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

armelle.jung@desrequinse
tdeshommes.org  

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

Leyla.knittweis@um.edu.
mt  

14 

 
 
 
Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Kraak, Sarah  

Ligas, Alessandro 

Martin, Paloma  

Motova, Arina  

Thünen Institute of Baltic Sea 
Fsheries, 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 

Nord, Jenny  

Prellezo, Raúl  

O’Neill, Barry 

Raid, Tiit  

Rihan,  Dominic 
chair) 

Sampedro, Paz 

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  

(vice-

BIM, Ireland 

rihan@bim.ie  

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

paz.sampedro@ieo.es  

15 

 
 
Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Somarakis, Stylianos  

Stransky, Christoph  

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 

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 

Vanhee, Willy  

Independent consultant 

wvanhee@telenet.be 

Villasante, Sebastian 

Vrgoc, Nedo 

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

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

sebastian.villasante@usc.
es 

vrgoc@izor.hr 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG-20-10 REPORT 

REPORT TO THE STECF 

EXPERT WORKING GROUP ON  
Fisheries Dependent Information – “FDI” 
(EWG-20-10) 

Virtual meeting, 14-18 September 2020 

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 20-10 met as a virtual meeting during 14–18 September 2020. The meeting was 
opened at 9 am on 14 September and was adjourned at 16.30 on 18 September 2020. Working 
conditions were challenging but adequate. 

1.1 

Terms of Reference for EWG-20-10 

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 14-
18  September  2020  in  a  virtual  meeting  to  review  the  data  transmitted  by  Member  States 
under the 2020 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, discards and spatially disaggregated landings and effort. 

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. 

Terms of Reference EWG 20-10 
Based upon the STECF EWG 19-11 conclusions including the establishment of common practices 
(use of confidentiality data records and dissemination tools), and the methodology concluded to 
partition  data  (numbers  at  length)  from  Tables  C  and  D  (aggregations  according  to  sampling 
programs) to Table A (detailed catch table), the STECF EWG is requested to: 

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).   Such  issues  should  be  reported  in  full  within  2 
weeks of the end of the EWG. 

2.  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 2021. 

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

18 

 
 
 
 
 
2 – Provide landings and discards data for exemptions in discard plans.  

Based upon the previous work and method established in STECF EWG 19-11: 

1.  STECF is asked to provide figures for landings and discards in 2019, 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 2021. 

2.  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 2021. 

3.  Where  there  is  insufficient  discard  data  for  the  above  task,  the  STECF  is  asked  to  provide 
estimated  catches  (landings  +  discards1)  for  2019,  if  possible  and  enough  data  provided 
during data call. 

3 - Produce dissemination tables and maps of spatial effort and landings by c-squares 

1.  Discuss  and  agree  the  format  of  the  biological  data  (FDI  Tables  C,  D,  E  and  F)  and  of  the 

refusal rate data to be publicly disseminated (FDI Table B). 

2.  If  GIS  technical  skills  are  available  in  the  EWG,  produce  maps  of  effort  and  landings  by  c- 
square (to be inserted in the EWG report) 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. 

1 ‘Discards’ are defined here as the fish/crustaceans thrown overboard. 

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

19 

 
                                                 
2      DATA PROVISION AND CHECKS 

2.1 DCF FDI data call 2020 

The  DCF  Fisheries  Dependent  Information  (FDI)  data  call  2020  was  launched  on  23  July  2020 
with the legal deadline on 7 September 2020. 

The 2020 FDI data call was consistent with the comments and suggestions from the EWG 19-11 
(see  the  STECF  report  of  the  EWG  19-11).  In  particular,  the  following  changes  proposed  during 
the EWG 19-11 were implemented in the 2020 data call: 

 

In order to improve the data provided for the Nephrops stocks distinguishing the different 
Functional Units (FUs), an extra column called NEP_SUB_REGION was added to the tables 
A, C, D, E and F. 

  To  estimate  the  weight  of  discards  and  landings  above  and  below  Minimum  Conservation 
Reference Size (MCRS), two new columns called respectively MEAN_WEIGHT_AT_LENGTH 
and WEIGHT_UNIT were added in tables D and F. 

  A  column  called  PRINCIPAL_SUB_REGION  was  added  in  table  J  indicating  the  sub-region 
(i.e.  GSA  for  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea)  where  a  vessel  carries  out  most  of  his 
fishing activity during the year.  

 

In order to have all discard estimates provided at the domain level (DOMAIN_DISCARDS), 
a new optional table (called Table K) was added requesting discard weight by domain.  

The data format to be used to answer the data call was detailed in the annex sent to the Member 
States with the official letter. The annex was also published with the Excel templates  on the JRC 
DCF website (https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/data-calls).  

In the annex to the data call, 15 tables were described, among which 1 was optional and 5 were 
not requested for Mediterranean and Black Sea regions (GFCM GSAs). 

Data were requested for 5 years (from 2015 to 2019) 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  the  period  2017-2019  only;  data  for  years  2015  and  2016  were 
welcomed if available, but their submission was not compulsory.  

Declaration about data confidentiality 

In  the  context  of  the  confidential  data  used  during  the  EWG  20-10  meeting,  the  experts  signed 
the following declaration at the beginning of the meeting. 

In order to answer the term of reference of the EWG 20-10, 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  20-10 
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 20-10 report. 

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

2.2  Data checks on uploads and data evaluations before EWG 20-10 meeting 

Timeliness and coverage 

Both timeliness and coverage improved compared to the previous year (2019) data call.  

20 

 
 
All  Member  States  submitted  data  by  the  legal  deadline  of  the  data  call  (see  Table  2.2.1.a  and 
2.2.1.b).  

Table  2.2.1.a:  Timeliness  overview:  data  sets  uploaded  by  Member  States  during  the  FDI  data 
call with the date of the first successful upload (Table K is optional). 

Table  2.2.1.b:  Timeliness  overview:  data  sets  uploaded  by  Member  States  during  the  FDI  data 
call with the date of the first successful upload (table K is optional). 

As shown in Figure 2.2.1, many Member States re-uploaded data after the legal deadline because 
the checks conducted by JRC revealed errors in the uploaded data and/or missing data. However, 
compared  to  the  previous  year,  the  number  of  re-uploads  during  the  EWG  was  much  lower, 
allowing experts more time to work on the ToRs assigned to the working group. 

Regarding  data  coverage,  Member  States  submitted  data  for  most  of  the  variables  for  all  the 
years requested. 

The  coverage  of  discards  data  in  Table  A  is  generally  poor  largely  because  the  agreed  sampling 
schemes in National Work Plans are designed primarily to obtain fishery dependent data for stock 
assessments  of  the  major  stocks  and  fleets.  Resources  to  undertake  sampling  are  also  limited 
which means fleet-specific data are not always available at the level of disaggregation specified in 
the FDI data call.  

For all the 5 years, from a total of 2,263,169 rows, there are 288,464 entries with an estimate for 
discards  greater  than  0;  250,471  entries  with  discards  equal  to  0;  and  1,724,234  entries  with 
discards not known (NK code). 

21 

 
 
 
 
Figure  2.2.1:  Uploading  progress:  the  graph  shows  the  number  of  datasets  (i.e.,  files  Excel) 
uploaded over the time period covering the FDI data call and the EWG 20-10.  

Considering  the  landings  for  all  5  years  2015-2019,  from  total  reported  landings  of  26,037,750 
tonnes, only 3,784,983 tonnes of landings had corresponding reported discard estimates  greater 
than  0;  discards  was  reported  equal  to  0  for  3,681,101  tonnes  of  landings;  and  discards  is  not 
known for 18,571,665 tonnes of landings. In Table 2.2.2 the coverage of discards is reported by 
year. 

Table 2.2.2: Discards coverage in Table A.  

Year 

Landings provided 
with discards>0 

Landings provided 
with discards=0 

Landings provided 
with discards=NK 

Landings provided 
total 

2015 

820,068 tonnes 

678,280 tonnes 

3,763,000 tonnes 

5,261,350 tonnes 

2016 

818,367 tonnes 

687,863 tonnes 

3,676,545 tonnes 

5,182,776 tonnes 

2017 

707,731 tonnes 

772,271 tonnes 

3,946,382 tonnes 

5,426,384 tonnes 

2018 

754,208 tonnes 

811,499 tonnes 

3,789,585 tonnes 

5,355,294 tonnes 

2019 

684,608 tonnes 

731,186 tonnes 

3,396,152 tonnes 

4,811,946 tonnes 

Concerning the data on refusal rates requested in Table B: Croatia, Estonia, France, Greece, Italy, 
Netherlands  did  not  provide  this  table  (see  Table  2.2.3).  In  addition,  Lithuania  and  Romania 
provided data with all the variables set to not known (NK value). 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
Table  2.2.3:  List  of  Member  States  that  provided  table  B  with  the  number  of  rows  where  the 
refusal rate variable is 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 listed in the various appendices 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 files provided 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, in Tables A, G, H and I, the consistency between sub-region codes and EEZ indicator 
codes  were  verified;    in  Tables  C  and  D,  the  age  value  was  validated  against  the  min-max  age 
range  provided;  in  tables  D  and  F,  the  length  value  was  validated  against  the  min-max  length 
range provided; and in tables H and I, the format of the c-square was checked. 

In the upload tool, the following check among different tables was provided: during the upload of 
Tables C, D, E, F and K, 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, the 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) 

Comparison of any given metric over the time series (2015-2019). 

In more detail, the following checks were performed and visualized with Tableau: 
 
  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. 
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. 
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. 
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 were as follows: 
  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). 

24 

 
 
 

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). 

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 were 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  20-10 
experts (with access credentials that allowed them to see information about all countries) 

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) 

The data provided by Member States in response to the 2020 FDI data call and incorporated into 
the  FDI  database  hosted  by  the  JRC,  represents  the  most  comprehensive  data  set  currently 
available.  Nevertheless, a limited number of shortfalls in data collection and provision remain.     

The  EWG  was  requested  to  record  all  unresolved  data  transmission  issues  online  via  the  data 
transmission  monitoring  tool  (https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/dcf/dtmt).  However, 
due  to  unresolved  technical  issues,  confounded  by  the  Covid-19  pandemic,  the  DTMT  tool  was 
unavailable.  Hence,  important  data  transmission  issues,  which  the  EWG  considers  require  an 
explanatory  comment  from  Member  States,  were  recorded  in  an  Excel  version  of  the  Data 
Transmission  Monitoring  Tool  (DTMT).  As  far  as  was  practically  possible,  such  issues  were 
reported in accordance with the current guidelines3.  

Since  access  to  data  transmission  issues  must  be  restricted  to  the  relevant  Member  States,  the 
completed Excel template will not be made publically available. DG MARE Unit C3 will be provided 
with the data transmission issues in an Excel template. DG MARE will need to decide how best to 
communicate the data issues to the relevant Member States.  

3.1.2  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 2021 

The  EWG  reviewed  the  outputs  of  the  ad  hoc  contract  (Ref  STECF  2076  –  Ad-hoc  contract  in 
support  of  STECF  EWG  20-10:  Fisheries  Dependent  Information)  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 each anticipated exemption of each discard plan for 2021.   

3 DTMT Guidance version 30052019.docx. The expert group notes that the STECF EWG 20-08 report (pages 
38-41) proposed several modifications to the DTMT guidance and the STECF (PLEN 20-02), stated "STECF 
considers  that  STECF  EWGs  working  with  data  should  continue  working  with  the  current  version  of  the 
DTMT  and  the  DTMT  guidance  document  for  the  time  being.  STECF  PLEN  20-03  should  be  tasked  with 
finalising the DTMT guidance document and providing details of the required technical changes to the DTMT 
web portal to the JRC." 

25 

 
 
                                                 
The  methodology  used  is  appropriate  although  in  a  number  of  cases,  the  estimates  from 
exemptions  were  based  on  a  small  number  of  discard  samples  only  or  in  the  absence  of  any 
appropriate samples, the estimates were derived using extrapolation (so-called ‘fill-ins’).  

Therefore, recalling the obsevations of the EWG 19-11, EWG 20-10 wishes to emphasise that the 
discard estimates are derived using data collected under sampling plans that are not designed to 
provide  data  at  the  level  of  detail  required  to  specifically  address  requests  for  exemptions  from 
the obligation to land all catches. The discard  estimates provided in  Table A are fundamental to 
estimating the expected discard fraction associated with each exemption requests. However, such 
estimates may not be representative of the true level of discarding for those vessels to which an 
exemption is to apply, especially if such vessels were not sampled for discards. In order to ‘fill-in’ 
estimates for fleets that are not sampled for discards,  the available sample data are aggregated 
across  strata.  As  a  result,  in  doing  so,  many  untested  assumptions  have  to  be  made,  such  as 
Member  State  variation  in  species  naming  codes  (e.g.  HOM/JAX)  and  spatial  aggregations  (i.e. 
Nephrops Functional Units). As a consequence and recalling the conclusion of the STECF EWG 17-
12,  such  ‘fill-in  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’.  Hence,  the  estimated  discards  cannot  be  considered  robust,  but  still 
may provide a useful overview to DG MARE. 

EWG  also  analysed  the  sources  of  Member  States  discard  information  (see  Table  3.1.1).  The 
information  from  18  Member  States  was  available  to  the  EWG.  Discard  data  were  derived  from 
scientific sampling programmes by 11 Member States and from logbook information by 2 Member 
States.  5  Member  States  obtained  the  discard  information  from  both  scientific  sampling 
programmes and logbooks and 1 Member State mentioned other sources. The different origin of 
discard  data  means  that  it  is  difficult  to  make  direct  comparisions  between  Member  States. 
Nevertheless,  the  EWG  considers  that  the  discard  information  provided  under  the  FDI  data  call 
should be the best information available and stresses the need for Member States to provide data 
that are representative of the level of discarding and are statistically sound. 

The  EWG  recognises  that  output  from  ad  hoc  contract  (Ref  STECF  2076)  is  a  valuable  planning 
tool for DG MARE, and the EWG endeavoured to provide estimates of catch fractions for as many 
as  possible  exemptions  anticipated  for  2021.    However,  EWG  was  not  able  to  provide  catch 
fractions for exemptions containing operation-specific conditions 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. Therefore, EWG could extract only partial information for some 
exemptions.  

Table  3.1.1:  Source  of  discard  information  used  by  EU  Member  States  to  estimate  discards  for 
Table A. 

Member 
State 
BEL 

Scientific 
sampling 
X 

Logbooks 

Combination 
of both 

Other 

BGR 

CYP 
DUE 
DNK 

ESP 

EST 

FRA 

GRC 

HRV 
IRL 

ITA 

LTU 

LVA 

NLD 

POL 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

26 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Member 
State 
PRT 
SWE 
Sum 

Scientific 
sampling 
X 
X 
11 

Logbooks 

Combination 
of both 

Other 

2 

5 

1 

Member  State  specific  catch  fractions  were  provided  for  the  majority  of  anticipated  2021 
exemptions. Two sets of estimates were computed: 

i) 

ii) 

estimates for exempted fleets for which discard sample data were provided and 

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  3.2.1  and  Annex  2.  Although  results  provide  discard 
estimates  by  exemption,  in  some  cases,  such  estimates  may  at  best  be  imprecise  (see  above) 
and  may  not  be  representative  of  the  true  level  of  discards  of  the  fleets  fishing  under  each 
particular exemption. 

3.1.3  Review data quality checks and produce National methodological chapters 

The  EWG  recognises  the  potential  benefits  of  making  the  the  FDI  database  publicly  available. 
However,  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  that  processes  and  methods  to 
assemble the detailed Table A from the Member States’ sample data be thoroughly investigated 
through  a  dedicated  contract  ahead  of  the  2021  FDI  data  call  (see  section  3.3.1 
Recommendations from EWG).   

The EWG suggests that to ensure that data held in the FDI database are quality assured, in future 
a  dedicated  Expert  Group  meeting  needs  to  be  convened  annually  simply  to  check  the  data 
provided by Member States in response to FDI data calls. 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 undertaken. Hence the EWG 20-10 reiterates its 
suggestion  that  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 related to data submitted to FDI data call are listed in Annex 1. 

27 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
3.2 Provide landings and discards data for exemptions in discard plans 

3.2.1  STECF is asked to provide figures for landings and discards in 2019, 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  2021.  Where  there  is  insufficient 
discard data for the above task, the STECF is asked to provide estimated catches 
(landings + discards) for 2019, if possible and enough data provided during data 
call. 

Discard estimates by exemption – (General – Methodology – Shortcomings – Extraction 
procedure) 

General Conclusions  

While the EWG attempted to provide discard estimates for each anticipated exemption for 2021, 
it  was  not  feasible  to  produce  such  estimates  for  exemptions  that  require  e.g.  detailed  trip  and 
vessel level information (i.e. distance fished from shore and  vessels engine power) which do not 
currently  exist  in  the  FDI  database.  Therefore,  exemptions  were  characterised  in  three  groups; 
yes,  partially  or  no,  based  on  the  feasibility  of  the  EWG  to  extract  the  relevant  data.  In  case  of 
partial data extraction, the part of exemptions which could not be extracted from the data set are 
highlighted in bold red in the summary table below. All results under this ToR must 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  relating  to  the  vessels  to  which  a  proposed  exemption  is  likely  to  apply, 
may be a better option than using data provided to populate the FDI database.  

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  Member  State,  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 the Table A of the FDI data call. 

The variable Domain is used to link the discard estimates in tables C&D  to Table A. The variable 
Domain  is  defined  by  the  Member  State,  and  its  structure  describes  the  raising  procedure  and 
sampling deign used by Member States to estimate discards. The EWG 20-10 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  are 
likely to take advantage of anticipated exemptions from the landing obligation in 2021, based on 
data  provided  for  2019.  The  following  shortcomings  have  to  be  taken  into  account  to  avoid 
misinterpretation of results: 

1. The EWG notes that the data call asked for scientific estimates of discards (see also Table 3.1 
for Member States specific data sources used during 2020 FDI data call).  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 ToR2 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  Member  States  are  not  obliged  to 
sample  these  metiers  according  to  the  national  DCF  sampling  plans.  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 the level of disaggregation requested 
by  FDI.  At  best,  such  estimates  are  likely  to  be  rather  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  requested  in  the  FDI  data  call.      Alternatively, 
official  logbook  information  could  be  used.  However,  for  most  Member  States  and  fisheries,  the 
records of unwanted catch fractions (discards + BMS landings) in logbooks are believed to be an 

28 

 
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  especially  in 
cases  where  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  the  unsampled  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 DR are calculated: 

   if   

 ≥  0    and with   

 + 

 > 0 

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

where  

is null (empty) 

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

For  2019,  the  data  submitted  in  response  to  the  data  call  amounted  to  4,811,946  tonnes  of 
landings,  29.4%  of  which  (1,415,794  tonnes)  were  reported  with  associated  discard  estimates. 
731,186  tonnes  (15.2%  of  the  total  reported  landings)  had  discard  estimates  of  zero  i.e.  no 
discards.  Despite  the  substantial  issues  mentioned  above  and  the  relatively  low  proportion  of 
landings  with  associated  discard  estimates,  the  EWG  took  the  decision  to  provide  the  discard 
information  for  each  exemption  in  2  separate  formats:  with  and  without  fill-ins.  In  most  cases, 
the  fill-ins  do  not  add  a  substantial  amount  of  discard  information  or  increase  the  coverage 
substantially. This again highlights the general issue that for several fisheries under exemptions, 
data  from  sampling  was  not  sufficent  to  provide  discard  estimates,  largely  because  observer 
programs  undertaken  under  DCF  national  sampling  programs  are  not  designed  to  specifically 

29 

 
 
  
   
 
sample fisheries under exemption or are anticipated to avail of a proposed exemption. To provide 
information  about  the  accuracy  of  the  discards  estimates  reported  and  fill-ins,  the  coverage  as 
percentage of landings with discards is provided in the data Tables (Annex 2).     

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  specified for the various  exemptions. 
For example, the mesh size categories specified in the FDI database  often do not exactly match 
those  defined  in  certain  exemptions.  Also  area  definitions  in  exemptions  were  sometimes  too 
detailed (e.g., areas up to a certain longitude or latitude)  to match with 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  are  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 also apply to ToR 2 and 3. 

Extraction procedure 

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

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

3.2.2.1 - 3.2.2.5 for the list of FDI codes associated with exemptions); 

2.  Exceptions  and  their  parts  which  contained  information  that  could  not  be  found  in  the  FDI 
data  call  (i.e  distance  fished  from  shore,  vessel  engine  power)  are  highlight  in  bold  red  in 
the  summary  tables  (Tables  3.2.2.1  -  3.2.2.5).  Those  marked  in  bold  red  were  either  not 
estimated or estimated using partial data while ignoring missing information.  

3.  The data for each exemption were extracted from both the FDI database and the database 

with fill-ins using codes described in the Tables 3.2.2.1-3.2.2.5; 

4.  The information was summarised in two main formats: 

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

exemptions (Annex 2, Tables 1-8) 

b.  Tables  with  FDI  data  reported  and  filled  in  aggregated  by  species  and  subregions 

(Annex 2, Tables 9-13) 

In both sets of tables there are the following columns: 

 

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

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

using fill-ins; 

 

‘Coverage % of total landings reported’  - percentage of total weight of landings for which 
associated  discard  estimates  data  were  reported  under  the  FDI  data  call  and  estimated 
using fill-ins.   

In all Annex 2 Tables the following abbreviations are used: 

  c  –  data  reported  as  confidential  during  the  data  call,  if  there  are  more  than  4  métiers 
which are reported by  a Member State as  confidential, the data are considered not  to be 
confidential after aggregation, as there would be no possibility  to attribute the aggregate 
catches to identify individual vessels; 

  n.a. – not available.

30 

 
3.2.2  Discard estimates by exemption 

The estimated discards for fleets likely to make use of anticipated exemptions to the landing obligation in 2021, the details of the anticipated 
exemptions and associated data availble are given for each region in sections 3.2.2.1 to 3.2.2.5 and in Annex 2 Tables 1-8 

3.2.2.1  Baltic Sea region 

Table 3.2.2.1: The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the Baltic Sea region and the related FDI codes. 

31 

Exzmption ArticlaAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeMesh size FDIVessel lenghtSPECONTarget AssemblageSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRS2018/211,Art3.1Baltic (IIIb-d)Yestrap nets-creels/pots-fyske nets-pound netsFPO-FYK-FPNAllAllAllSalmonSAL-2018/306Baltic (IIIb-d)Yestrap nets-creels/pots-fyske nets-pound netsFPO-FYK-FPNAllAllAllPlaicePLE-Baltic (IIIb-d), 27.3.d.25-27.3.d.30 and 27.3.d.32PartlyAllAllAllAllSalmonSAL60cmBaltic (IIIb-d), 27.3.d.31PartlyAllAllAllAllSalmonSAL50 cm2018/306Baltic (IIIb-d)PartlyAllAllAllAllCodCOD35 cm2018/306Baltic (IIIb-d)PartlyAllAllAllAllPlaicePLE25 cm* MCRS are partly because the extraction is not split up by lenght.20212018/211,Art3(2)SurvivabilityMCRS* 
 
 
3.2.2.2  North Sea region 

Table 3.2.2.2: The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the North Sea region and the related FDI codes. 

32 

Excemption ArticleAreaDescriptionPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeMesh size FDIVessel lenghtSPECONTarget AssemblageSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSJR-xx.2020   Art.11.1II-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-GTNAllAllAllAllSoleSol3%JR-xx.2020   Art.11.2IVDe minimis exemption for fishing vessels using TBB gear 80-119 mm with Flemish panel in the North SeaYesBeam trawlsTBBTBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllTBBFPAllSoleSOL5%JR-xx.2020   Art.11.3IIIaFish bycatch caught in Nephrops targeted trawl fisheryYesBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-TBNOTB-OTT-PTB70-8970S90AllGRID35CRUSole-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.2020   Art.11.4IIIaFish bycatch caught in Northern prawn trawl fishery with sorting grid-with unblocked fish outlet in ICES area 3aYesBottom trawlsOTB-OTTOTB-OTT>3532D80AllGRID19CRUsole-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 whiting90-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllSELTRA>=120120DXXAllJR-xx.2020   Art.11.6IVPlaice by-catches in the Nephrops trawl fishery in combination with a technical measure (use of SepNep)YesBottom trawlsOTB-PTBOTB-OTT-PTB80-9980D100AllSEPNEPCRUPlaicePLE3 % of the total annual catches of saithe-plaice-haddock-whiting-cod-Northern prawn-sole and NephropsJR-xx.2020   Art.11.7IVb-IVcBy-catches in the brown shrimp fishery in the North SeaYesBeam trawlsTBBTBB16D32AllCRUAll species subject to catch limitsUSK-HER-COD-LEZ-MON-ANF-MNZ-ANK-HAD-WHG-HKE-WHB-WIT-LEM-BLI-LIN-PLE-POL-POK-TUR-BLL-GHL-MAC-SOL-SPR-HOM-JAX-NOP-ARG-ARU-NEP-PRA-JAD-JDP-RJA-RJB-RJC-RJE-RJF-RJG-RJH-RJI-RJM-RJN-RJO-RJR-RJU-RJY-SKA-TTO-TTR-SRX-RAJ-RJK6 % of the total catch for all species subject to catch limitsJR-xx.2020   Art.11.8IVLing (Molva molva) for vessels using bottom trawls (OTB,OTT,PTB) with mesh size greater than 120 mm in the North Sea (ICES area 4)YesBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-PTBOTB-OTT-PTB>=120120DXXAllAllLingLIN3 % of the total annual catches of ling JR-xx.2020   Art.11.9IVcWhiting 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-SSC70-9970S90-80D100AllAllWhiting-codWHG-COD5%-maximum of 2% can be used for cod JR-xx.2020   Art.11.10Iva-IvbWhiting and cod for the vessels using bottom trawls or seines (OTB-OTT-SDN-SSC) of mesh size 70-99mm (TR2) in ICES division 4a and 4bYesBottom trawls-demersal seinesOTB-OTT-SDN-SSCOTB-OTT-SDN-SSC70-9970S90-80D100AllAllWhitingWHG4%2021 - Part 1JR-xx.2020   Art.11.5IIIaWhiting caught in bottom trawls 90-119 mm with SELTRA panels and bottom trawls with a mesh size of 120 mm and above in the Skagerrak and the Kattegat (ICES Area 3a)YesBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-TBN-PTBOTB-OTT-PTBAllWhitingWHG2% of the total annual catches of Nephrops-cod-haddock-whiting-saithe-common sole-plaice and hake 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.2.2.2 (continued): The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the North Sea region and the related FDI codes. 

33 

Excemption ArticleAreaDescriptionPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeMesh size FDIVessel lenghtSPECONTarget AssemblageSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSJR-xx.2020   Art.11.11IVWhiting caught by beam trawls 80-119 mm in the North Sea ICES area 4YesBeam trawlsTBBTBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllAllWhitingWHG2% of catches of plaice and soleJR-xx.2020   Art.11.12IVb-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 PartlyPelagic trawls, midwater trawls (up to 25m)OTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllVL0010-VL1012-VL1218-VL1824AllAllHerring-horse mackerel-mackerel-whitingHER-HMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZ-MAC-WHG1% of the total catches of herring-horse mackerel-mackerel-whiting>8080D100-100D110-110D120-120DXXAll>3532D80AllGRID19JR-xx.2020   Art.11.14IVLing (Molva molva) for vessels using longlines (LLS) in the North Sea (ICES area 4)YesLonglinesLLSLLSAllLingLIN3 % of the total annual catches of ling JR-xx.2020   Art.11.15IVb-IVcPelagic species under landing obligation for demersal vessels using bottom trawls (OTB-OTT-PTB) of mesh size 80-99mm (TR2) in the North SeaYesBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-PTBOTB-OTT-PTB80-9980D100AllHorse mackerelHOM-JAX-HMG6% of the total annual catches of horse mackerel JR-xx.2020   Art.11.16IVb-IVcPelagic species under landing obligation for demersal vessels using bottom trawls (OTB-OTT-PTB) of mesh size 80-99mm (TR2) in the North SeaYesBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-PTBOTB-OTT-PTB80-9980D100AllMackerelMAC6% of the total annual catches of mackerel JR-xx.2020   Art.11.17IVPartlyPelagic trawlOTM-PTMAllAllSPF-SLPBlue whitingWHB5 % of the total annual catches of blue whiting2021 - Part 2OTB-OTT-PTB-SDN-SSCJR-xx.2020   Art.11.13IIIa-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 mmYesTrawlsAllDeminimisSprat-sandeel-Norway pout-blue whitingSPR-SAD-NOP-WHB1 % of the total annual catches made in mixed demersal fishery and fishery for Northern prawnOTB-OTM-OTT-PTB-PTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-TB-TBN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.2.2.2 (continued): The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the North Sea region and the related FDI codes. 

34 

Excemption ArticleAreaDescriptionPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeMesh size FDIVessel lenghtSPECONTarget AssemblageSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSJR-xx.2020   Art.3.1.aIIa-IIIa-IVNephrops caught using potsYesPotsFPOFPONANAAllNorway lobsterNEP->8080D100-100D110-110D120-120DXXAllAll->7070S90AllGRID35JR-xx.2020   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 hoursPartlyOtter trawlsOTBOTB80-9980D100VL0010AllSoleSOL-Area IV: USK-HER-COD-LEZ-MON-ANF-MNZ-ANK-HAD-WHG-HKE-WHB-WIT-LEM-BLI-LIN-PLE-POL-POK-TUR-BLL-GHL-MAC-SOL-SPR-HOM-JAX-NOP-ARG-ARU-NEP-PRA-JAD-JDP-RJA-RJB-RJC-RJE-RJF-RJG-RJH-RJI-RJM-RJN-RJO-RJR-RJU-RJY-SKA-TTO-TTR-SRX-RAJ-RJKArea IIIa: USK-HER-COD-HAD-WHG-HKE-WHB-BLI-LIN-PLE-POL-POK-MAC-SOL-SPR-NOP-ARG-ARU-NEP-PRA-RJK-RAJ-SRX-SKA-JAD-JDP-RJA-RJB-RJC-RJE-RJF-RJG-RJH-RJI-RJM-RJN-RJO-RJR-RJU-RJY-TTO-TTRJR-xx.2020   Art.6.1.aCatch of plaice by vessels using nets in ICES areas 3a and 4YesNetsGNS-GTR-GTN-GENGNS-GTR-GTNAllAllAllPlaicePLE-JR-xx.2020   Art.6.1.bCatch of plaice by vessels using Danish seine in ICES areas 3a and 4YesDanish seineSDNSDNAllAllPlaicePLE-JR-xx.2020   Art.6.1.c.iCatch 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>=120120DXXAllAllPlaicePLE-JR-xx.2020   Art.6.1.c.iiIIIaCatch of plaice with trawls (OTB-PTB) with mesh size 90-119 mm with Seltra panel targetting flatfish and roundfish  in ICES areas 3aYesTrawlsOTB-PTBOTB-OTT-PTB90-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllSELTRAAllPlaicePLE-JR-xx.2020   Art.6.1.c.iiiIVCatch of plaice with trawls (OTB-PTB) with mesh size 80-119 mm targetting flatfish and roundfish  in ICES areas 4YesTrawlsOTB-PTBOTB-OTT-PTB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllAllPlaicePLE-AllSurvivabilityAll TAC-species-FPO-FYKFPO-FYKNANAAllJR-xx.2020   Art.5IIIa-IVSurvivability of fish by-catches in pots (creels) and fyke netsYesPots and fyke netsBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-TBNOTB-OTT-PTBAllAllNorway lobsterNEP2021 - Part 3IIIa-IVNephrops caught by demersal trawls with a cod end larger than 80mm (70mm/35mm)YesJR-xx.2020   Art.3.1.b.i & iiIIa-IIIa-IV 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.2.2.2 (continued): The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the North Sea region and the related FDI codes. 

35 

Excemption ArticleAreaDescriptionPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeMesh size FDIVessel lenghtSPECONTarget AssemblageSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSJR-xx.2020   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 kWPartlyBeam trawlsTBBTBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllAllPlaicePLE-JR-xx.2020   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 FisheriesNo ( included in JR-xx 2020.Art.7.1.a)Beam trawlsTBBTBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllAllPlaicePLE-JR-xx.2020   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 trawlsTBBTBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllAllPlaicePLE-JR-xx.2020   Art.8IVSurvival exemption  for turbot caught by  beam trawls with a cod end larger than 80mm in ICES area 4YesBeam trawlsTBBTBB>8080D100-100D110-110D120-120DXXAllAllTurbotTUR-JR-xx.2020   Art.9IIa-IIIa-IVskates and rays caught by all fishing gears in the North Sea (areas 4-3a and EU waters of 2a)YesAllAllAllAllAllAllAllSkates and raysJAD-JDP-RJA-RJB-RJC-RJE-RJF-RJG-RJH-RJI-RJM-RJN-RJO-RJR-RJU-RJY-SKA-TTO-TTR-SRX-RAJ-RJK-JR-xx.2020   Art.10IIa-IIIa-IVSurvival exemption for mackerel and herring in purse seine fisheries in ICES area 2a,3a and 4 with several operational measuresPartlyPurse seineSDN-SPR-SSC-SVAllAllAllAllMackerel-herringMAC-HER-2021 - Part 4Survivability 
 
 
 
3.2.2.3  North Western Waters 

Table 3.2.2.3: The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the North Western Waters region and the related FDI codes. 

36 

Exemption Article AreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeLegislation mesh size Mesh size regulationVessel lenghtSPECONTarget AssemblageSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSyesBottom trawls , SeinesOTB-OTT-OT-PTB-PT-SSC-SDN-SPR-SX-SV-TBN-TBS-TB-TXOTB-OTT-PTB-SDN-SPR-SSC-SV-SB>8080D100-100D110-110D120 -120DXXAllAllAllWhitingWHG5yesPelagic trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllAllAllAllWhitingWHG5yesBeam trawlBT2TBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllAllAllWhitingWHG5XX/2020 Article 13.1.bVIId-gyesTrammel and gill netsGN-GNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTR-GEN-GNFGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAllAllAllAllSoleSOL3XX/2020 Article 13.1.cVIId-hyesBeam trawlTBBTBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllTBBFPAllSoleSOL3XX/2020 Article 13.1.d.iPartlyBottom trawls , Seines, less then 30% NephropsOTB-OTT-OT-PTB-PT-SSC-SDN-SPR-SX-SVOTB-OTT-PTB-SDN-SPR-SSC-SV-SB>100100D110-110D120 -120DXXAllAllAllHaddockHAD5XX/2020 Article 13.1.d.iiPartlyBottom trawls , Seines, more then 30% Nephrops OTB-OTT-PTB-SDN-SPR-SSC-SV-SB>8080D100-100D110-110D120 -120DXXAllAllAllHaddockHAD5XX/2020 Article 13.1.d.iiiyesBeam trawl with Flemish panelTBBTBB>8080D100-100D110-110D120 -120DXXAllTBBFPAllHaddockHAD5PlaicePLE0.85WhitingWHG0.15XX/2020 Article 13.1.fVIIb-c and VIIf-kyesBottom trawlsOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTB-OTT-PTBAllAllAllAllAllBoarfishBOR-BOC-ZAC-ZAI-EVI-PZH-RIG-SWH-ENV-EMV-ZAL0.5XX/2020 Article 13.1.gVII (specific area's)PartlyBeam trawlBT2TBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllAllAllMegrimMEG-LDB-LEZ4XX/2020 Article 13.1.g.iVIIf-g, part of 7hyesBottom trawls, more 55% whiting or 55% anglerfish, hake or megrim combinedOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTB-OTT-PTB70-9980D100-70D80AllAllAllMegrimMEG-LDB-LEZ4XX/2020 Article 13.1.g.iiVIIa-e, VIIkyesBottom trawlsOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTB-OTT-PTB70-9980D100-70D80AllAllAllMegrimMEG-LDB-LEZ4DeminimisXX/2020 Article 13.1.eVIIaYesBeam trawl, targetting brown shrimp with mesh size equal to or greater than 31 mmTBBTBB>3132D80-70D80-80D100-100D110-110D120 - 120DXXAllAllCRUVIIb-c and VIIe-k2021 - part 1XX/2020 Article 13.1.aVIIb-k 
 
 
Table  3.2.2.3  (continued):  The  anticipated  exemptions  for  discard  plans  for  2021  in  the  North  Western  Waters  region  and  the  related  FDI 
codes. 

37 

Exemption Article AreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeLegislation mesh size Mesh size regulationVessel lenghtSPECONTarget AssemblageSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSXX/2020 Article 13.1.hVIIayesBeam trawl with Flemish panelBT2TBB80-11980D100-100D110-110D120AllTBBFPAllSoleSOL3XX/2020 Article 13.1.iVb-VIPartly (0.6% of catches from all gears)Bottom trawlsOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTB-OTT-PTB>100100D110, 110D120, 120DXXAllAllAllGreat silver smeltARG-ARU-ARY0.6XX/2020 Article 13.1.jyesBottom trawls , Seines, beam trawlsOTB-OTT-OT-PTB-PT-SSC-SDN-SPR-SX-SV-TBB-TBN-TBS-TB-TXOTB-OTT-PTB-SDN-SPR-SSC-SV-SB-TBBAllAllAllAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZ3XX/2020 Article 13.1.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-SB-TBBAllAllAllAllAllMakerelMAC3XX/2020 Article 13.1.lVIaPartlyBottom trawls, with one of the following selective gears: square mesh panel 300 mm; 200 mm and vessel > 12 m; Seltra panel; Sorting grid 35 mm; CEFAS-netgrid;Flip-flap trawlOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TBOTB-OTT-PTB<11932D70 - 70D80 - 80D100-100D110-110D120AllGRID35-TBBFP-SELTRA-NETGRID-SEPNEPAllHaddockHAD3XX/2020 Article 13.1.mVb-VI-VIIyespelagic trawlsOTM-PTMAllAllAllAllAllBlue whitingWHBXX/2020 Article 13.1.nVIIyesmidwater pair trawlPTMPTMAllAllAllAllAllAlbacore tunaALByesAllMackerelMACyesAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZyesAllHerringHERyesAllWhitingWHGDeminimisVI and VIIb-k2021 - part 25XX/2020 Article 13.1.oVIIdPelagic trawls, midwater trawls (up to 25m)OTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllVL0010-VL1012-VL1218-VL1824All1 
 
 
Table 3.2.2.3 (continued): The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the North Western Waters region and the related FDI 
codes.

38 

Exemption Article AreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeLegislation mesh size Mesh size regulationVessel lenghtSPECONTarget AssemblageSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSXX/2020 Article 3.1.aVI-VIIYesPots,traps,creelFPO-FIX-FYKFPO-FPN-FYKAllAllAllAllAllNorway LobsterNEP-XX/2020 Article 3.1.bVIIYesBottom trawlsOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTB-OTT-PTB>100100D110, 110D120, 120DXXAllAllAllNorway LobsterNEP-XX/2020 Article 3.1.cVIIPartlyBottom trawls, with one of the following selective gears: square mesh panel 300 mm; 200 mm and vessel > 12 m; Seltra panel; Sorting grid 35 mm; 100 mm cod-end, dual cod-end < 90 mm/300 mmOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTB-OTT-PTB70-9970D80-80D100AllGRID35-TBBFP-SELTRA-NETGRID-SEPNEP-T90AllNorway LobsterNEP-XX/2020 Article 3.1.dVIa - within 12 NMNoOtter trawlsOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTT-OTB-OTM80-11080D100,100D110AllAllAllNorway LobsterNEP-XX/2020 Article 3.2Celtic protection zone (BSA)PartlyBottom trawls, with one of the following selective gears: square mesh panel 300 mm; 200 mm and vessel > 12 m; Seltra panel; Sorting grid 35 mm; 100 mm cod-end, dual cod-end < 90 mm/300 mmGRID35-SELTRA-NETGRID-SEPNEP-T90All-XX/2020 Article 3.3VIIaPartlyBottom trawls, with one of the following selective gears: square mesh panel 300 mm; 200 mm and vessel > 12 m; Seltra panel; Sorting grid 35 mm; CEFAS-netgrid;Flip-flap trawlGRID35-TBBFP-SELTRA-NETGRID-SEPNEPAllXX/2020 Article 4.1.a,bVIIdNoOtter trawls, within 6 nautical miles, max power 221kW, max 10 m, depth 30m, duration 1:30 hOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTT-OTB-OTM80-9980D100VL0010AllAllSoleSOL-XX/2020 Article 5VI-VIIYesAllAllAllAllAllAllAllAllSkates & raysSRX-JAD-JDP-RJA-RJB-RJC-RJE-RJF-RJG-RJH-RJI-RJM-RJN-RJO-RJR-RJU-RJY-SKA-TTO-TTR-XX/2020 Article 6.1.aYesTrammel netsGTR-GTN-GEN-GNGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAllAllAllAllPlaicePLE-XX/2020 Article 6.1.bYesOtter trawlsOTT,OTB,TBS,TBN,TB,PTB,OT,PT,TXOTT-OTB-OTMAllAllAllAllAllPlaicePLE-XX/2020 Article 6.1.cVIIa-VIIgPartlyBeam trawl, max power 221 kW, flip-up or bentic panelTBBTBBAllAllAllSELTRA-GRID35AllPlaicePLE-XX/2020 Article 6.1.dVIIa-VIIgPartlyBeam trawl, max power 221 kW, or max 24m, within 12 nm, duration 1:30 hTBBTBBAllAllAllAllAllPlaicePLE-XX/2020 Article 6.1.eVIIdYesDanish seinesSDNSDNAllAllAllAllAllPlaicePLE-XX/2020 Article 7V (excl Va)-Vb-VI-VIIYesPots,traps,creelFPO-FIX-FYKFPO-FPN-FYKAllAllAllAllAllAll--XX/2020 Article 8VIYesPurse seine  with several operational measuresSDN-SPR-SSC-SVAllAllAllAllAllMackerel-herringMAC-HER-AllNorway LobsterNEPSurvivabilityOTT-OTB-TBS-TBN-TB-PTB-OT-PT-TXOTB-OTT-PTB70-9970D80-80D100VIId,VIIe,VIIf and VIIg 2020 - part 3 
 
3.2.2.4  South Western Waters 
Table  3.2.2.4:  The  anticipated  exemptions  for  discard  plans  for  2021  in  the  South  Western  Waters  region  and  the  related  FDI 
codes.

39 

Excemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeMesh size FDIVessel lenghtSPECONTarget AssemblageSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSXX/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-SV-SBAllAllAllAllAll5XX/2019 Article 6.1.lyesGillnetsGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAllAll3XX/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-SV-SBAllAllAllAllAll5XX/2019 Article 6.1.ryesGillnetsGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAllAll2XX/2020 Article 14.1.aVIII-IXyesTrawls and seinesOTM-PTM-OTT-OTB-PTB-OT-PT-TBN-TBS-TX-SSC-SPR-TB-SDN-SX-SVOTT-OTB-PTB-OTM-PTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-SV-SBAllAllAllAllAllHakeHKE5XX/2020 Article 14.1.byesPelagic trawls, beam and bottom trawlsOTM-PTM-TBB-OTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TXOTM-PTM-TBB-OTB-OTT-PTBAllAllAllAllAll5XX/2020 Article 14.1.cyesTrammel and gill netsGNS-GN-GND-GNC-GTN-GTR-GENGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAllAll3XX/2020 Article 14.1.dXyesHooks and linesLHM-LHP-LLD-LLSLHM-LHP-LLD-LLSAllAllAllAllAllAlfonsinosALF-BRX5XX/2020 Article 14.1.eVIII-IXyesBeam trawls, bottom trawls and seinesOTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TX-SSC-SPR-SDN-SX-SVTBB-OTT-OTB-PTB-SDN-SPR-SSC-SV-SBAllAllAllAllAll5XX/2020 Article 14.1.fVIII-IX-X-CECAF 34.1.1-34.1.2-34.2.0yesGillnetsGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAllAll3XX/2020 Article 14.1.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-SV-SBAllAllAllAllAllMackerelMAC5XX/2020 Article 14.1.hVIII-IX-CECAF 34.1.1-34.1.2-34.2.0yesGillnetsGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAllAllMackerelMAC3XX/2020 Article 14.1.iyesBeam trawls, bottom trawls and seinesOTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TX-SSC-SPR-SDN-SX-SVTBB-OTT-OTB-PTB-OTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-SVAllAllAllAllAll5XX/2020 Article 14.1.jyesGillnetsGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAllAll4XX/2020 Article 14.1.KyesPelagic trawls, beam, bottom trawls and seinesOTM-PTM-TBB-OTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TX-SSC-SPR-SDN-SX-SVOTM-PTM-TBB-OTB-OTT-PTB-SDN-SPR-SSC-SV-SBAllAllAllAllAll5XX/2020 Article 14.1.LyesGillnetsGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAllAll4DeminimisPollackPOLPlaicePLEVIII-IXVIII-IXAnglerfishMON-ANK-ANG-MVA-MVO-MVJ-MVN-MNZ-LHS-LHU-KZZ-IDZ-IVV-ANFMegrimMEG-LDB-LEZ2021 part 1VIIIa-VIIIbSoleSOLHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZ 
 
Table  3.2.2.4  (continued):  The  anticipated exemptions  for  discard  plans  for  2021  in  the  South  Western  Waters  region  and  the  related  FDI 
codes. 

40 

Excemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeMesh size FDIVessel lenghtSPECONTarget AssemblageSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSXX/2020 Article 14.1.myesPelagic trawls, beam, bottom trawls and seinesOTM-PTM-TBB-OTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TX-SSC-SPR-SDN-SX-SVOTM-PTM-TBB-OTB-OTT-PTB-SDN-SPR-SSC-SV-SBAllAllAllAllAll5XX/2020 Article 14.1.nyesGillnetsGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRGNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAllAll4XX/2020 Article 14.1.oVIII-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-SV-SBAllAllAllAllAllAnchovyANE5XX/2020 Article 14.1.pIXa in Gulf of CadizNoBeam trawls, bottom trawls and seinesOTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TX-TB-SSC-SPR-SDN-SX-SVTBB-OTT-OTB-PTB-OTM-PTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-SV-SBAllAllAllAllAllRed seabreamSBR5XX/2020 Article 14.1.qIXa in Gulf of CadizNoBeam trawls, bottom trawls and seinesOTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TX-TB-SSC-SPR-SDN-SX-SVTBB-OTT-OTB-PTB-OTM-PTM-SDN-SPR-SSC-SV-SBAllAllAllAllAllSoleSOL1XX/2020 Article 14.1.ryesIndustrial pelagic trawl fishery using midwater trawls and midwater pair trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllAllAllSPF-SLPBlue whitingWHB5XX/2020 Article 14.1.syesMidwater trawls and midwater pair trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTMAllAllAllAllAllAlbacore tunaALB5XX/2020 Article 14.1.tAllAllAllAllAllAnchovyANEXX/2020 Article 14.1.tAllAllAllAllAllMackerelMACXX/2020 Article 14.1.tAllAllAllAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZXX/2020 Article 14.1.uyesPSPSAllAllAllAllAllAnchovyANE1XX/2020 Article 14.1.uyesPSPSAllAllAllAllAllMackerelMACXX/2020 Article 14.1.uyesPSPSAllAllAllAllAllHorse mackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZDeminimisVIIIWhitingWHG2021 part 2VIIIyesPelagic trawlsOTM-PTMOTM-PTM4VIII-IX-X-CECAF 34.1.1-34.1.2-34.2.0Purse seines4 
 
Table  3.2.2.4  (continued):  The  anticipated exemptions  for  discard  plans  for  2021  in  the  South  Western  Waters  region  and  the  related  FDI 
codes. 

41 

Excemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeMesh size FDIVessel lenghtSPECONTarget AssemblageSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRS2018/188 Article 2no-SBAllAllAllAllAllAnchovyANE-2018/188 Article 2no-SBAllAllAllAllAllHorse MackerelHMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZ-2018/188 Article 2no-SBAllAllAllAllAllJack MackerelJAA-2018/188 Article 2no-SBAllAllAllAllAllMackerelMAC-DA XX/2020 Article 9VIII-IXyesBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-PTB-TBN-TBS-TBB-OT-PT-TXOTB-OTT-PTB-OTM-PTM-TBBAllAllAllAllAllNorway LobsterNEP-DA XX/2020 Article 10.1VIII-IXyesAll-AllAllAllAllAllAllSkates & raysSRX-JAD-JDP-RJA-RJB-RJC-RJE-RJF-RJG-RJH-RJI-RJM-RJN-RJO-RJR-RJU-RJY-SKA-TTO-TTR-DA XX/2020 Article 10.4.aVIII-IXyesTrammel nets-GNS-GND-GNC-GTN-GTRAllAllAllAllAllCukoo rayRJN-DA XX/2020 Article 10.4.bVIIIyesBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-PTB-OTM-PTM-TBBAllAllAllAllAllCukoo rayRJN-IXaNoArtisanal gear voracera-SBAllAllAllAllAllRed seabreamSBR-VIII-IXa-XyesHooks and linesLHM-LHP-LLD-LLSLHM-LHP-LLD-LLS-LTLAllAllAllAllAllRed seabreamSBR-DA XX/2020 Article 12VIII-IX-X-CECAF 34.1.1-34.1.2-34.2.0noPurse seine with net not fully taken on boardPSSDN-SPR-SSC-SVAllAllAllAllAllAnchovy- horse mackerel - mackerelANE-HMM-JAX-HOM-HMC-HMZ-HMG-TUZ-MAC-2021 part 3SurvivabilityVIII-IX-X-CECAF 34.1.1-34.1.2-34.2.0Artisanal purse seineDA XX/2020 Article 11 
 
 
 
3.2.2.5  Mediterranean Sea 

Table 3.2.2.5: The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the Mediterranian Sea region and the related FDI 
codes.

42 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRSyesBottom 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-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 shrimpDPS686/2017, Article (4) cSouth-eastern Mediterranean Sea (GSA14-GSA15-GSA16-GSA19-GSA20-GSA21-GSA22-GSA23-GSA24-GSA25-GSA26-GSA27)yesTrawl netsDTSOTB-OTT-PTB-OTMAllAllHakeHKE686/2017, Article 4 (c) iSouth-eastern Mediterranean Sea (GSA14-GSA15-GSA16-GSA19-GSA20-GSA21-GSA22-GSA23-GSA24-GSA25-GSA26-GSA27)686/2017, Article 4 (c) ii1Deminimis86/2017, Article 4 (b) iii1Adriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)86/2017, Article 4 (b) iAdriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)686/2017, Article 4 (b) iiAdriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)186/2017, 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) 312021 - Part 1 
 
Table 3.2.2.5 (continued): The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the Mediterranian Sea region and the related FDI codes. 

43 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSpeciesSpecies 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-TUZ2021 - Part 2Deminimis161/2018 Article 3(1) Annex II (1)South Eastern Mediterranean Sea GSA15 GSA16 GSA19 GSA20 GSA22 GSA23, GSA255161/2018 Article 3(1) Annex II (2)South Eastern Mediterranean Sea GSA 255161/2018 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) 
 
 
 
Table 3.2.2.5 (continued): The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the Mediterranian Sea region and the related FDI 
codes.

44 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSpeciesSpecies 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 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-TUZDeminimis161/2018 Article 3 (2) Annex VISouthern Adriatic Sea and Ionian Sea (GSA18-GSA19-GSA20)3161/2018 Article 3(2) Annex IVMalta Island and South of Sicily (GSA15-GSA16)3161/2018 Article 3(2) Annex VSouthern Agean Sea and Crete Island (GSA22-GSA23)3Adriatic Sea (GSA17)2021 - Part 3161/2018 Article 3(1) Annex III (1)Adriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)5161/2018 Article 3(1) Annex III (2) 
 
 
Table 3.2.2.5 (continued): The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the Mediterranian Sea region and the related FDI 
codes.

45 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSpeciesSpecies 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 seabreamSBG2021 - Part 4DeminimisGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAll3AllAll5OTB-OTT-PTB4/2020, 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 netsDFN4/2020, Article 4 (1,a,iii) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)yesBottom trawlsDTS 
 
 
Table 3.2.2.5 (continued): The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the Mediterranian Sea region and the related FDI codes. 

46 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSpeciesSpecies 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 shrimpDPSDeminimis2021 - Part 5AllAll5OTB-OTT-PTB4/2020, Article 4 (1,b,v) of 86/2017Adriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)yesBottom trawlsOTB-OTT-PTBAllAll5AllAll1LHM-LHP-LLD-LLS4/2020, Article 4 (1,a,vi) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)yesBottom trawlsDTS4/2020, Article 4 (1,a,v) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)yesHooks, lines 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.2.2.5 (continued): The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the Mediterranian Sea region and the related FDI 
codes.

47 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSpeciesSpecies 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-TUZ2021 - Part 6DeminimisOTB-OTT-PTBAllAll5AllAll1LHM-LHP-LLD-LLS4/2020, Article 4 (1,a,vi) of 86/2017Adriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)yesBottom trawlsDTS4/2020, Article 4 (1,b,vii) of 86/2017Adriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)yesHooks, linesGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAll34/2020, Article 4 (1,b,vi) of 86/2017Adriatic Sea (GSA17-GSA18)yesGill nets and and trammel netsDFN 
 
Table 3.2.2.5 (continued): The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the Mediterranian Sea region and the related FDI codes. 

48 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSpeciesSpecies 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 seabreamSBG2021 - Part 7DeminimisGND-GNS-GNC-GTR-GTNAllAll3AllAll5OTB-OTT-PTB4/2020, 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 netsDFN4/2020, Article 4 (1,c,iv) of 86/2017South-eastern Mediterranean Sea (GSA14-GSA15-GSA16-GSA19-GSA20-GSA21-GSA22-GSA23-GSA24-GSA25-GSA26-GSA27)yesBottom trawls 
 
 
Table 3.2.2.5 (continued): The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the Mediterranian Sea region and the related FDI codes. 

49 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSpeciesSpecies 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-TUZ2021 - Part 8DeminimisOTB-OTT-PTBAllAll5AllAll14/2020, Article 4 (1,c,vii) of 86/2017South-eastern Mediterranean Sea (GSA14-GSA15-GSA16-GSA19-GSA20-GSA21-GSA22-GSA23-GSA24-GSA25-GSA26-GSA27)yesBottom trawlsDTS4/2020, 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-LLS 
 
 
Table 3.2.2.5 (continued): The anticipated exemptions for discard plans for 2021 in the Mediterranian Sea region and the related FDI codes. 

50 

Exemption ArticleAreaPossible or notFishing TechniquesGear codeFDI gear codeMesh sizeVessel lenghtSpeciesSpecies codesProcent/MCRS153/2018, Article 3 (1. a) of 86/2017GSA17-GSA18YesBeam 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)YesMechanised 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)YesMechanised 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)YesMechanised dredgesHMDHMDAllAllVenus shellsCLV-04/2020, Article 3.1Italian territorial waters in GSA9-GSA10-GSA17-GSA18YesHydraulic 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)Yesbottom trawlsOTB, OTT, PTB, TBN, TBS, TB, OT, PT, TXOTB-OTT-PTBAllAllNorway LobsterNEP-04/2020, Article 3 (1. g) of 86/2017Western Mediterranean Sea (GSA1-GSA2-GSA5-GSA6-GSA7-GSA8-GSA9-GSA10-GSA11.1-GSA11.2-GSA12)Yeshooks, linesLHP, LHM, LLS, LLD, LL, LTL, LXLHM-LHP-LLD-LLSAllAllRed SeabreamSBR-04/2020, 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)Yesnets, pots and trapsGNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN, FPO, FIXAllAllAllLobsterLBE-04/2020, 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)Yesnets, pots and trapsGNS, GN, GND, GNC, GTN, GTR, GEN, FPO, FIXAllAllAllCrawfishVLO-Survavability2021 - Part 9 
 
 
3.2.3  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 2021 

Estimaton method and assumptions 

Estimation of the proportion of fish above and below the MCRS by species, country, métier, year 
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 the landings is displayed in Table F. Similarly, if discards have been sampled, 
a domain_discards is associated and the length structure of the discards displayed in Table D. 

Discard  and  Landings  length  structure  are  then  provided  by  domain  and  the  spatial/temporal 
resolution  of  these  domains  are  country/fishery  dependent  and  are  specific  to  the  national 
sampling programs. Domains were created to reflect the sampling programs of each country and 
to  provide  the  best  scientific  estimates  of  the  length  structure  of  the  landings/discards.  In  most 
cases  a  domain  will  then  aggregate  métier  and/or  areas  and/or  quarter  and/or  mesh  sizes  from 
Table  A.  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 the following calculations is that the length structure of 
landings and discards for line 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.  

But the landings and discards weight reported in Table A are the reference figures from which the 
percentage above and below MCRS shoud be computed.  

Computation of numbers of individual fish above and below MCRS by species, country, year, area, 
and métier can be divided in the following steps: 

1.  Compute the proportion of fish [in number and weight] at length for a standardized unit of 

landings in Table F and a unit of discard in Table D; 

2.  Compute weights at length discarded/landed: multiply the totwghtlandg by these 

proportions at length of landings for each corresponding strata in Table A [and respectively 
discards by the proportions at length of discards]; 

3.  Define if the length is under or above the MCRS using the reference tables [by 

species/area]; 

4.  Sum the weight of fishes under and above MCRS over "country_code", "year","area", 

"metier","species", "testMCRS". 

As not all métiers in Table A are associated to a domain, the total length structure of the catches 
cannot be computed and estimates above and below MCRS depend upon the number of domains 
provided and the number of samples in each domain and  how representative the samples are of 
each  domain.  A  “quality”  column  is  added  to  the  export  files  computing  the  percentage  of 
landings  and  discards  in  Table  A  covered  by  landings  length  samples  in  Table  D  and  discards 
length  samples  in  Table  F.  In  fact  the  merge  of  country,  year,  area,  and  métier  might  cover 
several  lines  in  Table  A  for  which  some  might  have  domains  [landings  and  discards]  associated 
and other might not have domains associated. A full sampling landing coverage [100%] will then 
mean  that  all  lines  in  Table  A  for  a  given  country,  year,  area,  and  métier  strata  had  domain 
associated in Table F [i.e. Table D for discards]. Conversely, a value under 100% in landing [i.e. 
discard  coverage]  means  that  some  lines  aggregated  had  no  domain  associated  in  Table  F  [i.e. 
Table D]. 

51 

 
 
 
Step  1:  compute  the  proportion  of  fish  [in  number  and  weight]  at  length  for  a 
standardized unit of landings in Table F and a unit of discard in Table D 

Table F: 

Table D: 

Step 2: Compute weights at length discarded/landed 

Merge Table A and D by domain_discard [Table AD]: 

Merge Table A and F by domain landings [Table AF]: 

*

*

*

*

Step 3: Define if the length is under or above the MCRS 

Merge Tables AD and AF and MCRS reference table and define if lengths are under or above MCRS 

Step 4: Compute the proportion above and under MCRS 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

Example: 

Figure 3.2.3.1 and Table 3.2.3.1 represent the distribution of the catches in Table A in weight and 
number  by  species  and  category  (landings/discards  above/under  MCRS  or  without  length 
samples)  for  the  Belgian  fleets  fishing  in  the  North  Sea  with  Beam  Trawl  using  a  mesh  size 
between 70 and 99 mm between 2015 and 2019. 

53 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3.2.3.1: Estimated catch categories above and below MCRS in weight (tonnes) by species 
and year [from Table A] for the Belgian  beam  trawl fleet using  a mesh size between 70 and  99 
mm  

Table 3.2.3.1: Estimated catch categories above and below MCRS in number by species and year 
[from Table A] for the Belgian beam trawl fleet using a mesh size between 70 and 99 mm  

country_code year  Area Metier 

species Percentage 

Diacarded 
Above 
number) 

BEL 

2018 NS  TBB_DEF_70-

COD  1 

99_0_0 

BEL 

2018 NS  TBB_DEF_70-

HKE 

63 

99_0_0 

BEL 

2018 NS  TBB_DEF_70-

LEZ 

15 

99_0_0 

BEL 

2018 NS  TBB_DEF_70-

PLE 

2 

99_0_0 

BEL 

2018 NS  TBB_DEF_70-

SOL 

1 

99_0_0 

BEL 

2019 NS  TBB_DEF_70-

HKE 

66 

99_0_0 

BEL 

2019 NS  TBB_DEF_70-

LEZ 

19 

99_0_0 

BEL 

2019 NS  TBB_DEF_70-

PLE 

7 

99_0_0 

BEL 

2019 NS  TBB_DEF_70-

SOL 

27 

99_0_0 

Results 

Percentage 
discarded 
Under 
number) 

(in 

Percentage 
landed Above 
(in number) 

(in 

Percentage 
landed 
Under 
number) 

(in 

Discarded 
Sampled 

Landed 
Sampled 

4 

17 

1 

50 

12 

19 

2 

93 

73 

95 

20 

83 

48 

85 

16 

79 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

92 

45 

35 

32 

29 

100 

100 

100 

50 

100 

0 

100 

0 

Estimated proportions of landings and discards in weight and number by species and area at the 
level of aggregation corresponding to the fleet, area and gear type are given in Annex 3. 

3.3  Produce  dissemination  tables  and  maps  of  spatial  effort  and  landings  by  c-

squares 

3.3.1  Discuss and agree the format of the biological data (FDI Tables C, D, E and F) and 

of the refusal rate data to be publicly disseminated (FDI Table B) 

The data submitted in response to the FDI data call are available to DG MARE and STECF expert 
groups  but  remain  the  property  of  Member  States.  Member  States  also  have  the  right  to  mark 
certain  data  records  as  confidential,  specifically  data  records  in  Tables  A,  G  H  and  I  of  the  data 
call. As discussed at the 2019 FDI meeting (STECF 19-11), there is a need to develop an agreed 
standard method for combining the biological parameters in Tables C, D, E and F with Table A in 
order that estimates of the age and length composition of catches (landings and discards) can be 
made publically available, but at the same time ensure confidentiality is maintained. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
Biological data (tables C, D, E and F) 

The biological data submitted in Tables C, D, E and F are summarized as:  

Table C: Discards age data. Number by age, species, country, year, domain and for Nephrops the 
functional  units.  In  addition,  information  is  reported  on  total  weight  of  discards,  number  of 
samples, number of age measurements, mean weight and mean length. 

Table  D:  Discards  length  data.  Number  by  length,  species,  country,  year,  domain  and  for 
Nephrops  the  functional  units.  In  addition,  information  is  reported  on  total  weight  of  discards, 
number of samples, number of length measurement and mean weight at length. 

Table E: Landings age data. Number by age, species, country, year, domain and for Nephrops the 
functional  units.  In  addition,  information  is  reported  on  total  weight  of  landings,  number  of 
samples, number of age measurements, mean weight and mean length. 

Table  F:  Landings  length  data.  Number  by  length,  species,  country,  year,  domain  and  for 
Nephrops  the  functional  units.  In  addition,  information  is  reported  on  total  weight  of  landings, 
number of samples, number of length measurement and mean weight at length. 

The tables are designed to report the age and length data by the domains corresponding to the 
national data sampling. The domains are country-specific but can include information on quarter, 
sub-region,  métier,  vessel  length  and  species.  The  domain  code  is  also  included  in  Table  A  to 
enable disaggregation of the biological data to the level reported in  Table A. Therefore, to report 
the biological information by area and métier, the Tables C, D, E and F need to be combined in a 
standardized  way  with  Table  A  by  domain,  year  and  species,  to  enable  disaggregation  to  e.g. 
areas  and  métiers.  It  has  not  been  possible  to  develop  a  standard  method  for  combining  the 
tables  during  the  EWG  20-10,  so  before  the  biological  data  can  be  published,  such  a  standard 
method needs to be developed, building on the script developed for MCRS analysis. As suggested 
by previous FDI EWGs, the development of the method could be done under an ad-hoc contract, 
and the outputs reviewed and quality checked by the 2021 FDI EWG (see recommendation below 
and previous reports). 

After  developing  an  agreed  standard  method  to  combine  the  tables  referred  to  above,  the  EWG 
proposes that the following outputs be made public: 

  Relative  length  distribution  by  year,  quarter,  species,  area  and  métier.  Separately  for 

landings and discards. 

  Relative  age  distribution  by  year,  quarter,  species,  area,  métier.  Separately  for  landings 

and discards 

The output products should be reviewed by the FDI EWG to decide if they should be published by 
country  or  aggregated  over  countries.  In  some  cases  there  can  be  differences  in  length 
distribution  sampling  results  between  countries  within  the  same  area.  Also,  inconsistencies  of 
métiers for similar fisheries between the countries might affect the output.     

The  length  and  age  distributions  should  be  published  as  tables  and  could  be illustrated  with  bar 
charts or bar plots. 

Recognizing the need to devote additional time and expertise to further improve data quality and 
utility and to ensure appropriate dissemination of FDI data, the EWG recommends the following 
actions in 2021: 

1- Data  dissemination ad hoc contract: To  realise the full potential of the FDI database as a 
tool  to  inform  fisheries  management,  there  is  a  need  to  ensure  that  the  data  can  be  made 
available  to  potential  users.  Furthermore,  to  ensure  appropriate  use  of  such  data,  any 
limitations  need  to  be  clearly  pointed  out.  For  example,  to  date,  it  has  not  been  possible  to 
disseminate biological data (e.g. length and age compositions of landings and discards) via the 
data dissemination tool provided by the JRC. Detailed data are fundamental to many analyses, 
such  as  analyses  to  simulate  the likely  outcomes  of  management  proposals,  hence  there  is  a 
need  to  find  a  means  to  disseminate  such  data  at  the  lowest  permitted  level  of  aggregation. 
 The  contract  should  consider  how  this  might  best  be  achieved  and  whether  additional 
visualization tools can be incorporated to enhance the utility of the data and draw attention to 
any limitations.  

55 

 
2- Methodology meeting: Now that the data call has stabilized, resources need to be dedicated 
to  the  improvement  of  the  processes  implemented  by  MS  when  providing  this  data  and 
associated  partitioning  of  discards  and  biological  data  to  the  requested  strata/domains  (e.g 
Table  A  –  catch  summary),  and  propose  a  common  best  practice.  The  partitioning  processes 
implemented by  Member States vary greatly and there is a need to  harmonize the processes 
between  Member  States  to  ensure  that  the  final  data  product  disseminated  to  all  potential 
users is comparable between Member States. This requires time, analysis and discussion. This 
meeting will also discuss the findings of the ad hoc contract on data-dissemination. Ideally, the 
JRC  would  make  a  data  call  template  available  early  in  2021,  followed  by  the  2021  FDI  data 
call to be released the first week of June, with the legal deadline last week of June, coincident 
with  the  methodology  meeting.  This  would  allow  the  possibility  to  re-upload  data  before  the 
September EWG meeting.  While biological data for the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions 
are  provided  under  a  separate  data  call,  to  ensure  that  the  FDI  database  contains  fishery 
dependent  information  for  the  entire  EU  fleet,  such  data  (Tables  C,  D,  E,  F  and  K)  for  the 
Mediterranean and Black Sea need to be incorporated in the FDI database by transferring the 
data  from  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  data  call  into  the  FDI  format/database.  It  would  be 
desirable  that  experts  involved  in  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  data  call  also  attend  the 
proposed  methodology  meeting.  Furthermore,  because  age/length  distributions  are  only 
checked  and  published  for  assessed  stocks,  including  the  biological  data  in  the  FDI  data  call 
would ensure that fishery dependent data for all stocks would be checked and made available 
on an annual basis.   

Refusal rates (Table B) 

The  derivation  of  the  refusal  rates  reported  by  each  Member  State  in  Table  B  needs  to  be 
described.  At  the  moment  disseminating  the  refusal  rates  without  such  a  description  for  each 
Member State  could be misleading. Therefore, the EWG  agreed to add a separate section to the 
national chapters which include a description of how refusal rates provided in Table B have been 
derived (explanations on sampling frames and how refusal rates are recorded).  

Dissemination of Tables A, G, H and I 

In  the  2020  FDI  data  call,  two  minor  changes  were  made:  the  Nephrops  functional  units  have 
been  included  in  the  aggregation  (NEP_SUB_REGION)  in  Tables  A,  C,  D,  E  and  F  and  it  is  now 
possible to add more detail to the field that marks data that are considered confidential in tables 
A  and  H.  The  NEP_SUB_REGION  can  be  included  in  the  category  fields  for  the  dissemination  of 
Table A. 

At  the  FDI  EWG  in  2019,  it  was  recommended  that  as  data  were  to  be  disseminated  in  a  new 
format, National Correspondents should be informed by DG MARE. Given that the 2020 data is to 
be disseminated in the same format as in 2019, the EWG suggests that Member States need not 
to be formally notified.  

The  spatial  data  in  Tables  H  and  I,  will  be  aggregated  over  countries  before  dissemination  to 
maintain  Member  States’  anonymity.  For  data  in  Tables  H  and  I  confidential  informartion 
submitted by Portugal for the OFR supra region, will not be disseminated.  

In the data call Tables A and H there is a new possibility to mark data as confidential with all (A), 
none (N), weight (W), value (V). When W is used it is both TOTWGHTLANDG and DISCARDS that 
are confidential.  

In the data call tables G and I the options Y (confidential) and N (not confidential) may be given. 

Dissemination of data in Table A will be handled as follows:  

A (All) 
N (None) 
W (Weight) 
V (Value) 

TOTWGHTLANDG  TOTVALLANDG 
Confidential 
Value 
Confidential 
Value 

Confidential 
Value 
Value  
Confidential 

DISCARDS 
Confidential 
Value 
Confidential 
Value 

In responding to the 2020 FDI data call, only Lithuania has marked the value of the landings (V) 
as confidential. The mark W was not used by any of the Member States. 

56 

 
 
A summary of the numbers of records marked as confidential by Member State is given in Table 
3.3.1.1. 

Table  3.3.1.1:  Total  number  of  records  marked  with  the  confidentiality  options  for  the  years 
2015-2019.  

N 

V 

 Member State 
BEL 
BGR 
CYP 
DEU 
DNK 
ENG 
ESP 
EST 
FIN 
FRA 
GBG 
GBJ 
GRC 
HRV 
IOM 
IRL 
ITA 
LTU 
LVA 
MLT 
NIR 
NLD 
POL 
PRT 
ROU 
SCO 
SVN 
SWE 

A 
14,044 

2,869 

85,425 

10,030 
4,404 
12,499 
34,496 
30,230 
   197,509 
87,311  219,467 
4,722 
6,437 
51,247  754,709 
789 
925 
4,212 
29,903 
803 
24,586 
   137,006 
1,481 
3,656 
11,660 
12,965 
8,604 
10,347 
58,304 
829 
61,329 
5,720 
76,986 

56 
230 
953 

75,378 

14,093 
710 
166,497 

917 

3.3.2  If  GIS  technical  skills  are  available  in  the  EWG,  produce  maps  of  effort  and 
landings by c-square (to be inserted in the EWG report) 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 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. 

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

57 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
                                                 
Data and methods 

The first step of the spatial data analysis was to ensure that data are in the correct format and 
information provided is consistent across variables.   
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 the center of the rectangle together and its dimensions in 

decimal degrees:  
  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. 

For future FDI data calls and to ensure consistency of sparial data provision by Member States, 
the variables rectangle_lon and rectangle_lat should be renamed respectively to lon and lat 
and should be reported using two decimal figures. 

In order to account for the different geographical formats allowed, the geographical data 
validation process adopted last year was implemented and documented in a series of scripts 
made available to the experts during and after the working group. The geographical data 
validation process includes three basic checks:  

a.  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.   

b.  Other countries reported only c-square notation; these records were verified against a list 

of all valid 0.5x0.5 c-square codes. 

c.  A third type of check 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 geographical center of the 
rectangle/square indicated in the rectangle type field. 

The expert working group recommends including the above mentioned data validation checks in 
the FDI data call uploading tool. Additional checks identified erroneous records that were 
misspecified (not global coordinates) or were land-based coordinates. To perform the point in 
polygon operation needed to identify points on land, a new c-square data set indicating the type 
of c-square (sea, land, and coast) was created and made available during the working group. The 
expert working group recommends incorporating the enriched c-square dataset in the FDI 
database and advise that all the datasets and scripts used in the checks are published on the data 
collection website and/or in the Geodata section of the EU Master data Register for fisheries. 

After the preliminary spatial checks the subgroup identified the need to visualise the spatial effort 
and landings data during the EWG. Visual inspection through mapping will facilitate EWG experts 
in identifying less evident spatial issues like swapped coordinates, sub regions and supra_region 
mismatch. 

Considering the volume and confidentiality of the data coupled with different level of aggregations 
needed for visual inspection, the expert working group recommends a server-based architecture 
hosted on the JRC’s secure network be created. Access to the server and publishing rights (to 
deploy own data analysis to the server) should be restricted to the invited experts to the EWG 
and relevant Commission staff (e.g. JRC personnel) and should be limited to the duration of the 
working group. 

The geographical data validation process highlighted an overall improved quality of the spatial 
data submitted with only 1.41% of invalid records for Table I and 1.13% invalid records for Table 
H. After the invalid records were omitted, the spatial data sets were created by aggregating the 
individual records of Table I and Table H at the following level: 

58 

 
 
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  of  all  records 
where there was no indication of the Sub-region and where the unit of measurement for landings 
was incorrect.  

When viewing the results of spatial analysis, it is important to note that data submissions for the 
Mediterranean and Black Sea was mandatory for the years 2017-2019 but voluntary for 2015 and 
2016. 

A comprehensive catalogue of maps depicting fishery-dependent spatial data is given in Annex 4.  

A selection of maps depicting effort by main Fishing Region are given in Figures 3.3.2.1. and by 
macro-gear type are given in Figures 3.3.2.2.  

Figure 3.3.2.1: Spatial effort maps by main fishing zones 

a) Baltic Sea 

59 

 
 
b) North Sea 

60 

 
 
 
c) North Western Waters 

61 

 
 
d) South Western Waters 

e) Mediterranean and Black Sea  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
f) Distant Waters 

63 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3.3.2.2: Spatial effort maps by main gear types 

a) Dredges 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b) Hooks 

c) Nets 

65 

 
 
 
d) Seines 

e) Surrounding nets 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
f) Beam trawlers with less than 120mm mesh size 

67 

 
 
g) Beam trawlers with more than 120mm mesh size 

68 

 
 
h) Beam trawlers with unknown mesh size 

69 

 
 
i) Traps 

j) Trawlers with less than 100mm mesh size 

70 

 
 
 
k) Trawlers with more than 100mm mesh size 

l) Trawlers with unknown mesh size 

71 

 
 
Figure 3.3.2.3: Spatial landings maps by main fishing region 

a) Baltic Sea 

72 

 
 
 
 
b) North Sea 

73 

 
 
c) North Western Waters 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
d) South Western Waters 

75 

 
 
e) Mediterranean and Black Sea 

f) Distant waters 

76 

 
 
 
Figure 3.3.2.4: Spatial landings maps by main gear types 

a) Dredges 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b) Hooks 

c) Nets 

78 

 
 
 
 
d) Seines 

e) Surrounding nets 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
f) Beam trawlers with less than 120mm mesh size 

80 

 
 
g) Beam trawlers with more than 120mm mesh size 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
h) Beam trawlers with unknown mesh size 

82 

 
 
 
i) Traps 

j) Trawlers with less than 100mm mesh size 

83 

 
 
 
k) Trawlers with more than 100mm mesh size 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
l) Trawlers with unknown mesh size 

85 

 
 
4 

PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE FUTURE DATA CALLS 

The FDI expert working group discussed proposed updates to the data call, methodological issues 
and guidelines to improve future data calls. The outcomes of those discussions are summarized in 
this section. 

Proposed updates to Table B 

The expert working group agreed on the following alterations to the data call to help to clarify and 
improve Table B:  

4.  REFUSAL_RATE:  The  raw  industry  refusal  rate  (<1,  precision  to  2  digits  after  the  decimal), 
which  is  defined  as  the  proportion  of  vessel  skippers  who,  having  been  successfully  contacted, 
ultimately failed to allow the observer to go on board to obtain the sample; if not known use ‘NK’.  

5. COVERAGE_RATE: the proportion of the population that was sampled as a rate  (<1, precision 
to 2 digits after the decimal), ‘NK’ if not known.  

6.  NONRESPONSE_RATE:  The  non-response  rate  (<1,  precision  to  2  digits  after  the  decimal), 
which  is  defined  as  the  proportion  of  all  attempted  contacts  that  ultimately  failed  to  provide  a 
sample, for whatever reason; if not known use ‘NK’.  

It was also suggested that 17. SUCCESS_RATE should be removed as it is not particularly helpful 
and can be calculated from other variables available in the table. 

PRINCIPAL_SUB_REGION 

PRINCIPAL_SUB_REGION is a new variable asked since this year in the table J (Capacity and fleet 
segment  effort).  The  introduction  of  this  new  variable  was  discussed  last  year  by  the  expert 
working  group  and  is  linked  with  the  objective  to  harmonize  the  JRC  data  calls  (FDI, 
Mediterranean and Fleet Economic data calls). 

The  expert  working  group  proposed  to  add  some  guidelines  in  the  data  call  for  its  calculation 
specifying that 1) principal sub-region has to be calculated vessel by vessel (i.e. calculated at the 
vessel  level)  and  2)  consequently  the  variables  “TOTTRIPS”,  “TOTKW”,  “TOTGT”,  “TOTVES”, 
“AVGAGE”,  “AVGLOA”  and  “MAXSEADAYS”  should  be  calculated  for  each  combination  of  
“COUNTRY”  *  ”YEAR”  *  ”VESSEL_LENGTH”  *  ”FISHING_TECH”  *  ”SUPRA_REGION”  * 
”GEO_INDICATOR” * ”PRINCIPAL_SUB_REGION”.  

The expert working group proposed also the following rule: In order to define the principal sub-
region of a vessel (where the vessel has his majority fishing activity during the year), the metric 
“number of fishing days” should be used. 

NEP_SUB_REGION 

NEP_SUB_REGION  is  a  new  variable  asked  since  this  year  in  the  Tables  A  (catch  summary),  C 
(discards age data), D (discards length data), E (landings age data) and F (landings length data). 
The introduction of this new variable was proposed last year by the expert working group and is 
linked with the objective to harmonize the FDI data call with the scientific estimators provided in 
particular in ICES data call. 

As  it  was  not  completely  obvious  for  data  provider,  the  expert  working  group  proposed  to  add 
some  guidelines  in  the  data  call  specifying  that  this  variable  is  asked  only  for  “Norway  lobster” 
catches (NEP / “Nephrops norvegicus” catches). 

DEEP 

DEEP  is  a  variable  asked  in  the  Tables  A  (catch  summary),  G  (effort  summary),  H  (landings  by 
rectangle) and I (effort by rectangle). 

In the data call, nowadays,  only references to  DEEP regulations is provided. In order to  support 
data  providers  and  improve  data  harmonisation  between  Member  States,  the  expert  working 
group proposed to add in the  data call guidelines specifying: 1) the list of species concerned for 

86 

 
 
each  of  the  two  regulation  to  be  considered  (one  before  2017  and  one  after)  and  2)  the 
methodology to consider in order to assign a fishing trip as a “DEEP fishing trip”.  

The  methodology  the  expert  working  group  proposed  is  the  following:  a  fishing  trip  must  be 
assigned  as  a  “DEEP  fishing  trip”  when  catch  of  Deep  Sea  species  retained  is  more  than  100kg 
(deep species to be considered being described in the corresponding EU regulations, see below).   

For data up to and including 2016, list of ‘deep-sea species’ to be considered are the ones listed 
in  the  Annex  I  of  the  EU  regulation  No.  2347/2002  (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002R2347&from=FR).  

For data from 2017, list of ‘deep-sea species to be considered are the ones listed in the Annex I 
of 
(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
2016/2336 
regulation 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R2336&from=FR).  

No. 

the 

EU 

Time series of the data call 

FDI  data  have  been  requested  for  5  years  (from  2015  to  2019)  except  for  Mediterranean  and 
Black Sea regions’ Tables H and I where data were requested only for 3 years (2017-2019). 

From  a  scientific  point  of  view,  there  is  a  strong  need  to  have  a  data  time  series  for  as  long  a 
period as possible (e.g. for stock assessment or benchmark analysis).  

On  the  other  hand,  adding  many  years  to  the  data  call  constitutes  a  supplementary  burden  for 
Member  States,  which  could  result  in  provision  of  data  of  lower  quality  and  coverage. 
Furthermore, unless the data call is not yet stable (e.g. list of metier could be modified next year 
taking into consideration the work done by the RCG subgroup dealing with metier issues), the full 
time-series of data would need to be called for and re-uploaded. 

Taking  into  account  the  above  mentioned  together  with  the  improvement  in  the  quality  of  data 
provided  this  year,  the  expert  working  group  proposed  to  adopt  “step  by  step”  approach  and  in 
2021  to  call  for  data  for  7  years  from  2014  to  2020  if  there  is  a  change  in  the  metier  list, 
otherwise  only  2020  and  2014  will  be  officially  called  for  with  the  possibility  to  re-upload  the 
entire time-series from 2014 to 2020 (except for Table H and I for Mediterranean and Black Sea 
which could be asked only from 2017). In 2022, provided that the data call is fully stabilized, data 
for 2021 and 2013 would be called for to complete the time-series. The option for Member States 
modify and re-upload 2014-2020 data should remain. 

Sharing methodology and improving guidelines 

The EWG encourages future FDI EWGs to further develop and improve guidelines and encourage 
Member States to share methodologies in order to harmonize the data provided enhancing their 
comparability and uniformity. To facilitate such enhancements, the EWG has proposed a meeting 
to focus on methodological aspects/issues and checks of the data provided by the Member States 
(see section 3.3.1). 

As an example, DOMAIN_DISCARDS and DOMAIN_LANDINGS are variables not straightforward to 
compute  and  ensure  compatibility  with  the  National  scientific  sampling  designs.  Comparing 
methodologies  used  by  different  Member  States  to  calculate  these  indicators  and  developing 
common  guidelines  may  be  a  good  way  to  further  improve  quality  and  comparability  of  the  FDI 
data provided by different Member States.  

Furthermore, the expert working group noted inconsistencies in capacity  (numbers of vessels) in 
Tables G (Effort summary) and J (Capacity and fleet segment effort) for some Member States and 
years.  Specifically,  some  fleet  segments  (i.e.  combining  “year  *  vessel  length  classes  *  fishing 
technique”) listed in Table G were not present in Table J.   

The issue appears to arise because of alternative interpretations of the guidelines on how Member 
States  should  provide  data  regarding  fishing  techniques,  supra-region  and  vessel  length 
categories and whether it is appropriate to provide data for  Table J by clustered fleet segments. 
These are typical methodological issues that could be addressed during a second meeting focused 
on methodological aspects as proposed by the expert working group.  

87 

 
The expert working group discussed this specific issue and proposed that the guidelines to  future 
data calls should be clarified and amended in the following way for future data calls: 

1.  Tables  A  (Catch  summary),  G  (Effort  summary),  H  (Landings  by  rectangle),  I  (Effort  by 
rectangle)  and  J  (Capacity  and  fleet  segment  effort)  should  be  provided  at  the  level  of  the 
fleet  segment  (“year*vessel  length  classes  *  fishing  technique”)  and  not  by  clustered  fleet 
segment  (clustering  fleet  segment  should  be  considered  only  to  provide  economic  data; 
capacity, effort and catch data may be available at the fleet segment level).  

2.  Fishing technique (FISHING_TECH) should be calculated at the “vessel*year” level (vessel by 
vessel, year by year) and should be provided in the same way in all the tables where they are 
called  for:  Tables  A,  G,  H,  I  and  J.  Each  “vessel*year”  must  then  be  assigned  to  only  one 
fishing technique in response to the data call. The fishing technique should be assigned to the 
vessel taking into account all its fishing activity during the year (and not only during a fishing 
trip  for  example).  It  is  therefore  possible  that  a  vessel  assigned  to  the  “vessel  using  pots 
and/or traps” fleet segment could have part of its fishing activity with set gillnets (GNS) when 
the majority of its fishing activity is pots and traps (FPO).   

3.  Supra-region  (SUPRA_REGION)  should  be  calculated  at  the  “vessel*year”  level  (vessel  by 
vessel, year by year) and should be provided in the same way in all the tables where they are 
called  for:  tables  A,  G,  H,  I  and  J.  Each  “vessel*year”  must  be  then  assigned  to  only  one 
supra-region in response to the data call; the Supra-region  where most of its activity takes 
place  during  the  year  (and  not  only  during  a  fishing  season  for  example).  The  metric  to  be 
used should be the “number of fishing days”. It is therefore possible that a vessel has a part 
of  its  fishing  activity  taking  place  in  a  sub  region  belonging  to  a  different  supra  region  than 
the one where the most of its activity take place and to which it is assigned. 

Improving the data checks 

While  it  is  the  responsibility  of  the  Member  States  to  check  their  own  data  prior  to  submission, 
the  expert  working  group  acknowledges  the  importance  and  utility  of  the  different  data  checks 
implemented  by  the  JRC.  Such  checks  are  vital  to  ensure  the  quality  of  data  uploaded  to  the 
database  and  the  EWG  would  be  unable  to  complete  the  tasks  requested  of  it  without  such  a 
facility.  While  the  data  checks  already  implemented  are  extremely  useful  to  the  EWG  and  to 
Member States alike, it would be useful if additional checks could be developed.  

88 

 
 
5 

CONTACT DETAILS OF EWG-20-10 PARTICIPANTS 

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 
information: 
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/adm-declarations 

the  protection  of  personnel  data.  For  more 

STECF members 

Name 

Address 

Casey, John 

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

Motova, Arina 

(EWG co-chair) 

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

Vanhee, Willy 

(EWG co-chair) 

Raid, Tiit 

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 

Demaneche, 
Sébastien 

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 

IFREMER, Centre 
Bretagne, ZI pointe du 
diable, CS 10070, 
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 

Egekvist, 

DTU Aqua Kemitorvet 

jsv@aqua.dtu.dk 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Invited experts 

Name 

Address 

Telephone 
no. 

Email 

Josefine 

Gibin, Maurizio 

González 
Herraiz, Isabel 

Gómez Suárez, 
Francisco Javier 

Building 201, Room 147 
2800 Kgs. Lyngby 
Denmark 

Flat1, 13 Streatham 
Common North, 
London, SW163HG, UK 

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. 

maurizio.gibin@gmail.com 

isabel.herraiz@ieo.es 

francisco.gomez@ieo.es 

Ioannou, Myrto 

Department of Fisheries 
and Marine Research                                                                            

mioannou@dfmr.moa.gov.cy 

Jakovleva, Irina 

Kavadas, 
Stefanos 

Kovsars, 
Maksims 

Moore, Claire 

Nicheva, Simona 

Nimmegeers, 
Sofie 

101 Vithleem Str., 1416 
– Nicosia CYPRUS 

Fisheries Service under 
Ministry of Agriculture, 
Janonio str. 24, 92251 
Klaipeda, Lithuania 

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 

Fish Resources 
Research department 
(BIOR), Latvia 

Marine Institute, 
Rinville, Oranmore, 
Galway, Ireland 

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

Research Institute for 
Agriculture, Fisheries 
and Food, Belgium 

90 

irina.jakovleva@zuv.lt 

stefanos@hcmr.gr 

Maksims.Kovsars@bior.gov.lv 

Claire.moore@marine.ie 

simona.nicheva@iara.governm
ent.bg 

sofie.nimmegeers@ilvo.vlaand
eren.be 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Invited experts 

Name 

Address 

Sabatella, 
Evelina Carmen 

NISEA soc. Coop. via 
Irno 11 84135 Salerno 

Helmond van, 
Aloysius 

Wageningen Marine 
Research, The 
Netherlands 

Vermard, Youen 

Vukov, Ivana 

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

Ministry of Agriculture, 
Directorate of Fisheries, 
Alexandra von 
Humbolda 4b, 10000 
Zagreb, Croatia 

Telephone 
no. 

Email 

e.sabatella@nisea.eu 

edwin.vanhelmond@wur.nl 

youen.vermard@ifremer.fr 

ivana.vukov@mps.hr 

JRC experts 

Name 

Address 

Telephone no. 

Email 

Hekim, Zeynep  DG JRC 

Zanzi, 
Antonella 

DG JRC 

European Commission 

Hekim.ZEYNEP@ec.europa.eu 

Antonella.ZANZI@ec.europa.eu  

Name 

Address 

Telephone no. 

Email 

Zanzi, 
Antonella 

Markovic, 
Laurent 

DG JRC, STECF 
secretariat  

DG MARE 

Osio,  Giacomo-
chato 

DG MARE 

Ranshuysen, 
Evelien 

DG MARE 

jrc-stecf-secretariat@ec.europa.eu  

Laurent.MARKOVIC@ec.europa.eu 

giacomo-
chato.osio@jrc.ec.europa.eu 

Evelien.RANSHUYSEN@ec.europa.eu 

Shrives, 
Jonathan 

DG MARE 

Jonathan.SHRIVES@ec.europa.eu 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6 

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 

Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Fisheries 
Dependent  Information  (STECF-19-11);  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg; EUR 28359 EN; doi:10.2760/230618 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7 

ANNEXES 

Annex  1.  Member  States  sections  on  Methodology,  Data  availability,  Coverage, 
Problems encountered and other comments 

A1.1 BELGIUM 

Methodology 

QUARTER and YEAR are based on the trip return date.  

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. 

Table B: 

In  2015-2017  the  Belgian  catch  sampling  schemes  moved  from  a  ‘métier-based’  to  a 
‘statistically sound’ sampling scheme in order to apply at random sampling of the trips. 
Considering  the importance  of  the  Belgian  beam  trawl  fleet  targeting demersal  species, 
Belgium  focusses  on  the  collection  of  fishery-dependent  data  for  this  fleet  (both  fleet 
segments). The two fleet segments (TBB_DEF_>221 kW and TBB_DEF_<=221 kW) are 
treated  as  two  separate  strata  in  the  Belgian  at  sea  sampling  programme.  Catch 
information (all catch fractions are covered) is obtained through on-board observation or 
‘at sea sampling’. The primary sampling unit (PSU) is vessel x trip (as a proxy for trip) 
and  a  haul  (within  a  trip)  is  defined  as  the  secondary  sampling  unit  (SSU).  Four  ILVO 
observers  assure  a  sampling  coverage  of  on  average  1%  of  all  fishing  hours  (i.e. 
approximately  40  trips).  The  sampling  effort  targets  for  one  year  are  set  at  8  trips  for 
the  TBB_DEF_<=221  kW  fleet  segment  and  32  trips  for  the  TBB_DEF_>221  kW  fleet 
segment. A vessel x trip (PSU) for the TBB_DEF_>221 kW fleet segment is selected by 
means of a random draw from a vessel list (with replacement). Only the vessels that are 
willing to take observers onboard and those that are suited, from a logistic point of view, 
to have an observer onboard are included in the vessel list (sampling frame): 19 vessels 
out  of  28  vessels  in  total.  A  vessel  x  trip  (PSU)  for  the  TBB_DEF_<=221  kW  fleet 
segment  is  selected  ad  hoc.  The  vessel  list  (sampling  frame)  has  been  steadily 
decreasing and proved too small to ensure random PSU selection.  

The  REFUSAL_RATE  was  calculated  as  the  number  of  trips  of  which the  vessel  skippers 
(who had been successfully contacted) refused to take an observer on-board divided by 
the  total  number  of  trips  of  which  the  vessel  skippers  were  successfully  contacted 
(INDUSTRY_DECLINED/(TRIPS_SAMPLED_ONBOARD + INDUSTRY_DECLINED)).  

The  NONRESPONSE_RATE  was  calculated  as  the  number  of  attempted  vessel  skipper 
contacts  minus  the  sampled  trips  divided  by  the  number  of  attempted  vessel  skipper 
contacts ((TOT_SELECTIONS – TRIPS_SAMPLED_ONBOARD)/ TOT_SELECTIONS).  

Within the framework of the ongoing optimization of the at sea sampling design, at the 
end  of  2017,  Belgium  decided  to  move  away  from  the  random  based  design  and 
introduced  a  non-probability-based  sampling  programme  (ad  hoc and standard  quota 
sampling) for the TBB_DEF_kW>221 fleet on the first of January 2018.  

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table B: Refusal rate 

Table A (discards) and tables C-F: 

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.  

For the stocks: bll.27.3a47de, cod.27.47d20, lem.27.3a47d, ple.27.7d and sol.27.7d, no 
length frequency distribution of the 2019 landings were provided in table F because of an 
error  in  the  R  code  to  generate  the  FDI  output.  This  affects  the  calculation  of  the 
percentages  of  landings  estimates  below  and  above  MCRS  at  a  level  of  aggregation 
corresponding to the fleet, area and gear type as specified in the exemptions outlined in 
the discard plans for 2021 (ToR 2.2).  

Domains have been defined, corresponding to the sampling programme. For species that 
have  corresponding  landings  by  quarter,  vessel  length  group  and/or  metier  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 
metier (table A). Discard data from the logbooks were not used. 

Table 1.1: Thresholds for providing biological data 

Table A (landings) and table H:  

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.  

Table G and table I:  

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 
for  calculating 
kilowatts  at  the  trip 

landing  date  and  area.  Same  approach 

94 

COUNTRYYEARSAMPLE_FRAMEREFUSAL_RATECOVERAGE_RATENONRESPONSE_RATEVESSELS_FLEETTRIPS_FLEETTRIPS_SAMPLED_ONBOARDUNIQUE_VESSELS_SAMPLEDBEL2015TBB_DEF_>221kW0.346153846NK0.73015873299941714BEL2016TBB_DEF_>221kW0.290322581NK0.6666666672810452211BEL2017TBB_DEF_>221kW0.225806452NK0.5789473683010052410BEL2018TBB_DEF_>221kWNKNKNKNKNKNKNKBEL2019TBB_DEF_>221kWNKNKNKNKNKNKNKBEL2015TBB_DEF_<=221kWNKNKNKNKNKNKNKBEL2016TBB_DEF_<=221kWNKNKNKNKNKNKNKBEL2017TBB_DEF_<=221kWNKNKNKNKNKNKNKBEL2018TBB_DEF_<=221kWNKNKNKNKNKNKNKBEL2019TBB_DEF_<=221kWNKNKNKNKNKNKNKCOUNTRYYEARSAMPLE_FRAMEUNIQUE_VESSELS_CONTACTEDNOT_AVAILABLENO_CONTACT_DETAILSNO_ANSWEROBSERVER_DECLINEDINDUSTRY_DECLINEDSUCCESS_RATETOT_SELECTIONSBEL2015TBB_DEF_>221kW2217241490.2698412763BEL2016TBB_DEF_>221kW1916081190.33333333366BEL2017TBB_DEF_>221kW151701870.42105263257BEL2018TBB_DEF_>221kWNKNKNKNKNKNKNKNKBEL2019TBB_DEF_>221kWNKNKNKNKNKNKNKNKBEL2015TBB_DEF_<=221kWNKNKNKNKNKNKNKNKBEL2016TBB_DEF_<=221kWNKNKNKNKNKNKNKNKBEL2017TBB_DEF_<=221kWNKNKNKNKNKNKNKNKBEL2018TBB_DEF_<=221kWNKNKNKNKNKNKNKNKBEL2019TBB_DEF_<=221kWNKNKNKNKNKNKNKNKVariable2and652and>=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 >=0.2Sampleddiscard quantitydiscards length distribution landings length distribution  
 
 
 
 
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. 

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.  

Table J: 

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

PRINCIPAL_SUB_REGION  of  a  vessel  for  a  certain  year  was  determined  based  on  the 
highest days at sea recorded for a certain fishing area. 

Data availability 

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

Coverage 

General comments: 

Belgium  provided  fleet  specific  landings  data  for  the  period  2015-2019  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. Since 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  2015-2019  for  all  relevant  areas  where  the  Belgian 
fleets are operational.  

Data were marked as CONFIDENTIAL if the data relate to less than 3 vessels. Values in 
the  fields  TOTWGHTLANDG  and  TOTVALLANDG  in  table  A  and  table  H  were  both 
considered as confidential when the criteria of < 3 vessels was met.  

Comparison with EUROSTAT data:  

Landings 

Overall  the  ‘total  weight  landed’  reported  in  the  FDI  data  set  is  comparable  with  the 
landings  uploaded  to  EUROSTAT.  The  difference  between  the  two  data  sets  is  larger  in 
2018 (375 t) compared to the other years (57 - 79 t). It appears that some species are 
double  counted  in  EUROSTAT  and  that  this  was  not  corrected  in  the  2018  data.  Half  of 
the landings of Octopus spp (FAO code: OCZ) reported in EUROSTAT were also reported 
as  Octopus  vulgaris  (FAO  code:  OCC),  whereas  in  the  FDI  data  set  only  Octopus  spp 
were  reported.  This  double  counting  also  applies  to  a  part  of  the  Trachurus  spp  (FAO 
code: JAX) landings versus Trachurus trachurus (FAO code: HOM).  

There is also a substantial difference in the reporting of the 2018 Crangon crangon (FAO 
code: CSH) landings between the FDI data (1576.1  t) and the EUROSTAT data (1412.9 
t).  This  is  due  to  the  ‘many  to  many’  relationships  between  trips  and  sales  that  were 
incorrectly processed in the EUROSTAT output.  

As  in  2016  and  2017,  there  was  also  a  smaller  amount  of  Raja  spp.  (FAO  code:  SKA) 
reported in 2018 under the FDI data call (12.34 t in 2016, 1.31 t in 2017 and 4.57 t in 
2018) compared to the EUROSTAT landings (66.7 t in 2016, 142.8 t in 2017 and 79.6 t 
in 2018). For the landings of rays by species, no substantial difference could be recorded 
in  2016  and  2017,  whereas  the  2018  EUROSTAT  output  of  some  ray  species  is  much 
higher  (e.g.  Raja  montagui  (FAO  code:  RJM)).  The  same  applies  for  the  recording  of 
Triglidae (FAO code: GUX) in 2018. The FDI data set has only recordings of gurnards by 

95 

 
species  and  those  landings  are  smaller  than  the  landings  of  gurnards  by  species  in  the 
EUROSTAT data set.  

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, 1597 t in 2017, 1096 in 2018 
and  1200  in  2019)  matches  with  the  total  landings  of  ANF  in  the  EUROSTAT  data  set 
(1104 t in 2015, 1433 t in 2016, 1578 t in 2017, 1091 in 2018 and 1192 in 2019). 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. 

Number of vessels 

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 

Problems encountered 

No other comments. 

Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

A1.2 BULGARIA 

Methodology 

The  methodology  used  for  the  data  collection and  data  processing  for  the  FDI  data  call 
was  not  changed  compared  to  previous  years.  The  calculation  of  transversal  data  was 
the same for all DCF data calls - the data is extracted from the database administrated 
by the Executive agency for fisheries and aquaculture containing fleet register, logbooks, 
landing declarations, sales notes, etc. Based on the data from logbook are calculated the 
number of fishing trips, days at sea, fishing days and hours at sea. 

96 

 
All  fishermen  in  Bulgaria  are  obliged  to  use  fishing  logbook  based  on  the  Bulgarian 
legislation and there is no difference between small scale fleet and the large scale fleet. 
Estimation  procedures  were  not  used  because  the  sampling  strategy  in  Bulgaria  is 
census and data was available for each vessel.  

There are no derogations, which are applicable to Bulgaria. 

Refusal rate  

The  Bulgarian  sampling  design  is  considered  probability  based  vessel  selection  design. 
The refusal rate is calculated as a proportion of vessel skippers who denied access to the 
observer to go on the board of the vessel. If the skipper does not answer his phone it is 
not marked as a refusal.   

Data availability 

The transversal data - capacity, landings and effort is available at the end of January for 
the previous year. All the tables for the data call were submitted before the deadline. 

Coverage 

The data provided in the data call covered all vessels fishing under Bulgarian flag in the 
Black  sea  during  the  reference  period.  There  are  no  gaps  in  the  data  collection  or  data 
submission.  

General comments 

Bulgaria  continued  to  use  a  census  sampling  strategy,  so  the  provided  data  covers  the 
whole  Bulgarian  fleet,  which  operates  only  in  the  Black  sea.  The  data  by  rectangle  is 
derived from VMS data for large scale fleet, vessels with active gears <12m and vessels 
which owned turbot quota, because they are obliged to use VMS. For the vessels under 
12 m with passive gears, the rectangle from the landing declaration was used and only 
in case the rectangle was not filled by the owner of the vessel, the catch was allocated 
based on the landing port.  

Some very small inconsistencies were marked in the data quality check tableau after the 
first submission of the data call tables, but they were corrected before the meeting. 

The provided data for discards is from the logbook data.   

Comparison with Eurostat data 

The  main  difference  between  the  FDI  data  and  Eurostat  data  is  again  the  number  of 
vessels.  The  reason  for  the  discrepancy  is  that  the  number  of  vessels  provided  to 
Eurostat  includes  the  inactive  vessels,  while  the  data  in  the  FDI  is  only  for  the  active 
vessels.  Also,  very  negligible  differences  are  noted  in  regards  to  the  landed  fish  (for 
some  species  there  are  differences  less  than  1  kg,  probably  due  to  the  rounding  of 
numbers).   

Publication of confidential data 

The data provided in this data call is not considered as confidential because 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. 

Problems encountered 

Problems related to data collection 

The  only  pending  problem  during  the  preparation  of  the  data  call  was  more  related  to 
the  data  processing,  than  to  the  data  collection.  The  data  for  tables  of  spatial  landings 
and  spatial  effort  are  stored  in  two  different  databases  -  the  catch/landing/effort  data 
are in one database and the VMS data is in another database. Table H and Table I were 
prepared  manually  by  combining  the  information  from  both  databases.  Measures  have 
been taken to link the two databases, but the exercise took more time than expected. 

97 

 
Problems related to data submission 

There  were  no  problems  related  to  data  submission,  the  possibility  to  use  the  data 
validation tool facilitated the reporting process.  

Other comments if relevant 

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

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.  The  regulation  was  applicable  for  the 
period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2019.  

A1.3 CROATIA 

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 variables is based on the metier approach as agreed 

within the RCG Med&BS and specified under the National Data Collection 
Programme.  

Estimation procedures  

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  fishing  fleet.  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  and  are  reported  within the 
Med&BS data call. 

For  certain  species  fisherman  report  landing  data  on  genus  level  (Eledone  spp  and 
Trachurus  spp),  therefore  landing  data  in  the  FDI  data  call  is  reported  as  such  since 
biological  data  for  Med6BS  is  no  longer  included.  However,  biological  data  on  species 
level  for  those  species  is  estimated  on  the  basis  of  commercial  sampling  data  and 
detailed analysis of landing during monitoring of metiers, including the following species: 
Eledone cirrhosa, Trachurus trachurus, Eledone moschata and Trachurus mediterraneus. 
Data on species level is reported for the Med&BS data call. 

In case no VMS data is available (for vessels <12 m using passive gears), spatial data is 
estimated  on  the  basis  of  data  reported  in  logbooks  and  fishing  reports  on  Croatian 
fishing  zones.  For  this  purpose  specific  mapping  procedures  are  developed  within  the 
database to produce data according to GFCM statistical rectangles. 

Discard calculation 

Official  discard  data  is  used.  Since  Croatia  has  a  census  based  data  collection  on  catch 
reporting  –  there  are  no  exemptions  on  data  reporting,  the  entire  fishing  fleet  is 
obligated  to  report  all  data.  Therefore,  discards  are  provided  according  to  official  data 
reported in logbooks and fishing reports (for vessels <10m using passive gears). 

Calculation of effort (following joint methodology or not).  

All effort calculation procedures are implemented in SQL following the logic agreed within 
the  WS  on  Transversal  variables  of  Zagreb  (2015)  and  Nicosia  (2016)  that  proposed  a 
harmonized  approach  to  associate  days  at  sea  to  the  gear.  Although  the  same  logic  is 
used  to  calculate  effort  for  all  data  calls,  depending  on  the  data  aggregation  levels  the 

98 

 
results may differ slightly (economic fleet segment, FDI domain, metier level 6; temporal 
and geographic stratification). 

Specific indicators (e.g. refusal rate) 

Currently refusal rate is not recorded. 

Data availability 

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

Coverage 

General comments 

In regards to landing and effort data according to vessel lenth categories, as is described 
in the Croatian Annual Work Plan for Data Collection sampling and reporting of biological 
data  is  done  on  a  métier  level  in  line  with  LM  2018  Recommendation  9  -  Merging  of 
length  classes  which  states  the  following  “The  RCMMed&BS-LP  group  recalled  that 
sampling  for  the  collection  of  biological  data  should  be  statistically  planned  and 
designed, so as to avoid problems of under-sampled and non-sampled strata or domains 
requiring imputation of missing data. Following this issue, the procedures adopted should 
lead to the optimum stratification of sampling for reducing bias and variance, and should 
draw  on  previous  experience  elsewhere  in  defining,  for  example,  the  métiers.  The 
definition  of  the  metier  does  not  include  vessel  length  classes.  EU  Decision  1251/2016 
under  Chapter  III  (data  requirements),  paragraph  2(a)  requested  catch  data  at  the 
aggregation level 6 (corresponding to mesh size).  However, metiers may be linked with 
fleet  segments  based  on  essel  length  classes,  as  it  is  presented  in  Table  2  of  the  EU-
Decision  1251/2016.  In  order  to  optimize  the  sampling  programmes,  RCM  MED&BS-LP 
considers  the  possibility  to  include  length  classes  (LOA)  as  defined  in  Table  2  of  the 
Commission Decision 1251/2016 and to merge different classes of the LOA for sampling 
purpose.”.  According  to  this  agreement,  data  for  the  FDI  and  Med&BS  data  calls  was 
provided  on  the  level  of  metiers  for  the  legal  deadline.  According  to  the  agreement 
during  the  STECF  EWG  20-10,  Croatia  provided  data  according  to  vessel  length  for  the 
operational  deadline,  however  it  needs  to  be  noted  that  this  data  cannot  eventually  be 
easily linked with biological data, because it does not correspond to sampling units, since 
biological data was not included in the FDI data call in 2020. 

Total Vessels (Comparison of totves from table J and table G) 

In  table  J  (Capacity)  Croatia  provided  capacity  data  according  to  unclustered  fleet 
segments – this data is in line with the data provided for the Fleet Economic data call. In 
table  G  aggregated  data  was  reported  according  to  metiers  (biological  sampling  units). 
Therefore the provided fishing technique and vessel length is only provided according to 
mapping procedures, and does not represent fleet segments (as vessel groups identified 
according to gear dominance criteria). 

In other words, the cases reported on the tableau (below) do not represent missing fleet 
segments in table J (since these vessels are classified according to their dominant gear 
into the corresponding fleet segment). 

Wghtlandg vs Vallandg (Data with Totwghtlandg > 0 and Totvallandg = 0 (in table A)) 

As in previous years, the cases reported in Tableau regarding BFT are not errors – they 
reflect the real and very specific situation in the Bluefin tuna fisheries in Croatia. Namely, 
all PS-BFT  catch  is  transferred  to  cages  for  farming  purposes,  therefore  there  is  no 
landing  value  as the  total  catch  is  not  landed.  As  this  is  the  “effort”  data  call,  Croatia 
reported the catch of PS-BFT vessels and the corresponding effort. However, there is no 
landing  value  as  all  income  related  to  PS-BFT  catch  is  realized  by  the  BFT  farms  (BFT 
catching vessels are owned by the farms). 

99 

 
 
Landings vs Effort 

The  minor  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 to determine dominant 
fleet segment for each vessels on the basis of its fishing activity reported in the logbooks 
(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 represent 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. 

Landings  vs  Discards  (table  A)  (Comparison  of  Totwghtlandg  and  Discards  in  table  A: 
cases where Discards>Totwghtlandg) 

Provided  data  is  in  accordance  with  data  provided  in  the  logbooks  and  fishing  reports 
(Croatia applies a census based data collection scheme for catch reporting). 

Domains Landings (table A & E; A & F and Domains Discards (table A & C; A & D) 

In  previous  years,  when  biological  data  was  submitted  as  well,  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.  Some 
errors on Tableau in previous years regarding reporting the data at genus level for some 
species  as  it  was  already  stated  in  above  as  biological  data  was  reported  on  species 
level. 

Comparison with Eurostat data 

No significant differences.  

Number  of  vessels  reported  in  in  the  capacity  table  corresponds  to  the  population  of 
vessels according to the DCF and includes all vessels in the fleet register during the year, 
while EUROSTAT data refers to the number of vessels on 31st December. 

Minor differences in the provided landings weight and value. However, these differences 
are negligible and refer to species which are not so commercially important.  

Publication of confidential data  

No confidentiality issue. 

100 

 
 
 
Problems encountered 

Problems related to data collection 

No major issues. 

Problems related to data submission 

No major issues.  

Croatia is unable to report landing data for certain gears (HAR, MIS – “other” gears) for 
which  landings  and  effort  are  not  included  in  the  FDI  data  call.  Namely,  MIS  and  HAR 
gear codes (OTH - other gears) are not foreseen by Appendix 4 and are not allowed for 
upload therefore the corresponding landing and effort data is not provided. In addition, it 
is not possible to include this data under NK gear code (“unknown”), because according 
to Appendix 6, the NA mesh size code is not valid for NK gear code. Although this part of 
the  catch/effort  is  negligible,  this  is  also  the  reason  for  the  small  differences  between 
data provided for FDI data call and EUROSTAT data.  

Significant numbers of duplicate rows were recognized by the Data Validation tool (DVT) 
in previous years when biological data was reported, mostly for DRB and FPO gear types. 
At  national  level  these  gears  are  disaggregated  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. 

Other comments if relevant 

The structure of the FDI data call should be adjusted because the information on discard 
provided  in  table  A  should  be  reported  by  biological  sampling  units  (metiers)  –  in  this 
case  information  provided  in  the  fishing  technique  and  vessel  length  columns  does  not 
correspond to economic fleet segments (determined on the basis of gear use dominance 
criteria), and cannot be used to link economic data. 

A1.4 CYPRUS 

Methodology 

Landings weight data 

Landings weight data are collected from bottom trawlers involved in demersal fishery in 
GSA25,  and  for  fleet  segments  that  are  not  required  to  use  logbooks.  The  aim  is  to 
compare data collected with data recorded under Control Regulation for the same trips. 
Discrepancies  are  recorded  and  relevant  correction  factors  are  performed  (e.g.  %  of 
under-reporting,  misidentified  species).  For  vessels  using  polyvalent  passive  gears  only 
(0-6m,  6-12m),  landings  data  are  collected  by  métier,  and  estimation  is  made  on  the 
percentage  of  landings  assigned  to  each  métier.  The  percentage  is  then  raised  to  the 
total  landings,  allowing  the  estimation  of  landings  by  species  by  métier.  Concerning 
vessels using “Polyvalent 'passive' gears  only - category C”, landings data are collected 
by census, with the provision of landing declarations to all licensed vessels. 

Effort data 

The collection of effort data concerns vessels using polyvalent passive gears only (0-6m, 
6-12m),  for  most  of  which  the  only  information  derives  from  sales  notes.    Sales  notes 
are used as a proxy for fishing days, which are considered equivalent with days-at-sea, 
fishing  trips  and  fishing  operations.  With  the  collection  of  effort  data  by  métier, 
estimation is  made  on  the %  of  fishing  days  assigned  to  each  métier.  In  case  during a 
fishing day more than one métier is exercised, one fishing day is assigned to each of the 

101 

 
métiers  exercised  by  the  vessel.  The  percentage  is  then  raised  to  the  total  number  of 
fishing days, allowing the estimation of fishing days by métiers.  

Based  on  data  collected  on  length  of  nets,  number  of  hooks  and  number  of  pots,  an 
average  value  of  these  variables  is  estimated  by  métier,  and  it  is  raised  to  the  total 
number of fishing days by métier.  

Value of landings  

The value of landings will be estimated by species by fleet segment and by metier. For 
each  fleet  segment,  the  average  price  of  species  will  be  estimated  at  metier  level,  by 
multiplying the average price with the landings assigned to each metier exercised by the 
fleet  segment.  In  cases  of  landings  at  foreign  ports,  average  prices  will  be  estimated 
separately.  The  total  value  of  landings  will  be  estimated  with  aggregating  the  value  of 
landings of each fleet segment. 

Average price  

For  estimating  average  prices,  data  on  prices  will  be  collected.  For  species  landed  in 
more  than  one  commercial  category,  average  prices  correspond  to  each  commercial 
category,  and  the  estimated  average  price  is  their  weighted  average.  It  is  noted  that 
there are no auction markets in Cyprus, and prices of fish sold to fishmongers are ‘fixed’ 
for all vessels. 

Data availability 

Cyprus data were provided on time and in accordance with the required formats. 

Coverage 

The  data  provided  cover  all  Cyprus  commercial  fishing  fleet,  which  operates  in  the 
Mediterranean Sea. The tables for Cyprus cover all the requested time series and all the 
métiers. Data were calculated and provided in the same way as for economic data call. 

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.  

The  few  cases  of  average  length  of  vessels  not  compatible  with  the  vessel  length  code 
(table J) are not to be considered as an issue because they are due to clustering of some 
vessels for confidentiality and statistical reasons.  

Comparison with Eurostat data 

There is no difference between Eurostat data and FDI data call data.  

Problems encountered 

No problems encountered in the preparation of the files.  

Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

A1.5 DENMARK 

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  are  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 

102 

 
landing  by  area,  ICES  rectangle,  month  and  target  species.  This  is  done  by  the  Danish 
Fisheries Agency, and the species composition is applied to official landings, and also to 
the FDI data call. 

Information  on  fishing  technique  (FISHING_TECH)  allocated  for  each  vessel  is  provided 
by Statistics Denmark that has defined it for the STECF fleet economic data call.  

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 with A, otherwise the confidential field is marked with N.  

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  data 
call. 

The  biological  data  on  unwanted  catches,  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 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, except for the métiers with CCTV (_FDF), 
where  the  logbooks  are  used.  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 with landings value =0 if they are not sold. 

In  table  A,  the  unwanted  catches  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 unwanted catches 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. 

Table B  

In  Denmark,  the  sampling  design  of  the  commercial  sampling  has  since  2011  had  a 
gradual  change  from  an  ad-hoc  sampling  programme  to  a  statistically  sound  sampling 
(4S) in the observer programme where trips/vessel are the primary sampling unit within 
some  pre-defined  fleet  lists.  The  vessel  list  has  been  selected  according  to  the  home 
harbour  and  the  main  gear  type  (fleet  group)  and  each  list  accounts  of  unique  vessels 
based  on  the  fishery  from  the  previous  year,  meaning  that  the  same  vessel  cannot  be 
present  in  more  than  one  list.  If  a  vessel  is  selected  from  one  list  and  is  conducting 
another fishery that is still part of the observer program, the trip is still conducted. If the 
vessel is conducting a fishery presently not included in the observer program the trip is 
not  selected.  Presently  Denmark  has  applied  six  fleet  lists  (sampling  frames)  for  the  at 
sea  observer  programme  with  a  similar  selection  design  however,  with  different  target 
species. The vessel list is presently covering: 

103 

 
  Lyngby, Trawler/Seiner (OTB-SDN: SD 25-32) 
  Lyngby, trawler/Seiner (OTB-SDN: SD 21-24) 
  Hirtshals, Trawler/Seiner Skagerrak/ Kattegat (OTB-SDN: SD 20-21) 
  Hirtshals, Trawler/Seiner North Sea (OTB-SDN: SD IV) 
  Hirtshals, Skagerrak and North Sea – shrimp fishery (OTB_CRU: SD 20- IV) 
  Lyngby , Beam trawler, North Sea brown shrimp (TBB: IV) 

Effort  allocation  (observer  trips)  between  the  vessel  lists  are  based  on  the  total  effort 
available  allocated  according  to  the  numbers  of  trips  in  each  vessel  list  group.  A 
minimum number of 2 trips have been incorporated by each stratum. Each vessel list is 
stratified by quarter. Each vessel on a given list has equal change of being selected. 

As  the  vessels  are  randomly  selected  in  a  database  based  on  last  year’s  fishery,  large 
changes in fishing pattern between years can affect the sampling in a given year. When 
a vessel is selected for an observer trip the vessel has to be  contacted by the observer 
and  asked  for  participation  on  the  next  conducted  fishing  trip.  The  fishermen  answers 
are  recorded  according  to  recommendations  in  the  ICES  SGPIDS3  report  and  refusal 
rates  calculated  for  each  vessel  list.  The  result  for  2015-2019  can  be  seen  in  the  table 
below. 

e
d
o
c

y
r
t
n
u
o
c

r
a
e
y

e
m
a
r
f

e
l
p
m
a
s

e
t
a
r

l
a
s
u
f
e
r

e
t
a
r

e
g
a
r
e
v
o
c

e
t
a
r

e
s
n
o
p
s
e
r
-
n
o
n

DNK 

2019 

Bornholm, trawler / seiner 

0.11 

0.98 

0.62 

DNK 

2015 

Bornholm, Trawler/Seiner 

0.10 

0.71 

0.79 

DNK 

2016 

Bornholm, Trawler/Seiner 

0.22 

0.67 

0.74 

DNK 

2017 

Bornholm, Trawler/Seiner 

0.19 

1.20 

0.57 

DNK 

2018 

Bornholm, Trawler/Seiner 

0.09 

0.83 

0.54 

DNK 

2015 

Charlottenlund, Trawler/Seiner 

0.21 

0.67 

0.64 

DNK 

2016 

Charlottenlund, Trawler/Seiner 

0.26 

0.91 

0.83 

DNK 

2017 

Charlottenlund, Trawler/Seiner 

0.28 

0.84 

0.83 

DNK 

2018 

Charlottenlund, Trawler/Seiner 

0.20 

1.02 

0.78 

DNK 

2019 

Lyngby, trawler / seiner 

0.23 

0.98 

0.73 

DNK 

2015 

Hirtshals, CCTV 

0.04 

1.07 

0.78 

DNK 

2016 

Hirtshals, CCTV 

0.06 

1.76 

0.79 

DNK 

2015 

Hirtshals, OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0 

0.25 

0.52 

0.25 

DNK 

2016 

Hirtshals, OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0 

0.44 

0.98 

0.56 

DNK 

2017 

Hirtshals, OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0 

0.55 

0.94 

0.68 

DNK 

2018 

Hirtshals, OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0 

0.00 

0.91 

0.42 

DNK 

2019 

Hirtshals, OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0 

0.25 

1.04 

NK 

DNK 

2015 

Hirtshals, Trawler/Seiner, North Sea 

0.14 

1.01 

0.91 

DNK 

2016 

Hirtshals, Trawler/Seiner, North Sea 

0.16 

0.62 

0.93 

DNK 

2017 

Hirtshals, Trawler/Seiner, North Sea 

0.08 

0.92 

0.76 

DNK 

2018 

Hirtshals, Trawler/Seiner, North Sea 

0.10 

1.42 

0.80 

DNK 

2019 

Hirtshals, Trawler/Seiner, North Sea 

0.12 

1.35 

0.72 

DNK 

2015 

Hirtshals, Trawler/Seiner, Skagerrak 

0.29 

0.57 

0.83 

t
e
e
l
f

s
l
e
s
s
e
v

19 

33 

26 

22 

22 

73 

74 

77 

69 

66 

15 

13 

8 

6 

7 

7 

8 

33 

48 

47 

42 

40 

94 

t
e
e
l
f

s
p
i
r
t

2033 

3676 

2843 

2338 

2542 

7486 

7713 

7488 

7363 

7639 

749 

681 

763 

715 

748 

770 

866 

2268 

3542 

2714 

2390 

2217 

9576 

DNK 

2016 

Hirtshals, Trawler/Seiner, Skagerrak 

0.13 

0.53 

0.84 

91 

10070 

DNK 

2017 

Hirtshals, Trawler/Seiner, Skagerrak 

0.14 

0.73 

0.75 

100 

10248 

DNK 

2018 

Hirtshals, Trawler/Seiner, Skagerrak 

0.15 

0.75 

0.75 

95 

10655 

DNK 

2019 

Hirtshals, Trawler/Seiner, Skagerrak 

0.17 

0.56 

0.67 

119 

13129 

DNK 

2015 

TBB 

0.13 

0.86 

0.58 

DNK 

2016 

TBB 

0.13 

0.71 

0.77 

DNK 

2017 

TBB 

0.03 

0.74 

0.58 

DNK 

2018 

TBB 

0.00 

0.49 

0.48 

DNK 

2019 

TBB 

0.00 

0.37 

0.55 

29 

21 

25 

25 

18 

1855 

1978 

2426 

2455 

1084 

104 

d
r
a
o
b
n
o
d
e
l

p
m
a
s

s
p
i
r
t

20 

26 

19 

28 

21 

50 

70 

63 

75 

75 

8 

12 

4 

7 

7 

7 

9 

23 

22 

25 

34 

30 

55 

53 

75 

80 

74 

16 

14 

18 

12 

5 

d
e
l

p
m
a
s

s
l
e
s
s
e
v

e
u
q
n
u

i

8 

11 

9 

12 

8 

18 

24 

19 

23 

22 

4 

7 

3 

2 

3 

4 

6 

8 

11 

15 

17 

15 

23 

19 

21 

34 

27 

7 

7 

10 

7 

4 

d
e
t
c
a
t
n
o
c

s
l
e
s
s
e
v

e
u
q
n
u

i

20 

32 

26 

26 

19 

55 

83 

78 

81 

77 

13 

14 

6 

6 

7 

6 

8 

36 

58 

50 

39 

38 

e
l
b
a
l
i
a
v
a
t
o
n

s
l
i
a
t
e
d
t
c
a
t
n
o
c
o
n

23 

0 

24 

NK 

17 

NK 

12 

7 

30 

NK 

81 

NK 

57 

52 

43 

9 

NK 

18 

NK 

NK 

NK 

0 

5 

2 

2 

0 

81 

NK 

122 

NK 

21 

45 

28 

0 

0 

4 

5 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

95 

101 

NK 

101 

70 

NK 

93 

90 

79 

19 

21 

15 

14 

8 

56 

55 

45 

6 

NK 

13 

NK 

5 

3 

2 

r
e
w
s
n
a
o
n

3 

6 

9 

3 

3 

19 

75 

49 

55 

23 

1 

6 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

26 

52 

26 

24 

17 

26 

40 

38 

38 

23 

6 

14 

7 

3 

1 

d
e
n

i
l
c
e
d

r
e
v
r
e
s
b
o

1 

44 

11 

4 

3 

d
e
n

i
l
c
e
d
y
r
t
s
u
d
n

i

e
t
a
r

s
s
e
c
c
u
s

s
n
o
i
t
c
e
l
e
s

t
o
t

6 

0.89 

53 

13 

0.90 

127 

17 

0.78 

13 

0.81 

4 

0.91 

77 

67 

46 

11 

29 

0.79 

140 

69 

111 

0.74 

424 

99 

0.72 

360 

77 

0.80 

390 

63 

0.77 

277 

1 

4 

1 

4 

0.96 

0.94 

0.75 

0.56 

12 

0.45 

23 

74 

4 

18 

22 

12 

0 

1 

1.00 

0.75 

NK 

29 

0.86 

208 

61 

0.84 

374 

16 

0.92 

122 

18 

0.90 

173 

13 

0.88 

107 

99 

0.71 

338 

46 

0.87 

342 

40 

0.86 

285 

43 

0.85 

295 

37 

0.83 

221 

5 

9 

1 

0 

0 

0.87 

0.87 

0.97 

1.00 

1.00 

40 

71 

31 

27 

11 

45 

82 

72 

6 

28 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

36 

67 

12 

7 

19 

36 

64 

21 

16 

42 

5 

17 

0 

0 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Data availability 

Transversal  data  (logbooks,  sales  notes,  fleet  register)  are  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. 

Coverage 

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. 

The  number  of  vessels  reported  in  Eurostat  are  larger  than  what is  reported  in  the  FDI 
data  call.  This  is  because  only  active  vessels  are  included  in  the  FDI  data  call.  In  the 
Eurostat figures, inactive vessels are included. 

In  some  cases,  there  are  weight  of  landings  >  0,  but  with  value  of  landings  =  0.  0-
values are  often connected to bycatches, and  often in fishery  for industrial use.  Here it 
cannot  be  used  in  the  main  fishmeal  production  (maybe,  because  the  size  does  not  fit 
into  the  production),  and  the  storage  results  in  a  very  poor  quality  making  it  unfit  for 
most other uses. Actually, it can lower the price if the entire landing if the bycatch rate it 
too high. Therefore, the ‘buyer’ does the vessel a kind of favour by taking the by-catch 
at a price=0. 

0-values also occur in connection to foreign buyers (especially Belgian) where the sales-
note lack a price. The Danish authorities try to obtain it from the buyer, but the rate of 
success is fluctuating. 

Confidentiality 

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

Problems encountered 

No problems encountered. 

Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

A1.6 ESTONIA 

Methodology 

Estimation  procedures  (in  case  something  been  used,  e.g.  estimation  of  landings  and 
effort  for  the  small  scale  fleet)  –  short  summary  on  the  estimations  procedures  for 
discards and biological data for landings and discards.  

Describe methodology for partition of discards from tables C-D to table A. 

105 

 
 
Describe if you applied thresholds for submitting biological data (e.g. >50 fish measured 
and 2 trips within stratum are submitted). 

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. 

Data collected and derogations 

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 and 
trap nets) and of other species, incl. freshwater fish taken with trapnets and gillnets. The 
discarding  is  prohibited  in  Estonia  by  law  and  may  only  occur  in  very  limited  scale  (if 
any) e.g. in case of catches of below MCRS fish in coastal fishery (salmon and perch). No 
discarding takes place in trawl fishery. The official discard information from logbooks 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  fleets  and  in  sampling  of  herring  in  coastal  fishery.  No  threshold  is  applied  in 
sampling of coastal small scale fishery.  

All  effort  calculations  are  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.  

Table B 

No  refusals  in  obtaining  biological  samples  and  other  relevant  information  from  the 
selected fishing vessels were reported in 2015-2019. 

Data availability 

All requested information was provided by the FDI data call deadline.  

Coverage 

Provided  data  covers  all  Estonian  commercial  fishing  fleet,  which  operates  in  Baltic  Sea 
and  in  the  Northern  Atlantic.  Information  about  recreational  fishery  in  Baltic  Sea  were 
not provided. 

General comments 

Discrepancies  described  in  the  table  “Wghtlandg  vs.  Vallandg”  of  JRC  Data  checking 
facility, were mostly caused by the lack of information on first sale prices of some fresh 
water species in the coastal small-scale fishery ( using small boats under 10 m) .  

Discrepancies found between “Totwghtlandg” and SOP (numbers * mean weights at age) 
in  Table  E,  occurred  due  to  typing  errors.  The  issue  was  solved  during  the  EWG  20  10 
meeting and the MS re-uploaded Table E.  

On  overall,  most  of  the  requested  by  FDI  Data  Call  information  was  available  and 
presented  except  the  effort  information  for  the  small  (under  10m)  boats  in  coastal 
fisheries.  

106 

 
Comparison with Eurostat data 

Landings  and  capacity  data  provided  was  very  close  to  the  information  reported  to 
Eurostat.  The  observed minor differences in vessel numbers may be  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. 

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. 

No refusals in getting biological samples and other relevant information were reported in 
2015-2019. 

Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

A1.7 FINLAND 

Methodology 

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 
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.  

Unwanted catch 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. 

107 

 
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 gears 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. 

Data availability 

All  the  data  was  finalised  and  available  by  the  data  call  deadline.  Corrections  asked  by 
the Commission have been completed and table G re-uploaded to the database on 15th 
September 2020. 

Coverage 

General comments 

Biological data was not raised to total landings weights.  

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). 

In  vessels  segment  TM  VL1218  there  are  some  vessels,  which  are  less  than  12 
meters.  Additionally,  there  are  vessels  in  segment  TM  VL1824  which  are  over  24 
meters. Consequently, in some ICES subdivisions, the mean vessel length is shorter or 
longer than what the segment name indicates. 

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. 

FDI data call data is the data concerning Finnish marine commercial fishery. Eurostat 
catch  data  includes  both  commercial  and  recreational  catch  by  species  and 
subdivisions. 

Publication of confidential data 

Data  call  material  includes  confidential  information,  which  is  marked  by  ‘Y’  in 
confidential-column.  It  is  therefore  forbidden  to  reveal  or  publish  these  data  outside 
the original purpose, i.e. the FDI data call. 

Problems encountered 

Problems related to data collection 

None. 

Problems related to data submission 

In future years, the data call should be launched during June in order to have enough 
staff available for compiling the data. 

Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

108 

 
A1.8 FRANCE 

Methodology 

In  accordance  with  the  French  DCMAP  working  plan  2020-2021,  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 survey5 (active/inactive vessels, typological 
classification  of  vessels  by  fleet/fishing  technique,  fishing  area,  métier,  supra-
region) 

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  trips6  (catch  assessment  survey)  (total 
estimates  of  weight  and  value  of  landings  by  species,  fishing  effort  estimates 
(number of trips, days at sea and fishing days), fishing area, métier) 

7.  At-sea  and  on-shore  (port-sampling)  scientific  observer  sampling  data  

(discards estimates, length and age distributions) 

Some  specificities  exist  for  the  “French  tropical  purse  seine  fishery”    and  the 
“Mediterranean  bluefin  tuna  fishery”  but  source  of  information  are  very  similar, 
differences being related to the database holding the information and the way to process 
the data. 

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 

5  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 declarative data) and also the basis, if necessary, to re-evaluate available fishing activity 
data estimates (in case of incomplete data for example). 

6 Complementary on-site sampling of trips  (catch assessment survey) is used to estimate fishing activity 
variables  estimates  (except  hours  at  sea)  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,  2018  and  2019,  this  applies  for  vessels  under  12m  in  the  Mediterranean  continental  area  (GSA  07, 
except  in  2019),  Réunion  (geographical  indicator:  RE),  Mayotte  (YT),  French  Antilles  (Martinique  –  MQ  and 
Guadeloupe - GP) and French Guiana (GF). 

109 

 
                                                 
species)  is  based  on  a  cross-validation  tool:  SACROIS7  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  or 
on-site sampling data is 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  French  tropical  purse  seine 
fishery and the Guiana shrimp trawlers. 

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 (by a raw ordination), 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  (detailed  methodology  applied  could 
be  found  in  IFOMConference  proceedings8),  in  order  to  calculate  the  reference  fishing 
activity’ estimates. The choice between one of these two methodologies is also based on 
the coverage and precision of the available declarative data. 

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, supra-region, 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 data call. 

Discards  and  length/age  distributions  estimates  have  been  calculated  based  on  the 
scientific  observer  sampling  data  (at  sea  and  port-sampling  program).    The  unwanted 
catch 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 

7  SACROIS  (http://sih.ifremer.fr/Description-des-donnees/Les-donnees-estimees/SACROIS) 
is  a  cross-
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.  

8  A  new  approach  to  estimate  landings  and  fishing  effort  of  small-scale  fisheries  by  re-evaluating  declarative 
data from the IFREMER exhaustive activity calendar survey. Application to the French Mediterranean vessels. 
Jerôme Weiss, Séverine Boucheron, Sébastien Demanèche, Patrick Berthou, IFREMER. France 

110 

 
                                                 
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  at  0.5*0.5  degree  resolution.  Spatial  information  is  completed  by  the  on-site 
sampling data for fishing fleets not covered by the SACROIS data. 

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  samples  per 
stratum 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 following WG practice in term of 
labelling. As an example, for the sole stock in 27.7.d and for the ICES data call in 2018, 
the  OTB_DEF_70-99_0_0  metier  submitted  in  Intercatch  encompass  the  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.  

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 data call also they exist some issues of “n-n” link between table A 
and tables CDEF (e.g. for mesh size range one metier should be recorded with the mesh 
size  ranges  <60  and  60-79  in  the  ICES  data  call  when  in  Table  A  same  metier  is 
recorded  with  the  mesh  size  ranges  70-89  and  55-69).  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  follow  as  far  as  possible  the  domain  definition 
requested  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 (regarding also the “n-n” issue). This should be improved for the future data call. 

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  data  call  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 

111 

 
partitioned  by  row  proportionately  to  the  landings  using  the  values  calculated  in  1  &  2 
(total discards * landings percentage). 

So  far,  table  B  (refusal  rate)  has  not  been  provided  as  the  data  call  still  need  to  be 
clarified and amended accordingly on this specific issue. Also this implies a specific data 
extraction  and  processing  of  the  information  available  in  the  website  dedicated  to 
presenting  and  monitoring  the  sampling  plans which  has  to  be  planned.  This  should  be 
improved for the future data call taking into account the progress made this year by the 
expert working group. 

So  far,  only  very  few  data  have  been  highlighted  as  being  confidential  because  a 
common  approach  was  missing.  However,  there  are  many  issues  related  to  these  data 
where  certain  lines  hold  information  for  less  than  3  vessels.    A  further  check  will  be 
needed for the future data call to identify the lines concerned. In addition, often not all 
variables  are  regarded  as  being  problematic.  For  example,  information  on  the  value  of 
landings or discards is much more sensitive than landings. 

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 
https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/data-analysis/fdi.  The  current  data  can  be 
regarded as final given current knowledge. However, data could be improved/completed 
before  next  data  call  (taking  also  into  account  the  minor  issues  highlighted  in  the  data 
checks carried out) and in this case they will be re-upload for the next year data call.    

available 

during 

online 

and 

FDI 

the 

Coverage 
French data available in the FDI database for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 cover all 
the  French  fleets  including  overseas  fisheries,  long  distance  fisheries  and  small  scale 
fleets. 

Up to now, no upload facility is given for data where area information (at the sub-region 
level) is missing. Few French fishing statistics data (less than 1%) have area information 
available  only  at  the  FAO  area  level.  These  data  are  therefore  missing  in  the  FDInew 
database. 

Considering  the  spatial  distribution  tables  H&I  (landings  and  specific  effort  data  by 
rectangle/c-squares),  spatial  data  have  been  submitted  for  all  the  fleets 
considering the finest spatial distribution available including C-square level for 
geolocalized vessels. Some assumptions have been considered to provide all the data 
at the level asked in the data call (e.g. GFCM squares in FAO zone 37) by proportionally 
distributing  the  available  spatial  data  (especially  for  non  geolocalised  vessels  for  which 
some  of  the  data  could  be  only  available  at  a  more  aggregated  spatial  resolution)  but 
only  as  long  as  it  was  acceptable.  For  example,  for  fleets  operating  in  FAO  zone  27, 
some fishing activity data (~5% in landings) have only area information available at the 
sub-region level (e.g. ices division, no ices rectangle available) and could not be derived 
at the finer spatial resolution asked. As a consequence, spatial distribution tables are not 
fully consistent with data provided in the tables A and G (total fishing effort and landings 
by species figures could differ), but it remains negligible. 

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). 

112 

 
Problems encountered 

No more problems have been encountered. 

Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

A1.9 GERMANY 

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, 
BMS)  

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  all  necessary  information  reported  in 
logbooks. Vessels <10m in the North Sea and and vessels < 8m in the Baltic do not have 
an obligation to fill in logbooks. However, for these vessels so called “Monatsmeldungen” 
were used to provide information on catch and effort where possible.  

Discards  were  estimated  based  on  observer  data  and  not  from  logbook  information  as 
the compliance to the landing obligation was still very different from fishery to fishery in 
2019  (last  year  of  the  data  call).  Based  on  observer  data  the  unwanted  catch  (BMS  + 
Discards)  was  raised  to  discard  domain  level.  From  these  values  the  BMS  reported  in 
logbooks  (and  already  accounted  for  under  landings)  was  substracted.  In  cases  where 
this  resulted  in  a  negative  value  because  of  the  inherent  uncertainties  in  the  raised 
unwanted catch estimates,  a zero discard was assumed. Similarly, because of the often 
large  uncertainties  in  the  unwanted  catch  estimates,  discards  >0  must  not  have 
happened in reality especially if the values are small. For metiers that were not sampled, 
a  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. 
Germany  will  make  a  final  decision  depending  on  the  type  of  data  and  in  which  detail 
(aggregation level) the data will be finally made public.   

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. 

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  may  have  been  used  as  being  representative  in  a  much  wider 
context. E.g., when a sampled length frequency was only available for quarter 3, maybe 
it needs to be 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. 

113 

 
Currently  it  is  not  mandatory  to  include  information  on  selectivity  devices  in  logbooks. 
Therefore, it cannot be concluded from the data whether certain fleets and metiers use a 
certain selectivity device or not. 

Table B 

In  Germany  the  sampling  program  is  in  between  an  adhoc  and  a  statistically  sound 
sampling program. Vessels or in many cases POs are contacted randomly within a given 
sampling frame (see table). Vessels are then selected based on who leaves the port next 
and  is  available  to  take  observers  onboard.  Within  a  sampling  frame,  the  observer 
program focuses on fisheries that are most important in terms of catches.  

For  table  B  the  refusal  rate  was  calculated  as:  Industry  declined/(Industry  declined  + 
Trips  sampled  onboard).  Similar  to  the  refusal  rate,  the  non-response  rate  was 
calculated  as:  (no  contact  details  +  no  answers  +  observer  declined  +  industry 
declined)/  (no  contact  details  +  no  answers  +  observer  declined  +  industry  declined  + 
trips sampled onboard). 

Data availability 

All requested data were uploaded before the deadline of the data call and were checked 
by the JRC routines. The current data can be regarded as final given current knowledge.    

114 

countryyearsample_framerefusal_ratecoverage_ratenonresponse_ratevessels_fleettrips_fleettrips_sampled_onboardunique_vessel_sampledunique_vessels_contactednot_availableno_contact_detailsno_answersobserver_declinedindustry_declinedsucces_ratetot_selectionsDEU2015OTB_DEF (27.1, 27.2)0.500.130.8948113NK07010.50NKDEU2015OTB_DEF (27.4.a, 27.4.b, 27.4.c)0.110.020.8827376877NK1046210.89NKDEU2015OTB_DEF (27.14.b, 21.1.c)0.000.100.82421224NK08101NKDEU2015TBB_DEF (27.4.b, 27.4.c)0.200.010.889366433NK323210.8NKDEU2015TBB_CRU (27.4.b)0.360.00NK17113154747NKNK28040.64NKDEU2015OTM_SPF (27.2.a, 27.4.a, 27.4.b, 27.6.a, 27.7.b-k, 27.8.a)0.000.150.596721134NK016001NKDEU2016OTB_DEF (27.1, 27.2)0.000.330.6743112NK02001NKDEU2016OTB_DEF (27.4.a, 27.4.b, 27.4.c)0.450.020.9120281647NK847050.55NKDEU2016OTB_DEF (27.14.b, 21.1.c)0.000.100.67420224NK04001NKDEU2016TBB_DEF (27.4.b, 27.4.c)0.000.010.7112386432NK37001NKDEU2016TBB_CRU (27.4.b)0.500.00NK170126317512NKNK35070.5NKDEU2016OTM_SPF (27.2.a, 27.4.a, 27.4.b, 27.6.a, 27.7.b-k, 27.8.a)0.000.150.386681024NK06001NKDEU2017OTB_DEF (27.1, 27.2)0.000.290.6057212NK03001NKDEU2017OTB_DEF (27.4.a, 27.4.b, 27.4.c)0.140.020.8722282647NK830110.86NKDEU2017OTB_DEF (27.14.b, 21.1.c)0.000.060.88516124NK07001NKDEU2017TBB_DEF (27.4.b, 27.4.c)0.000.010.608357433NK24001NKDEU2017TBB_CRU (27.4.b)0.440.00NK16912285548NKNK41040.56NKDEU2017OTM_SPF (27.2.a, 27.4.a, 27.4.b, 27.6.a, 27.7.b-k, 27.8.a)0.170.100.55652544NK05010.83NKDEU2018OTB_DEF (27.1, 27.2)0.000.220.5049222NK02001NKDEU2018OTB_DEF (27.4.a, 27.4.b, 27.4.c)0.170.020.8420232556NK718110.83NKDEU2018OTB_DEF (27.14.b, 21.1.c)0.000.140.63421322NK05001NKDEU2018TBB_DEF (27.4.b, 27.4.c)0.500.010.798373323NK26030.5NKDEU2018TBB_CRU (27.4.b)0.270.00NK17012586856NKNK26030.73NKDEU2018OTM_SPF (27.2.a, 27.4.a, 27.4.b, 27.6.a, 27.7.b-k, 27.8.a)0.000.130.50524343NK03001NKDEU2019OTB_DEF (27.1, 27.2)0.000.110.5029112NK01001NKDEU2019OTB_DEF (27.4.a, 27.4.b, 27.4.c)0.440.020.8915267534NK729040.56NKDEU2019OTB_DEF (27.14.b, 21.1.c)0.000.160.70419322NK07001NKDEU2019TBB_DEF (27.4.b, 27.4.c)0.330.010.858462444NK020020.67NKDEU2019TBB_CRU (27.4.b)0.330.00NK1669748647NKNK17130.67NKDEU2019OTM_SPF (27.2.a, 27.4.a, 27.4.b, 27.6.a, 27.7.b-k, 27.8.a)0.000.140.64529413NK07001NKDEU2015Demersal active fisheries, Western Baltic (27.3.c.22, 27.3.d.24)0.500.010.611203187161437NK090160.50NKDEU2015Demersal passive fisheries, Western Baltic (27.3.c.22, 27.3.d.24)0.530.000.5856610679231748NK240260.47NKDEU2015Demersal active fisheries, Eastern Baltic (27.3.d.24, 27.3.d.25, 27.3.d.26)0.250.080.25171199612NK00030.75NKDEU2016Demersal active fisheries, Western Baltic (27.3.c.22, 27.3.d.24)0.620.010.701312522221643NK0160360.38NKDEU2016Demersal passive fisheries, Western Baltic (27.3.c.22, 27.3.d.24)0.510.010.575369726542673NK590570.49NKDEU2016Demersal active fisheries, Eastern Baltic (27.3.d.24, 27.3.d.25, 27.3.d.26)0.780.060.79161056412NK010210.22NKDEU2017Demersal active fisheries, Western Baltic (27.3.c.22, 27.3.d.24)0.800.010.84962182121137NK0160480.20NKDEU2017Demersal passive fisheries, Western Baltic (27.3.c.22, 27.3.d.24)0.740.000.784787785221565NK3100640.26NKDEU2017Demersal active fisheries, Eastern Baltic (27.3.d.24, 27.3.d.25, 27.3.d.26)0.570.050.571155337NK00040.43NKDEU2018Demersal active fisheries, Western Baltic (27.3.c.22, 27.3.d.24)0.600.010.69952098161036NK0120240.40NKDEU2018Demersal passive fisheries, Western Baltic (27.3.c.22, 27.3.d.24)0.800.000.834837511171376NK0140670.20NKDEU2018Demersal active fisheries, Eastern Baltic (27.3.d.24, 27.3.d.25, 27.3.d.26)0.670.060.7013543310NK01060.33NKDEU2019Demersal active fisheries, Western Baltic (27.3.c.22, 27.3.d.24)0.410.010.51552237231429NK080160.59NKDEU2019Demersal passive fisheries, Western Baltic (27.3.c.22, 27.3.d.24)0.490.010.574287466392262NK770370.51NKDEU2019Demersal active fisheries, Eastern Baltic (27.3.d.24, 27.3.d.25, 27.3.d.26)0.330.050.50839224NK01010.67NK 
 
 
  
Coverage 

For  the  five  years  requested  all  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. For the years 2018 and 2019 again only very 
small differences occurred. 

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.  An  extra  table  with  less  details  for 
these vessels could also be an option.  

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  restrictions  on  metier  codes  allowed  are  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.  

Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

A1.10 GREECE 

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  supported  by  the 
integrated  fisheries  information  system  (IMAS-Fish)  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.  The  primary  data  are  stored  in  the  NCD  covering  the  part  of  the 
professional  fishing  fleet  that  is  obligated  to  be  equipped  with  a  control  positioning 
system and keep ERS. The VMS data are used to estimate the fishing effort from vessels 
with  total  length  >=15  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, small scale fishing 
vessels  operating  in  international  waters).  The  spatial  fishing  effort  is  estimated  by  a 
predefine  cell  size  (usually  2x2  Km)  and  by  GFCM  statistical  rectangle  according  to  the 
FDI data call ANNEX 1, using a methodology proposed by Kavadas et al. 2014 and Maina 

115 

 
et al., 2016. For the rest small scale fishing vessels (who are the majority of the Greek 
fishing fleet) effort 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 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 to support the FDI  data call. 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 
Rural Development and Food. Sales data are included in the database collected monthly 
by questionnaires in the port from the small scale fishing vessels. For the rest part of the 
fishing  fleet,  sales  data  are  stored  in  the  NCB  as  they  are  reported  in  the  ERS. 
Information on gear and statistical GFCM rectangle are provided by ERS. If there are less 
than three vessels in the aggregation level in tables A, G, H and I, they are marked as 
confidential.  

The length and age distributions were processed to support both MED&BS and FDI  data 
calls  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, where there is 
no age reading. 

Landings  below  minimum  conservation  reference  size  are  not  reported  in  the  ERS,  this 
information is calculated using the at-sea observer's data and is provided to the Med&BS 
and FDI data calls.  

Data availability 

All the data was submitted by the FDI data call deadline.    

Coverage 

Due to abnormal execution of DCF in 2015, only effort data `related to the operation of 
trawlers and purse seiners can be used for analysis purposes. FDI data for the year 2016 
is  provided  for  the  period  March  to  December  (due  to  abnormal  execution  of  DCF), 
except  landings  and  effort  information  for  trawlers  and  purse  seiners  that  are  provided 
for all months. Biological data for 2017 was not provided because the DCF was executed 
in the last quarter of the year covering a small area of the Greece. Nevertheless, effort 
and landings data for trawlers and purse seiners are provided for all months. Related to 
2018 and 2019, complete data sets are provided. 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. 

Confidentiality 

If  there  are  less  than  three  vessels  in  the  aggregation  level  in  tables  A  and  for  field 
TOTVALLANDG, they are marked as confidential.   

Comparison with Eurostat data 

In term of the fishing fleet, no significant differences exist 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. 

Problems encountered 

No problems encountered in the preparation and submission of the tables. 

116 

 
Other comments if relevant 

Refusal rates from the at-sea observers have not been reported. 

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 
fisheries  stakeholder.  Medit.  Mar.  Sc.  14(1),  109-118.  doi: 
prospects 
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 

A1.11 IRELAND 

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) 

QUARTER  and  YEAR  defined  on  the  trip  return  date.  FISHING_TECH  of  a  vessel  for  a 
certain  year  was  determined  based  on  the  highest  fishing  days  recorded  for  a  certain 
gear.  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 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 at sea sampling programme.  

Irish  market  sampling  information  is  not  recorded  with  mesh  size  information;  where 
possible  this  was  re-constructed  by  linking  to  the  logbooks  database  to  the  sampled 
data. 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.  

In  2020  Ireland  provided  refusal  rates  for  two  seperate  sampling  programs;  demersal 
(DEM)  and  pelagic  (PEL)  (Table  11.1).  These  refusal  rates  were  calculated  using  the 
guidlines set out in SGPIDS 3 (ICES CM 2013/ACOM:56). In 2017, Irelands demersal at-
sea  catch  sampling  programme  was  changed  to  a  4S  programme  (statitically  sound 
sampling  scheme).   This  demersal  sampling  frame  consists  of  Irish  registered  vessels 

117 

 
>10m length using the gear types OTB, SSC, GNS and TBB and with target assemblages 
DEF  and  CRU.  The  sampling  frame  is  stratified  temporally  (year  and  quarter)  and 
spatially (based on which ICES areas the majority of their fishing activity occurred in the 
same  quarter  in  the  previous  year).  This  results  in  3  vessel  lists  per  quarter  (vessels 
mostly  fishing  in  areas  27.6,  27.7.a  and  27.7.b-k).  Random  selections  are  then  made 
from  these  lists  and  sampling  coordinators  then  try  and  contact  the  selected  vessels  to 
arrange  trips  for  at-sea  observers  to  sample.   Vessels  are  selected  with  unequal 
probability,  based  on  their  length  and the  number  of  trips  they  have  previously  made.  
No clustering or sub-sampling is used. Refusal rates  for the perlagic fleet could only be 
calulated for the pelagic fleet as this was teh first year of a 4s scheme.   

118 

 
Table 11.1: Irish refusal rates submitted in to STECF-FDI data call in 2020 

SAMPLE
_ 

REFUSAL
_ 

COVERAGE
_ 

NONRESPONSE
_ 

VESSELS
_ 

TRIPS
_ 

SAMPLED
_ 

VESSELS
_ 

VESSELS_ 

NOT_ 

YEA
R 

FRAME 

RATE 

RATE 

RATE 

FLEET 

FLEET 

ONBOARD 

SAMPLED 

CONTACTE
D 

AVAILABL
E 

TRIPS_ 

UNIQUE_ 

UNIQUE_ 

NO_ 

CONTACT
_ 

DETAILS 

NO_ 

ANSWE
R 

OBSERVER
_ 

INDUSTRY
_ 

DECLINED 

DECLINED 

SUCCESS_RAT
E 

TOT_SELECTION
S 

2019 

DEM-6ab 

2019 

DEM-7a 

2019 

DEM-7bk 

2019 

PEL 

2018 

DEM-6ab 

2018 

DEM-7a 

2018 

DEM-7bk 

38.9 

29.3 

28.4 

31.9 

26.2 

27.9 

54.9 

1.5 

0.5 

0.4 

2.2 

1.9 

0.7 

0.4 

90 

59 

528 

93.5 

96 

1523 

88.7 

208 

5995 

76 

76 

1115 

83.3 

88.5 

58 

698 

72 

1441 

94.1 

171 

3499 

8 

7 

22 

25 

13 

10 

15 

4 

4 

16 

16 

9 

7 

12 

10 

24 

45 

42 

24 

25 

130 

32 

41 

47 

8 

36 

40 

99 

2017 

DEM-6ab 

NK 

2017 

DEM-7a 

NK 

2017 

DEM-7bk 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

2 

NK 

5 

NK 

7 

NK 

5 

NK 

1 

NK 

4 

NK 

13 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

0 

2 

4 

3 

2 

2 

5 

7 

12 

19 

23 

11 

12 

50 

61.1 

70.7 

71.6 

68.1 

73.8 

72.1 

45.1 

80 

107 

195 

104 

108 

122 

441 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

NK 

119 

 
 
 
Data availability 

Logbook and sales note information was finalised and deemed complete in May 2020. The 
landings and effort information for vessels >10m is derived from logbooks, whereas for vessels 
<10m it is derived from sales notes. The effort information for vessels <10m is estimated from 
sales notes by applying very broad assumptions for certain species/gears. Annual there remains a 
number of trips of vessels <10m for which effort cannot be estimated.  

Coverage 

General comments: 

Data was provided for all years requested (2015 – 2019) for all tables before the deadlines. The 
data  covers  all  areas  in  which  the  Irish  fleets  are  active  and  conform  to  the  requested 
aggregation. There is no information on misreporting. Data were marked as CONFIDENTIAL if the 
data relate to less than 3 vessels operating within a fishery. Values in the fields TOTWGHTLANDG 
and TOTVALLANDG in table A and table H were both considered as confidential when the criteria 
of < 3 vessels was met.  

Specific comments:  

-  Domian name consistency: Overall, there was good consistency between table A and tables 
containing  biological  samples  (Tables  C,  D,  E  &  F).  There  were  no  domain  names  in  the 
biological  tables  that  could  not  be  matched  to  metiers  in  Table  A.  There  are  a  number  of 
domains in Table A, which have discards for TAC species but no associated landings. Although 
the  majority  of  these  are  due  to  incidents  of  bycatch  species  in  mixed  fisheries,  there  are  a 
number of whiting (WHG) discard records which should have associated landings.  This is due 
to metier labelling issue at the level of the trip and the sampler, where the fisher records one 
metier  in  the  electronic  logbook  and  the  sampler  has  recorded  another  métier.  This  is 
considered  a  minor  issue  as  it  effects  a  very  small  tonnage  of  WHG  discards  <400  over  a 
period  of  5  years.  At  a  national  level  it  is  planned  to  address  issue  using  the  RCG  metier 
(https://github.com/ices-
developed 
script 
labelling 
eg/RCGs/tree/master/Metiers)  

subgroup 

RCG 

an 

by 

-  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, 
which is because the Eurostat list contains inactive vessels.  

-  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. The 
provision of different levels of confidentiality in this year’s data call (all, none, weight and 
value) helped to improve data availability.   

-  Spatial data: There were some minor issues with spatial tables, mostly associated with static 
fishing gears for vessels under 12meters, which do not have electronic logbooks. It is planned 
to apply the data checking scripts deveped by the spatial subgroup to the data call in 2021. 
(https://github.com/mauriziogibin/EWG-FDI-MAPPING). 

-  Biological data: The length tables (Table D and F) contained a number of duplicated starta, 
with varying mean weights. This error is artefact of how the data is raised from individual 
métiers and will be resolved for resubmission to next year’s data call. To avoid any impact to 
this year’s MCRS analysis the maximum of the two weights was used.  

A number of SOP errors were found in the biological tables that contain age: Table C and E. It 
is  unclear  what  has  caused  these  errors,  and  although  they  are  considered  substantial  they 
could  not  be  fixed  within  the  timeframe  of  the  meeting,  but  they  will  be  corrected  and 
included in a resubmission to next year’s data call.  

Problems encountered 

No problems were encountered during the data collection or submission process.  

120 

 
 
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.   

A1.12 ITALY 

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 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.  

Data on discards 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 

121 

 
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  available  at  the  metier  level  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, 

2. the proportions at point 1 are applied to the discard volume reported at metier level. 

The  splitting  is  based  on  certain  assumptions  and  was  accomplished  because  the  sampling 
scheme for discard estimations is not stratified by fleet segment, but only by metier and quarter, 
as reported in the work plan for data collection.  

Refusal rates 

Selection of PSU at each sampling occasion was not fully probability based, because of the limited 
number  of  vessels  by  metier,  quarter  and  geographical  subarea  (GSA  level).  There  was  thus  no 
formal  refusal  procedure  for  accepting  observers.  Observers  were  accepted  on  board  of  the 
vessels  fishing  in  specific  zones  of  a  given  GSA  on  ad  hoc  basis.  As  such,  no  specific  data  was 
provided in table B.  

Data availability 

All the data was finalized and available by the data call deadline. 

Coverage 

The Italian tables cover all the time series 2015-2019 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.  

The very few cases of average length of vessels not compatible with the vessel length code (table 
J)  are  not  to  be  considered  as  an  issue  because  they  are  due  to  clustering  of  some  vessels  for 
confidentiality  and  statistical  reasons.  Also,  there  are  some  commercial  species  for  which  the 
volume of discards has been reported as higher than landings. But this has not to be considered a 
data issue because it mainly refers to species with a very low commercial value and which catch 
is  frequently  discarded  (horse  mackerel  and  Mediterranean  horse  mackerel,  bogue,  common 
pandora, small spotted and black mouth catshark). 

Comparison with Eurostat data 

There is no difference between Eurostat data and FDI data call data. 

Confidentiality 

No confidentiality issue. 

Problems encountered 

No problems encountered in the preparation of the file.  

Other comments if relevant 

The estimation of discards through 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 2020 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  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 

122 

 
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 (as in 2018), 
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. 

A1.13 LATVIA 

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 and 
Discards).  

All discarded fishes by species are measured and weighted, except in the case when the discard is 
very large, in that 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, divided 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 

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. 

Data availability 

Latvian data were provided  on time and in accordance  with required format. Average prices  per 
species for 2019 were used from 2018. Prices for 2019 could be available in autumn of 2020.  

Coverage 

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. 

123 

 
Problems encountered 

No problems were encountered related to data collection or related to data submission. 

Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

A1.14 LITHUANIA 

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  ,Council  Implementing 
Regulation  (EC)  No  404/2011  in  Annex  X  and  the  national  legislation  contains  information 
regarding  the  restrictions  on  national  logbook  completion  for  vessels  up  to  8  metres’  length 
overall.  Community  fishing  vessels  up  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. 

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. The logbook data used for comparison. For flounder discards 
counted against total landings (by request of WGBFAS), for other species by number of voyages 
(metodology discrabed in WKSCMFD report). 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 metres length overall was derived from the combination 
of  the  monthly  declarative  forms  for  the  periods  until  2018  and  since  2019  from  the  national 
logbook. All data has 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  and  logbook  for  vessel.  Data  derived  from 
national logbook were completing by a company engaged in commercial fishing in the Baltic Sea 
coastal area. Small scale fleet has a daily activity and in declarative form 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.  

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. For small scaled fleet the fishing area assumed as 
one statistical rectangle which cover all coastal area.  

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.  

124 

 
R script was used for calculations of days at sea and fishing days. 

Refusal rates 

Sampling programe are contrebuted only on the Baltic Sea region. Sampling programme for the 
CECAF  and  SPRFMO  regions  is  carried  out  according  to  multilateral  agreement.  The  Nederland 
coordinate  the  programme  for  CECAF  and  Poland  for  SPRFMO.  Selection  of  PSU  was  not  fully 
probability  based,  because  of  small  number  of  vessels.  There  were  no  formal  refusals  for 
accepting  of  observers.  Observers  were  deployed  on  board  of  the  vessels  fishing  in  open  Baltic 
Sea on ad hoc basis. As such, no specific data was provided in table B. 

Data availability 

Transversal data by 1 February and biological data by 1 April are available for previous year.  

Coverage 

2015-2019 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, 
TABLE_A_CATCH  of  2017  data  were  resubmitted  due  to  observed  one  duplicate  line.  Any 
significant discrepancies have been noticed in the data checks of the Lithuanian data. 

Comparison with Eurostat data 

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. 

Problems encountered 

Due to the  established measures to alleviate a serious threat to the conservation of the eastern 
Baltic cod causing most fishing to be stopped, in the second part of 2019 the sampling plan was 
incomplete. As such, the provision of biological data has not been satisfied. 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. 

Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

125 

 
A1.15 MALTA – NO INFORMATION PROVIDED 

A1.16 POLAND 

Methodology 

Official  fisheries  data  of  the  Polish  fleet  from  the  period  2015-2019  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 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. 

Data availability 

All the data was finalised and available before the data call deadline. 

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 

126 

 
 
In  the  period  2015-2019  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. 

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 the period 2017  - 2019 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.  

Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

A1.17 PORTUGAL 

Methodology 

In  general,  Portugal  uses  multiple  data  sources:  Administration  data  base  (fleet  register; 
licenses),  logbooks,  sales  notes,  questionnaires  and  biological  data  collected  on  the  basis  of  the 
National  Programme  for  Data  Collection  (DCF/PNAB),  under  the  Data  Collection  Framework 
(DCF). 

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  métier  level,  Portugal  developed  a  procedure  that 
classifies each trip in a métier. The procedure is split into different methodologies concerning the 
characteristics of each vessel.  

For  vessels  without  logbook,  Data  Integration  software  is  used  to  apply  all  the  conditions  laid 
down in an algorithm based  on Sales Notes  and Fishing Permissions (licenses). As the approach 
for  FDI  data  call  is  based  on  the  concept  of  TRIP,  it  is  assumed  that  each  sale  note  date  of  a 
particular vessel corresponds to one trip. Each trip, observing certain conditions in terms of catch 
composition,  and  taking  into  account  the  fishing  licenses  of  the  vessel,  is  allocated  to  a  specific 
métier. In the Madeira outermost region, the métier assignment is also support by questionnaires 
carried out at the port  

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,  catches  and  spatial  information  for  each  haul  in  each  Fishing  Activity  Report  (FAR).  Each 
trip is classified in terms of date, area, gears, métier , catch composition (species), catch quantity 
(kg) and catch value. The current version of ERS does not have the definition of TRIP connecting 
all  the  reports  what  is  a  constraint  for  data  analysis.  However,  a  new  version  is  expected  to  be 
implemented in the future in parallel with a new data model which will allow an improvement in 
data quality.  

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. 

127 

 
Value of landings 

For  vessels  with  logbooks,  the  value  of  landings  is  calculated  multiplying  the  weight  of  landings 
by the average price determined for each vessel, specie and fishing area. For SSF, the weight and 
value of landings are the ones recorded in Sales Notes. All vessels are obliged to sell fresh fish at 
the auction market. 

Discards estimation 

Discards values on tables C and D are estimates based on biological sampling and were provided 
for 27.10.A area and trawlers in 27.9.A. 

Regarding discard estimates values for trawlers, these are the values reported to ICES for stocks 
assessment,  based  on  data  collected  from  the  observers  sampling  program  on-board    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%.  

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  discard  volumes  and  length  frequencies  at  the  fleet  level  are  only 
estimated  for  some  species  and  years.  Landings  by  species  for  the  métier’s  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 métier reported in Table A, according to the table 
below. Discards  estimates are reported for the  same aggregated métier s, which are the groups 
covered by the sampling program. 

Métier s from Table A - CATCH  Métier s in Tables C to E (biological data) 

OTB_CRU_55-59_0_0 

OTB_CRU_>=70_0_0 

OTB_DEF_0_0_0 

OTB_CRU_>=55_0_0 

OTB_DEF_65-69_0_0 

OTB_DEF_>=65_0_0 

OTB_DEF_>=70_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  métier  /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. 

Regarding  sub-region  27.10.A,  discards  values  were  estimated  based  on  data  collected  at  the 
observers  sampling  program  on-board.  During  2019,  observer  coverage  included  several  fleet: 
handliners,  longliners,  purse  seiners  and  gillnetters.  Each  observer  covers  100%  of  the  discards 
by haul/trip (species  composition and length), meaning that discards  were raised by métier  and 
vessel  length  segmentation.  Length-weight  relationships  were  used  to  obtain  total  weight 
discarded  by  trip.  Raising  factor  was  applied  by  species,  i.e.,  for  each  quarter/métier/vessel 
length/species discards was estimated using weight landed or number of trips, according with the 
assumption of a species been landed or not, respectively. 

128 

 
 
Landings and Discards Age and Length data 

Length frequency is collected for all species present at landings occurring in ports with at market 
sampling  coverage  –  concurrent  sampling.  Depending  on  the  species  selected  for  sampling  at 
laboratory,  the  frequency  on  collecting  other  biological  variables  such  as  weight,  age,  sex  and 
maturity varies in line with National Workplan. 

The  same  approach  is  conducted  regarding  at  sea  sampling  concerning  all  catch  fractions  at  a 
haul level. 

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 with frequency of occurrence in discards > 30%. Regarding area 27.10.A, no 
age data was provided (Tables C and E). 

is  higher 

in  discards 

Length  data  (Tables  D  and  F)  are  provided  for  all  species  assessed  by  ICES  and  for  métiers 
sampled in areas 27.1.B, 27.2.A and 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 the frequency 
In  each 
of  occurrence 
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. Concerning area 27.10.A, length data (Table D) 
are  provided  for  all  species  from  discarded  catch  fraction  (onboard  sampling).  Table  F  for  the 
Azores  (27.10.A  area)  was  not  submitted  due  to  problems  related  to  the  remote  access  to  the 
database since the pandemic disruption (from March onwards) which hampered the completion of 
updates and changes. As a result and considering the volume of data to be processed, the length 
data raising procedures could not be run. 

than  30%,  as  previously 

referred. 

Refusal rates 

For  onboard  sampling  in  27.9.A,  there  are  five  sampling  schemes  in  the  national  work  plans  of 
2015-2019:  PTS3  -  GNS_GTR_DEF  (vessel  length  >  12m),  PTS9  -  LLS_DWS  (vessel  length 
>12m),  PTS12  -  OTB_DEF  (vessel  length  >  24m),  PTS15  -  OTB_CRU  (vessel  length  >  12m), 
PTS18  -  PS_SPF  (vessel  length  >  12m),  PTS21  -  TBB_MCD.  For  each  of  the  five  sampling 
schemes  and  each  sampling  year,  the  sampling  frame  includes  all  active  vessels  of  that  métier 
and vessel length that operated in 27.9.A in the previous year. Vessel selection is random within 
each métier. As requested and defined in the 2020 FDI data call: 

Refusal  -  refers  to  “raw  industry  refusal”  i.e.  vessel  skippers  who,  having  been  successfully 
contacted, ultimately failed to allow the observer to go on board to obtain the sample;  

Non-response  –  refers  to  all  attempted  contacts  that  ultimately  failed  to  provide  a  sample,  for 
whatever reason;  

No-answer – refers to contact attempts (made by the observers) that, despite the correct contact 
details,  were  not  successful  (i.e.  it  was  not  possible  to  establish  contact  with  skippers  or  vessel 
owners); 

Observer-declined  –  refers  to  contacts  where  observers  declined  to  go  on-board  following  the 
availability of skippers or vessel owners; 

Industry-declined - skippers or vessel owners declined to accept observers on-board. 

At  sea  sampling  in  area  27.10.A  is  not  considered  to  be  a  probability  based  vessel  selection 
design. Therefore, refusal rates were recorded but not submitted. 

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. 

129 

 
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  Outermost 
Regions). This process is very time-consuming once not all data handlers have 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  proximity  of  the  deadline  to  the  vacation  period  and  the  labour 
constrains  caused  by  the  COVID19  outbreak,  it  was  necessary  to  add  some  data  during  the 
meeting. In addition, as the validation tool does not  cover all the issues (duplications and some 
inconsistencies between tables) and it was unable to upload after the second day of the meeting 
(before knowing the result of the crosscheck), it was not possible to correct all inconsistencies. 

Coverage 

Data checks 

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  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. 

In  some  cases  the  total  weight  of  fish  discarded  from  a  certain  species  is  higher  than  the  total 
weight  commercialized,  this  occurs  in  species  with low  commercial  value,  with  a  ban  on landing 
below the minimum size, and species whose quota has ended. 

For Area 27.10.A it was only possible to submit data from 2018 and 2019, since in 2018 a new 
entity became responsible in the Azores for DCF, with data from previous years not yet available. 

Confidentiality 

The  field  introduced  into  tables  A,  G,  H  and  I  to  flag  confidential  data  was  with  the  purpose  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. 

Problems encountered 

A large amount of data at a high level of disaggregation, 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. 

For effort calculation, logbook information is used to determinate fishing days using SQL scripts. 
The logbook is a powerful data source for effort estimation; however, there are situations where 
the  end  of  the  trip  is  not  recorded  in  the  logbook  and  the  trip  effort  cannot  be  estimated 
correctly. 

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. 

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  it  will  be  important  to  organize  a  workshop  for  data  providers,  between  the  launch  of  the 
request  and  the  submission  deadline.  This  workshop  does  not  have  to  be  face-to-face,  a  video 
conference will be sufficient. This could be a place for the data providers to ask for clarifications, 

130 

 
to change methodologies, improve the practices to extract data in order to provide the best and 
on time data to the EWG.  

A1.18 ROMANIA – NO INFORMATION PROVIDED 

A1.19 SLOVENIA – NO INFORMATION PROVIDED 

A1.20 THE NETHERLANDS 

Methodology 

Wageningen  Marine  Research  (WMR)  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. 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. 

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.  

The  Netherlands  did  not  provide  refusal  rates  (table  B).  Refusal  rates,  occasions  were 
fishers\fishing  companies  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. 

Dutch pelagic fisheries are owned by 3 fishing companies. The observer programmes and market 
sampling  run  in  close  cooperation  with  these  companies.  Refusal  of  scientist  sampling  is  not 
occurring  (so  far).  In  addition,  calculating  refusal  rates  over  3  different  entities  is  considered  to 
be not beneficial.   

For the monitoring of passive gear/small scale fisheries and shrimpers, attempts of setting up a 
system  to  record  refusals  rates  failed  in  previous  years,  and  is  still  the  situation.  Main  reasons 
were incomplete vessel lists and contact details of fishers.  

Data availability 

WMR  conducted  biological  sampling  programs  under  the  Data  Collection  Framework  (DCF). 
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. 

Coverage 

The  Netherlands  provided  fleet  specific  landing  and  effort  data  for  the  period  2015-2019.  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  questionable  and,  therefore, 
not  used.  Discard  estimates  were  provided  for  all  species  caught  in  fisheries  sampled  under  the 
Dutch  DCF  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 

131 

 
gear  (small  scale)  fisheries  are  monitored  with  an  observer  programme  of  which  the  sampling 
coverage is limited. 

Publication of confidential data 

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

Problems encountered 

No  major  problems  related  to  data  collection  were  encountered.  One  minor  issue  was  not 
providing  information  on  average  vessel  age,  therefore  there  in  no  output  on  ‘Tableau’  for 
‘avgage’ for ‘NLD’. 

Problems related to data call 

No  major  problems  were  encountered  related  to  the  data  call.  A  minor  issue  is  encountered 
during the merge of biological and effort data, which resulted in loss of landings data on the level 
of ices-rectangle. To solve this issue, landings were allocated to the most central ices-rectangle of 
a sub-area, which resulted in an unbalanced coverage of spatial landings on rectangle level. The 
similar problem occurred with vessel lengths, which resulted in losses of vessel length information 
in combination with landings data. However, all  information of  effort for both ices-rectangle  and 
vessel length is available in the effort tables.  

Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

A1.21 SPAIN 

Spain has provided 2015-2019 data for all the fisheries of the Spanish vessels around the world 
(ICES area, Mediterranean Sea, CECAF area, Tuna fisheries and Long distant fisheries).    

Methodology 

Data Procedure: 

-  Landings  weights  data  of  Table  A  come  from  the  cross-checking  of  sales  notes  and  logbooks 
data. 

- Discard information comes by default from scientific observers on board programme by métier. 
This  programme  provides  discard  ratios  by  stratum  (combination  of  year,  quarter,  metier  and 
species). Discard ratios (discards/landings) are multiplied by their corresponding landings weights 
of  each  row  of  Table  A  in  order  to  obtain  each  row  discard  weight.  New  rows  are  added  when 
there  is  a  discard  estimation  but  landings  are  zero  and  therefore  there  was  no  row.  Only  when 
there are no data from observers on board in a metier, discard data from logbooks are distributed 
among the rows of its stratum (combination of year, quarter, metier  and species) proportionally 
to the landings of each row.  

- 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) adding Table A data by quarter to obtain data by year. 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  (lengths  by  metier  and  ages  by  stock) 
and  they  are  raised  to  the  final  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.  Discards  length  and  age  distributions  are 
raised to the final discard weights. 

- Refusal rates of Table B come from the observers programme. Refusal rates collection has been 
implemented from 2016 on, therefore no data prior to this year are available. 

-  Effort  data  (Table  G  and  Table  J)  come  from  the  cross-checking  of  sales  notes  (vessel  length 
<10 m) and logbooks data.   

- Landing and effort by rectangle (Tables H and I) are obtained from the logbooks information.  

132 

 
Data availability 

Tables A, B, G, H, I, J were uploaded the deadline date (September 7th). Tables (C, D, E, F) were 
uploaded  on  September  8th.  Corrected  versions  of  some  of  the  tables  were  uploaded  later  until 
September 15th.  

Coverage 

Data seem to have a high coverage. 

Comparison with Eurostat data 

Data provided to STECF FDI were similar to data provided to Eurostat.  

Confidentiality 

All the Spanish data were non confidential.  

Problems encountered 

Problems related to the structure of the data call 

The overstratified FDI data matrix does not match with the DCF data collection sampling strata, 
this produces artefacts as for example discard data must be disaggregated by vessel length range 
producing possibly non representative values.  

Problems related to the data set preparation 

Domain discard and domain landings should be the sampling units, which in the case of Spain are 
the metier (DCF codes). Using other units causes:  

(a) wrong identification of duplicates in the data base,  

(b) the split of one métier data into several groups,  

(c) the aggregation of data of different metiers in the same group, which causes (d) and (e), 

(d) the weight of landings is different in Tables A, E and F because landings without sampling do 
not appear in tables E and F and there are domains with several metiers and not all the metiers 
are sampled,  

(e) incorrect processing of the mean weight data that causes (f): 

(f) the sum of products of mean weight by the number of individuals (SOP) does not correspond 
with the real weight that causes (g):  

(g) the stock structure data in the data base is affected and could affect to the MCRS (minimum 
conservation references sizes) outputs for Spain, that should be carefully interpreted. 

Problems related to data submission 

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.  

This is a recurrent situation, year by year. 

Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

A1.22 SWEDEN 

Methodology 

Landings, including BMS landings, were retrieved from logbooks for vessels >=10m LOA and from 
monthly coastal journals for vessels <10m LOA. 

133 

 
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  unwanted  catch 
unless  the  species  was  a  target  species.  Age  distributions  for  landings  were  estimated  from 
market  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.  Mean  weight  at 
length  was,  for  all  species  except  cod  in  the  Baltic,  derived  from  length-weight  relationships 
based on data collected in surveys (IBTS/BITS) and based on several years data. 

Effort was calculated using the fecR package.  

Refusal  rates  were  calculated  as  the  industry  refusal  rates,  i.e.  proportion  of  vessels  contacted 
that  did  not  agree  to  take  observers  on-board.  Non-response  rates  were  calculated  as  the 
proportion of vessels contacted that did not provide an observer trip, for different reasons. Most 
common reasons for a failed trip were that the vessel was not fishing in the desired time period 
or other logistical reasons such as bad weather conditions. Success rate was calculated as 1-non-
response.  The  rates  were  calculated  on  a  quarterly  basis  since  the  sampling  frames  were 
constructed by quarter and based on the activity of the vessels in each quarter previous year. No 
refusal rates could be calculated for 2015. This was partly due to the problems to obtain observer 
trips,  which  lead  to  some  ad-hoc  sampling  (see  “Problems  encountered”),  and  partly  to 
inconsistent documentation of the procedure of contacting vessels. 

134 

 
135 

YEARSAMPLE_FRAMEREFUSAL_RATECOVERAGE_RATENONRESPONSE_RATEVESSELS_FLEETTRIPS_FLEETTRIPS_SAMPLED_ONBOARDUNIQUE_VESSELS_SAMPLEDUNIQUE_VESSELS_CONTACTEDNOT_AVAILABLENO_CONTACT_DETAILSNO_ANSWEROBSERVER_DECLINEDINDUSTRY_DECLINEDSUCCESS_RATETOT_SELECTIONS2019OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0_Q10.000.100.5021215224100000.50NK2019OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0_Q20.000.150.0020205333000001.00NK2019OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0_Q30.000.170.0018170333000001.00NK2019OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0_Q40.200.100.8020252225000010.20NK2019OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q10.000.040.0048811222000001.00NK2019OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q20.000.040.0056812323000001.00NK2019OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q30.000.020.67601020113000000.33NK2019OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q40.000.050.0055742334000001.00NK2019OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q10.000.100.3321233223000000.67NK2019OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q20.000.070.3327412223100000.67NK2019OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q30.000.070.0029371222000001.00NK2019OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q40.000.090.8022203225100000.20NK2019OTB_DEF_24-26_Q10.000.150.5013117224100000.50NK2019OTB_DEF_24-26_Q20.000.070.8315133116500000.17NK2019OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q10.000.050.7143350227500000.29NK2019OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q20.000.160.3345562776200000.67NK2019OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q30.000.060.2549504334100000.75NK2019OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q40.000.090.5046451448200000.50NK2019OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q10.000.080.5024314224100000.50NK2019OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q20.000.050.6738508223200000.33NK2019OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q30.000.120.2534570444100000.75NK2019OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q40.000.140.2028431445100000.80NK2018OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0_Q10.000.110.3318193223000000.67NK2018OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0_Q20.000.100.5020231224000000.50NK2018OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0_Q30.000.230.2513177334100000.75NK2018OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0_Q40.250.110.5019232224000010.50NK2018OTB_CRU_32-69_2_22_Q10.000.100.0030405333000001.00NK2018OTB_CRU_32-69_2_22_Q20.000.080.0037563333000001.00NK2018OTB_CRU_32-69_2_22_Q30.000.090.0033466333000001.00NK2018OTB_CRU_32-69_2_22_Q40.000.090.0034382333000001.00NK2018OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q10.000.060.0054857333000001.00NK2018OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q20.000.040.6048739225300000.40NK2018OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q30.000.070.00541064444000001.00NK2018OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q40.000.060.4051688335200000.60NK2018OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q10.000.150.2520174334100000.75NK2018OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q20.000.070.3329394223000000.67NK2018OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q30.000.070.6029463225200000.40NK2018OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q40.000.080.3325229223100000.67NK2018OTB_DEF_24-26_Q10.20NK1.0013149NKNK5200010.00NK2018OTB_DEF_24-26_Q20.000.250.331698446200000.67NK2018OTB_DEF_24-26_Q30.000.310.001372444000001.00NK2018OTB_DEF_24-26_Q40.000.180.0022169444200001.00NK2018OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q10.170.060.5053451336000010.50NK2018OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q20.000.060.5048510436000000.50NK2018OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q30.000.040.6745406226200000.33NK2018OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q40.000.060.5048534336000000.50NK2018OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q10.000.130.2524267334100000.75NK2018OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q20.000.130.1738423556100000.83NK2018OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q30.000.100.0030511333000001.00NK2018OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q40.000.060.5031422224000000.50NK2017OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0_Q10.000.180.4017138335000000.60NK2017OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0_Q20.000.110.6018174225100000.40NK2017OTB_CRU_32-69_2_22_Q10.000.080.2538455334100000.75NK2017OTB_CRU_32-69_2_22_Q20.000.130.0040601553000001.00NK2017OTB_CRU_32-69_Q30.000.120.2942665557000000.71NK2017OTB_CRU_32-69_Q40.000.090.2045636445000000.80NK2017OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q10.000.060.0051622333000001.00NK2017OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q20.000.040.5051754324100000.50NK2017OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q30.000.060.00681397444000001.00NK2017OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q40.000.050.2556587334000000.75NK2017OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q10.000.210.0019206444000001.00NK2017OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q20.000.130.2524284334100000.75NK2017OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q30.000.060.5031438224100000.50NK2017OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q40.000.080.5025178224100000.50NK2017OTB_DEF_24-26_Q10.170.100.6720247226100010.33NK2017OTB_DEF_24-26_Q20.200.090.6023212225000010.40NK2017OTB_DEF_24-26_Q30.200.080.8012148115300010.20NK2017OTB_DEF_24-26_Q40.000.150.0020143333000001.00NK2017OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q10.000.040.6045447225200000.40NK2017OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q20.000.080.4349447447200000.57NK2017OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q30.200.060.4051485335100010.60NK2017OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q40.000.040.7148325227400000.29NK2017OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q10.000.130.2030313445100000.80NK2017OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q20.000.130.2940403557200000.71NK2017OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q30.000.060.6035483225100000.40NK2017OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q40.000.070.5028326224200000.50NK2016OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0_Q10.080.120.75252213312NK0NKNK10.25NK2016OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0_Q20.000.120.2525235334NK0NKNK00.75NK2016OTB_CRU_32-69_0_0_Q30.000.170.70181603310NK0NKNK00.30NK2016OTB_CRU_32-69_2_22_Q10.000.120.3841477558NK0NKNK00.63NK2016OTB_CRU_32-69_2_22_Q20.000.080.6340627338NK0NKNK00.38NK2016OTB_CRU_32-69_2_22_Q30.000.110.73365314411NK0NKNK00.27NK2016OTB_CRU_32-69_Q40.000.110.3844626558NK0NKNK00.63NK2016OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q10.330.060.5665801449NK0NKNK30.44NK2016OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q20.330.050.6764906439NK0NKNK30.33NK2016OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q30.210.050.717312304414NK0NKNK30.29NK2016OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3an_Q40.000.030.5060542224NK0NKNK00.50NK2016OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q10.130.120.6325273338NK0NKNK10.38NK2016OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q20.110.070.6741620339NK0NKNK10.33NK2016OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q30.090.070.73446994311NK0NKNK10.27NK2016OTB_CRU_70-89_2_35_3as_Q40.000.100.0031264333NK0NKNK01.00NK2016OTB_DEF_24-26_Q10.62NK1.0022303NKNK13NK0NKNK80.00NK2016OTB_DEF_24-26_Q20.560.160.81192743316NK0NKNK90.19NK2016OTB_DEF_24-26_Q30.570.120.86171603214NK0NKNK80.14NK2016OTB_DEF_24-26_Q40.000.210.5019227548NK0NKNK00.50NK2016OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q10.290.040.86513622214NK0NKNK40.14NK2016OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q20.450.040.82502922211NK0NKNK50.18NK2016OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q30.460.040.85493262213NK0NKNK60.15NK2016OTB_MCD_>=90_3an_Q40.000.040.6052435225NK0NKNK00.40NK2016OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q10.000.130.5024264436NK0NKNK00.50NK2016OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q20.000.070.7129215227NK0NKNK00.29NK2016OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q30.00NK1.0030299NKNK8NK0NKNK00.00NK2016OTB_MCD_>=90_3as_Q40.000.140.0035286655NK0NKNK01.00NK 
 
Data availability 

Data was provided by the data call deadline. 

Coverage 

Landings data was provided for all species 2015-2019.  

Discard estimates were provided for all species caught in fisheries sampled under the Swedish on-
board sampling programme 2015-2019.  

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 2015-2019. 

Refusal rate was provided for the main sampling frames for 2016-2019, while other parameters in 
Table B were provided for 2015-2019.  

General comments 

In the 2020 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  unwanted  catch  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. 

In the last quarter of 2016 Sweden made it compulsory for commercial vessels to accept scientific 
on-board observers, which is reflected in the refusal rates in Table B.  

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 

136 

 
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 2020 no data was considered confidential in the Swedish data 
set. 

Problems encountered 

Problems related to data collection 

In  2015  the  Swedish  on-board  sampling  programme  failed  to  collect  sufficient  unwanted  catch 
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.  

No  refusal  rates  could  be  calculated  for  2015.  This  was  partly  due  to  the  problems  to  obtain 
observer trips, which lead to some ad-hoc sampling, and partly to inconsistent documentation of 
the procedure of contacting vessels.  

Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

A1.23 UNITED KINGDOM – TEXT FROM 2019 REPORT 

Methodology 

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.  

Domain name methodology 

UK – Scotland  

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 

137 

 
 
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. 

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 

138 

 
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:  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. 

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. 

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.  

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 

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. 

VESSELS_FLEET 

TRIPS_FLEET 

~ 

~ 

TRIPS_SAMPLED_ONBOARD  Value includes off draw samples 

UNIQUE_VESSEL_SAMPLED  ~ 

VESSELS_CONTACTED 

NOT_AVAILABLE 

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 

139 

 
NO_CONTACT_DETAILS 

NO_ANSWER 

OBSERVER_DECLINED 

INDUSTRY_DECLINED 

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. 

SUCCESFUL_SAMPLE 

Value includes off draw samples 

TOT_SELECTIONS 

Sum of all sequential selections. 

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  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).  

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. 

Table 23.1: Data totals for the UK by year 

Table/Variable 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

TABLE_A_discards  

6,665 

7,595 

7,108 

6,704 

TABLE_A_totvallandg  

57,206 

61,602 

54,951 

48,738 

TABLE_A_totwghtlandg  

57,206 

61,602 

54,951 

48,738 

TABLE_B_refusal_rate  

5 

5 

16 

16 

TABLE_C_age  

979 

1,006 

971 

1,000 

TABLE_C_discards  

1,128 

1,176 

1,072 

1,119 

TABLE_C_no_age  

979 

1,006 

971 

1,000 

TABLE_C_no_samples  

1,128 

1,176 

1,072 

1,119 

TABLE_D_discards  

12,043 

14,144 

12,982 

14,362 

TABLE_D_length  

12,043 

14,144 

12,982 

14,362 

TABLE_D_no_length  

12,043 

14,144 

12,982 

14,362 

140 

 
 
Table/Variable 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

TABLE_D_no_samples  

12,043 

14,144 

12,982 

14,362 

TABLE_E_age  

5,852 

6,052 

5,849 

5,310 

TABLE_E_no_age  

5,852 

6,052 

5,849 

5,310 

TABLE_E_no_samples  

4,670 

4,691 

4,392 

4,015 

TABLE_F_length  

28,005 

29,091 

27,776 

24,914 

TABLE_F_no_length  

28,005 

29,091 

27,776 

24,914 

TABLE_F_no_samples  

28,005 

29,091 

27,776 

24,914 

TABLE_G_gthrsea  

6,090 

6,283 

6,141 

5,646 

TABLE_G_hrsea  

6,090 

6,283 

6,141 

5,646 

TABLE_G_kwhrsea  

6,090 

6,283 

6,141 

5,646 

TABLE_G_totfishdays  

6,090 

6,283 

6,141 

5,646 

TABLE_G_totgtdaysatsea  

6,090 

6,283 

6,141 

5,646 

TABLE_G_totgtfishdays  

6,090 

6,283 

6,141 

5,646 

TABLE_G_totkwdaysatsea  

6,090 

6,283 

6,141 

5,646 

TABLE_G_totkwfishdays  

6,090 

6,283 

6,141 

5,646 

TABLE_G_totseadays  

6,090 

6,283 

6,141 

5,646 

TABLE_G_totves  

6,090 

6,283 

6,141 

5,646 

TABLE_H_totwghtlandg  

271,013  287,399  264,895  244,845 

TABLE_I_totfishdays 

17,856 

18,655 

18,326 

17,288 

TABLE_J_avgage  

TABLE_J_avgloa  

TABLE_J_maxseadays  

TABLE_J_totgt  

TABLE_J_totkw  

TABLE_J_tottrips  

TABLE_J_totves  

51 

51 

46 

51 

51 

51 

51 

58 

58 

53 

58 

58 

58 

58 

56 

56 

51 

56 

56 

56 

56 

52 

52 

47 

52 

52 

52 

52 

141 

 
 
General comments 

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  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. 

Table 23.2: Data totals (landings, tonnes) for the UK by year 

Year 

FDI 2019 

Eurostat  % Dif (vs. Eurostat) 

2015 

708,191 

701,769 

0.9% 

2016 

701,736 

699,842 

0.3% 

2017 

724,860 

722,691 

0.3% 

Table 23.3: Data totals (vessels) for the UK by year 

Year 

FDI 2019 

Eurostat  % Dif (vs. Eurostat) 

2015 

6,347 

6,232 

1.8% 

2016 

6,347 

6,235 

1.8% 

2017 

6,304 

6,199 

1.7% 

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 

142 

 
 
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  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. 

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.  

Other comments if relevant 

No other comments. 

143 

 
 
Annex 2. Data associated with anticipated exemptions (electronic) 

Annex 3. Percentage of fish above and below MCRS (electronic) 

Annex 4. Maps of effort and landings (electronic) 

Available at https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/fdi 

144 

 
 
 
 
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). 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 K
J
-
A
X
-
2
0
-
0
1
4
-
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. 

146 

doi:10.2760/61855 

ISBN  978-92-76-27166-6