Evaluation of work plans for data collection and data transmission issues (STECF 24-15).
Date: 2025-01-14
Institutions: Joint Research Centre, Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
Subjects: Community fisheries, conservation of fish stocks, data collection, environmental economics, evaluation of resources, fishery management, research report, technical regulations, territorial waters

Scientific Technical and Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 

Evaluation of work plans for data 
collection and data transmission issues 
(STECF 24-15) 

Stransky, C., Hekim, Z. (eds) 

2025 

 ISSN 2467-0715  
  
  
 
 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The contents of this 
publication do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion 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. 

EU Science Hub 
https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu 

JRC140596 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-23032-9   ISSN 2467-0715   doi:10.2760/6665344  

KJ-01-24-220-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2025 

© European Union, 2025 

The reuse policy of the European Commission documents 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). Unless 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 European Union permission must be sought directly from 
the copyright holders. 

How to cite this report: European Commission: Joint Research Centre, Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)   
Evaluation of work plans for data collection and data transmission issues (STECF 24-15), Stransky, C. and Hekim, Z. editor(s), Publications 
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2025, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/6665344, JRC140596. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS 
Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 3 

STECF Report on EWG 24-15 Evaluation of work plans for data collection and data 

transmission issues (STECF-24-15) ............................................................... 5 

Request to the STECF ................................................................................................ 5 

STECF comments ....................................................................................................... 5 

STECF conclusions .................................................................................................... 8 

Contact details of STECF members ............................................................................ 8 

Expert Working Group EWG-24-15 report ................................................................ 12 

1 

Introduction .................................................................................................. 13 

1.1 

Terms of Reference for EWG 24-15 ............................................................. 13 

2 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

2.6 

2.7 

2.8 

2.9 

EVALUATION OF MEMBER STATES’ WORK PLANS 2025-2027 ............. 17 

Background information ............................................................................... 17 

Pre-screening ............................................................................................... 17 

Evaluation criteria, assessment grid and procedures ................................... 17 

Sub-groups and task allocation .................................................................... 17 

Evaluation process ....................................................................................... 18 

General information ...................................................................................... 18 

Biological data .............................................................................................. 21 

Relation between national Work Plans (WPs) and regional Work Plans 
(RWPs) ......................................................................................................... 25 

Diadromous species and recreational fisheries ............................................ 26 

Surveys ........................................................................................................ 28 

2.10 

Impact of fisheries on marine biological resources ....................................... 31 

2.11  Economic and social data ............................................................................ 34 

2.12  Amendments of the guidance and templates for WPs .................................. 38 

Change of column name in Table 2.1 ........................................................... 38 

Out-of-frame population in Table 2.5 ............................................................ 38 

Inconsistency between “NA” and “N/A” ........................................................ 39 

2.13  Amendments of the evaluation procedures and assessment grid ................ 39 

Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5 .............................................................................. 39 

Diadromous species and recreational fisheries ............................................ 42 

3 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

EWG COMMENTS ON REGIONAL WORK PLANS 2025-2027 .................. 43 

Latest status of RWPs .................................................................................. 43 

Baltic ............................................................................................................ 43 

North Atlantic, North Sea and Eastern Arctic (NANSEA) ............................. 43 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.4 

3.5 

3.6 

3.7 

4 

4.1 

4.2 

Mediterranean and Black Sea (Med&BS) ..................................................... 44 

Large Pelagics (LP) ...................................................................................... 44 

Long-Distance Fisheries (LDF) .................................................................... 44 

Economic Issues (ECON) ............................................................................ 45 

EVALUATION OF DATA TRANSMISSION ISSUES (DTi) ........................... 46 

Assessment of DT Issues from 2024 data calls ........................................... 46 

Assessment of DT Issues from 2023 data calls ........................................... 46 

Suggestion for guidelines ............................................................................. 47 

4.3 

Link between DT issues and WP ................................................................. 47 

5 

5.1 

5.2 

5.3 

5.4 

DCF IT PLATFORM ..................................................................................... 48 

Upload of MS WPs to the platform ............................................................... 48 

Pre-screening comments using the platform ................................................ 48 

EWG working with the platform .................................................................... 48 

EWG Feedback on ID rules from the IT platform.......................................... 48 

Table 2.2 ...................................................................................................... 49 

6 

Contact details of EWG-24-15 participants .................................................. 51 

List of Annexes ......................................................................................................... 54 

List of Background Documents ................................................................................. 54 

List of Tables............................................................................................................... 0 

2 

2 

 
 
 
 
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. This report on the evaluation of work plans has been 
reviewed by STECF during the 2024 winter plenary meeting. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Authors: 

STECF advice:  

Bastardie, Francois; Borges, Lisa; Casey, John; Daskalov, Georgi; Döring, Ralf; Drouineau, 
Hilaire; Goti Aralucea, Leyre; Grati, Fabio; Hamon, Katell; Ibaibarriaga, Leire; Jardim, 
Ernesto; Jung, Armelle; Ligas, Alessandro; Mannini, Alessandro; Martin, Paloma; Moore, 
Claire; Motova-Surmava, Arina; Nielsen, Rasmus; Nimmegeers, Sofie; Nord, Jenny; Pinto, 
Cecilia; Prellezo, Raúl; Raid, Tiit; Sabatella, Evelina Carmen; Sampedro, Paz; Somarakis, 
Stylianos; Stransky, Christoph; Ulrich, Clara; Uriarte, Andres; Valentinsson, Daniel; van Hoof, 
Luc; Velasco Guevara, Francisco; Vrgoc, Nedo. 

EWG-24-15 report:  

Stransky, Christoph 

Accadia, Paolo; Adamidou, Angeliki; Armesto, Angeles; Avdic Mravlje, Edvard; Berkenhagen, 
Jörg; Brigaudeau, Cecile; Chassanite, Aurore; Davidjuka, Irina; Freese, Marko; Grati, Fabio; 
Hekim, Zeynep; Isajlovic, Igor; Jakovleva, Irina; Koutrakis, Emmanouil; Kovars, Maksims; 
Liontakis, Angelos; Nermer, Tomasz; Nicheva, Simona; Nimmegeers, Sofie; Panayotova, 
Marina; Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Jose; Sakas, Remigijus; Torreele; Ulleweit, Jens; Van Overzee, 
Harriet; Vukov, Ivana; Zhelev, Kolyo; Zolubas, Tomas. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STECF Report on EWG 24-15 Evaluation of work plans for data collection and data 
transmission issues (STECF-24-15) 

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 following topics are particularly pertinent for DG MARE: 

1)  MS follow-up in new work plans on RCG recommendations, previous STECF 

evaluations (WP, AR, DT) 

2)  Evolution of MS work plans compared to 2022-2024, also including policy 

development (e.g. Marine Action Plan) and integration of previous pilot studies, if not 
done until 2024. 

3)  Integration of regional WP into national WP: observed progress towards more 
coordinated data collection to satisfy end-user needs, recommendations for 
improvement 

STECF comments 

STECF notes that EWG 24-15 met in Brussels from 28 to 31 October 2024 and virtually on 4 
November 2024 to: 

  evaluate the Member States national Work Plans (WP) and their link to the Regional 
Work Plans (RWP), under the Data Collection Framework (DCF) for the years 2025-
2027,   

  evaluate high-severity Data Transmission issues (DTi) from the 2024 Fleet Economics 
data call (EWG 24-03 and EWG 24-07) and medium- and low-severity issues from 
2023 data calls, uploaded on the Data Transmission Monitoring Tool (DTMT), 
test and provide input on the DCF IT platform. 

 

STECF considers that the EWG adequately addressed the TORs and has the following 
specific comments on the ToRs. 

1.  Evaluation of Member States’ national WPs and their link to the RWPs 

STECF notes that 24 Member States submitted their national WP for 2025-2027, of which 20 
were new WPs and 4 revised WPs.  

STECF notes that prior to the EWG, all national WPs were pre-screened through a series of 
ad-hoc contracts and a so-called ping-pong information exchange was conducted between 
DG MARE and the Member States as in previous years. Member States were requested to 
reply to the issues identified by the EWG experts during the meeting and after the third round 
of this ping-pong process (including the pre-screening), issues identified in 16 national WPs 
were unsolved by the end of the meeting, leaving those issues to be re-assessed during the 
STECF plenary meeting (PLEN 24-03). 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STECF notes that 15 out of 16 Member States provided feedback on the outstanding issues 
and/or resubmitted their national WP by the end of the STECF plenary meeting. The final 
cross-check of the outstanding issues by the STECF plenary, in cooperation with DG MARE, 
resulted in that minor issues remained unresolved in eight WPs at the end of the STECF 
plenary. Some of these issues require bilateral communication between the Commission and 
Member States to be resolved. STECF notes that the evaluation sheets (so-called 
assessment grids) and guidance for evaluators developed by STECF during 2020-2022 were 
used for the evaluation. The detailed outcomes of the evaluations by each Member State 
were reported in the evaluation sheets (assessment grids) to keep track of the adjustments 
and comments made during the multiannual WP evaluation process.  

STECF observes that effort has been made to further refine the national WP templates, WP 
guidelines and assessment grid for future WP evaluations and/or submissions, e.g. the EWG 
agreed to amendment the guidance to specify that table 2.1 (‘List of required species/stocks’) 
only refers to commercial sampling and that in table 2.5 (‘Sampling plan description for 
biological data’) an ‘out-of-frame’ row must be provided for each Sampling scheme identifier. 
STECF observes that the proposed revised assessment grid is available in the electronic 
annexes of the EWG report and reflects e.g. the addition of a consistency check between the 
sampling scheme identifiers in the tables and the quality annexes and the option to include 
additional comments.  

STECF observes that during the evaluation of the national WPs, the EWG was also asked to 
check the consistency of the national WPs with the regional WPs (RWPs) and to verify the 
alignment with the Marine Action Plan objectives regarding the by-catch of sensitive species 
and impact of fishing on the seabed. 

STECF observes that the EWG identified discrepancies between RWPs and national WPs, 
and emphasized that in case of an error in the RWP, it should not be transferred to the 
national WP. Instead, the inconsistency with the RWP should be clarified with a comment in 
the national WP and the error in the RWP should be addressed by the respective RCG. The 
EWG also noted a common issue in several national WPs regarding references to specific 
tables that do not exist in the RWPs. 

STECF observes that although five out of six RWPs are formally approved by STECF, the 
EWG still identified inconsistencies in the RWPs. A frequently occurring issue is the incorrect 
application of the threshold rules for not sampling when a Member State has no landings or 
catches of a species.  

STECF observes that the EWG conducted a cross-check of the references to the Marine 
action plan in the national WPs and asked the Member State to provide the reference if it was 
missing in the national WP. 

STECF observes that the EWG was asked to assess the progress compared to the previous 
national WP submissions, including how effectively the issues identified in past evaluations 
have been addressed, whether test studies have now been integrated into the regular 
sampling programmes and if RCG/end-user recommendations have been followed.  

STECF notes that the EWG provided an overview of the main changes in national WPs from 
2022-2024 to 2025-2027 per Member State and section of the WP, along with comments on 
those changes. The EWG used the Member States summaries of the changes and 
amendments in the national WPs to compile those overviews. However, STECF observes 

6 

 
 
that, due to the lack of a standardized approach, the level of detail and focus in the overviews 
of the Member States varies widely and hampers the assessment of the progress.  

STECF observes that the EWG did not address the follow-up on RCG recommendations in 
the national WPs. STECF notes that, unlike in the AR template, the WP template does not 
include a table for Member States to document follow-up actions, as those recommendations 
are incorporated in the RWPs and do not often require multiannual follow-up. 

2.  Evaluation of Data Transmission issues (DTi) 

STECF observes that the EWG evaluated one high-severity DTi from the 2024 Fleet 
Economics data call (EWG 24-03 and 24-07), and 157 medium- and low-severity DTis from 
the data calls in 2023 (49 issues from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 
(ICES), 8 issues from Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), 32 issues from Fisheries 
Independent Information (FDI), 52 issues from Mediterranean and Black Sea (Med&BS) and 
16 issues from processing industry).  

STECF notes that 5 DTis related to the ICES data calls, were assessed as ‘Follow-up 
needed,’ with DG MARE appointed as the ‘Follow up responsible’, following the updated 
DTMT guidance and decision tree (version March 2024). 33 DTis were assessed as 
‘Unsatisfactory’ and 52 as ‘Unsatisfactory-to be revised’, of which the majority is related to 
the IOTC and Med&BS data call.  

STECF notes that the high-severity DTis lacked a response from the Member States and was 
therefore assessed as ‘Unsatisfactory’.   

STECF notes that the additional time allocated in the new DTMT assessment cycle for end 
users to provide feedback on the responses provided by Member States, resulted in end user 
feedback for the DTis, related to the FDI data call, Mediterranean and Black Sea data call 
and the processing industry call. STECF notes that the feedback facilitated the assessments. 

STECF observes that the EWG suggested amending the DTMT Guidance document to 
clarify that when a DTi is assessed as ‘Unsatisfactory’, a ‘Follow up responsible’, should not 
be assigned, as this closes the issue. 

3.  DCF IT platform 

STECF observes that although submission via the platform was optional, the majority of the 
Member States successfully submitted their national WP to the DCF IT platform before the 
pre-screening and during the EWG meeting. STECF notes that the EWG acknowledges the 
great progress in functionality of the DCF IT platform, which resulted in fewer editing errors 
compared to traditional submissions in previous years. 

STECF observes that the use of the DCF IT platform in the pre-screening process resulted in 
faster and more comprehensive issue identification. However, the ability to assign comments 
to specific parts in the text or to multiple cells, rows or columns at once would further 
enhance the process. 

STECF observes that the DCF IT platform was also tested in relation to the EWG 
assessments and communication with MS for 2 national WPs.  

STECF observes that the EWG provided suggestions for the improvement of the cross-
checking rules within the DCF IT platform.       

7 

 
 
 
STECF conclusions 

STECF endorses the outcomes of EWG 24-15 presented during STECF PLEN 24-03 and 
concludes that all ToRs were appropriately addressed.  

STECF concludes that the extended ping-pong evaluation process (i.e. communication of 
issues with the WP between DG MARE and Member States), consisting of four cycles, 
extended into the STECF plenary meeting which caused additional work during the plenary 
meeting, but will benefit future AR evaluations. 

STECF concludes that there is a need for guidance on the level of detail required in the 
summaries of the Member States regarding changes in the WPs, as this information is used 
to assess the progress of Member States WPs compared to previous submissions. 

STECF concludes that the follow-up on RCG recommendations by Member States in the 
WPs was not addressed and cannot be easily verified, as there is no documentation 
reflecting follow-up actions by the Member States. For this reason, STECF concludes that   
this documentation should be requested in future WP submissions. 

The EWG provided suggestions for improving the WP templates, WP guidelines and 
assessment grid used. STECF concludes that these should be considered in future WP 
submissions and evaluations.  

STECF concludes that a comprehensive operational test of the DCF IT-platform was 
conducted for the first time, demonstrating its valuable functionality in enabling faster error 
detection during the submission and evaluation of the WPs. However, the functionality of 
adding and saving comments could still be improved.  

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: How to get involved - 
European Commission 

Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Bastardie, Francois  

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

fba@aqua.dtu.dk  

Borges, Lisa 

FishFix, Lisbon, Portugal 

info@fishfix.eu 

Casey, John 

Independent consultant 

blindlemoncasey@gmail.co
m  

8 

 
 
 
Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Daskalov, Georgi 

Döring, Ralf 

Georgi.m.daskalov@gmail.
com 

ralf.doering@thuenen.de 

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 

Drouineau, Hilaire  

Inrae, France 

hilaire.drouineau@inrae.fr  

Goti Aralucea, Leyre  

Grati, Fabio  

Thünen Institute of Sea Fisheries - 
Research Unit Fisheries 
Economics, Herwigstrasse 31, D-
27572 Bremerhaven, Germany 

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

leyre.goti@thuenen.de 

fabio.grati@cnr.it 

Hamon, Katell 

Wageningen Economic Research, 
The Netherlands 

katell.hamon@wur.nl 

Ibaibarriaga, Leire  

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

libaibarriaga@azti.es  

Jardim, Ernesto 

Independent expert 

ernesto.jardim@gmail.com 

Jung, Armelle 

Ligas, Alessandro  

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

armelle.jung@desrequinset
deshommes.org  

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

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

Mannini, Alessandro 

CNR IRBIM Ancona, Largo Fiera 
della Pesca, 260125 Ancona 
ITALY 

alessandro.mannini@irbim.
cnr.it  

Martin, Paloma  

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

paloma@icm.csic.es 

9 

 
 
 
Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Motova -Surmava, Arina 

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

arina.motova@seafish.co.u
k 

Moore, Claire 

Marine Institute, Ireland 

claire.moore@marine.ie  

Nielsen, Rasmus 

University of Copenhagen, Section 
for Environment and Natural 
Resources, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 
Frederiksberg C, Denmark 

rn@ifro.ku.dk  

Nimmegeers, Sofie  

Flanders research institute for 
agriculture, fisheries and food, 
Belgium 

Sofie.Nimmegeers@ilvo.vl
aanderen.be  

Nord, Jenny (chair) 

Independent consultant 

nordjenny@hotmail.com 

Pinto, Cecilia (vice-chair) 

Università di Genova, DISTAV - 
Dipartimento di Scienze della 
Terra, dell'Ambiente e della Vita, 
Corso Europa 26, 16132 Genova, 
Italy 

cecilia.pinto@edu.unige.it  

Prellezo, Raúl (vice-chair)  AZTI -Unidad de Investigación 

rprellezo@azti.es 

Raid, Tiit  

Marina, Txatxarramendi Ugartea 
z/g 48395 Sukarrieta (Bizkaia), 
Spain 

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

Tiit.raid@gmail.com  

Sabatella, Evelina Carmen  National Research Council (CNR) 

evelina.sabatella@cnr.it  

Sampedro, Paz 

Somarakis, Stylianos  

– Institute for Research on 
Population and Social Policies 
(IRPPS), Corso S. Vincenzo 
Ferreri, 12, 84084 Fisciano, 
Salerno, Italy 

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

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

10 

paz.sampedro@ieo.csic.es  

somarak@hcmr.gr 

 
 
Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Stransky, Christoph 

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

christoph.stransky@thuene
n.de 

Ulrich, Clara 

IFREMER, France 

Clara.Ulrich@ifremer.fr  

Uriarte, Andres 

Independent expert 

auriartes@hotmail.com 

Valentinsson, Daniel  

van Hoof, Luc  

Velasco Guevara, 
Francisco 

Vrgoc, Nedo  

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

Wageningen Marine Research 
Haringkade 1, Ijmuiden, The 
Netherlands 

daniel.valentinsson@slu.se 

Luc.vanhoof@wur.nl 

Spanish Insitute of Oceanography 
- National Research Council, 
Spain 

francisco.velasco@ieo.csic
.es  

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

vrgoc@izor.hr 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXPERT WORKING GROUP EWG-24-15 REPORT 

REPORT TO THE STECF 

EXPERT WORKING GROUP ON 
Evaluation of work plans for data collection and data 
transmission issues 
(EWG-24-15) 

28-31 October 2024, Brussels and 4 November 2024, virtual 

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 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

The STECF Expert Working Group (EWG) 24-15 met in Brussels from 28 to 31 October 2024 
and virtually on 4 November 2024 to (i) evaluate Member States’ (MS) national Work Plans 
(WP) 2025-2027 under the Data Collection Framework (DCF), (ii) evaluate Data 
Transmission issues (DTi), (iii) comment on the DCF IT platform. 

The work was conducted by 28 independent experts (see the list of participants in section 6). 
The Terms of Reference are given below. 

1.1 

Terms of Reference for EWG 24-15 

Background 

Article 6 of the Data Collection Framework (DCF) Regulation (EU) 1004/2017 requires the 
Member States to submit to the Commission a national Work Plan (WP) for approval. It 
requires the Commission to request STECF to evaluate the WPs prior to their approval. 

Article 9 of the DCF Regulation (EU) 1004/2017 allows the Regional Coordination Groups 
(RCGs) to submit to the Commission Regional Work Plans (RWP) for approval. It requires 
the Commission to request STECF to evaluate the RWPs prior to their approval. 

Article 11 of the DCF Regulation (EU) 1004/2017 requires the Member States to submit to 
the Commission an annual report (AR) on the implementation of their national Work Plans 
(WPs); and requires STECF to evaluate the coverage and quality of the data collected by the 
Member States. 

Following the STECF request for IT tools to facilitate the WP evaluation, the Commission 
launched a project to develop a dedicated DCF IT platform for drafting, submitting and 
assessing the WPs and ARs. The IT platform will be used on a voluntary basis by Member 
States to submit their WP for evaluation by EWG 24-15. 

EWG 24-15 will report the findings to the plenary meeting of the STECF, which will take place 
11-15 November 2024. EWG 24-15 will evaluate: 

1) (new or revised) WPs 2025-2027 submitted by at least 21 Member States in the traditional 
manual way and through the IT platform; prescreened by ad-hoc experts, 

2) the data transmission issues (DTi) uploaded on the Data Transmission Monitoring Tool 
(DTMT): 

a. 1 high-severity data transmission issues from the 2024 Fleet Economics data call (EWG 
24-03 and EWG 24-07), and  

b. 157 medium- and low-severity issues from 2023 data calls (Med&BS EWG 23-09 and 
EWG 23-12, FDI EWG 23-10, Processing EWG 23-14, ICES, IOTC, ICCAT). 

The number of submitted WPs (at least 21) will be confirmed on 16 October, as the 
submission deadline is 15 October 2024. 

Request to EWG 24-15 

EWG 24-15 is requested to: 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ToR 1: Evaluate the (revised) WPs 2025-2027 and their link to RWPs 

Experts are requested to evaluate the WPs submitted by Member States, in accordance with 
Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1004, considering: 

 

 

 

 

the consistency of national WPs with regional WPs, as published on RCG/DCF 
websites (and uploaded in the IT platform) 
the conformity of the WPs with the contents of Articles 6 and 9 of the DCF Regulation, 
and with the EU MAP from 2022 onwards, 
the scientific relevance of the data covered by the WPs for the purposes laid down in 
Article 1(1) of the DCF Regulation, and the quality of the proposed methods and 
procedures, 
the conformity with the format and guidelines on the WP template (for the national 
WPs). 

The experts shall summarise the evolution in WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027 per MS and 
region. The experts should pay particular attention if the Member States considered the 
comments provided by STECF EWG 21-17 and the Commission during the WP 2022-
2024(2027) assessment, as well as the STECF assessment of the WP amendments (EWG 
22-18, EWG 23-16), and of AR (EWG 23-08, EWG 24-08). They should also verify if 
remaining 2017-2019 pilot studies have been integrated to regular data collection where 
appropriate. 

Prior to the EWG 24-15 meeting, a pre-screening of Member States' ARs will be undertaken 
through a series of ad-hoc contracts. The pre-screeners will use the grid for the evaluation of 
WPs and the guidance for AR evaluators. The pre-screeners may comment and propose 
amendments to the grid and guidance which in turn should be considered by EWG 24-15 
before the WP evaluation starts. 

Pre-screeners will signal issues that can be fixed by the Member States before the EWG 24-
15 starts. The Member States will provide explanations and resubmit the WPs if necessary at 
the latest on the first day of EWG 24-15. The Commission may address additional requests 
to EWG 24-15 in relation to specific issues that arise from the pre-screening exercise. 

During the EWG 24-15, the experts will communicate to the Member States outstanding 
issues that require clarification and/or resubmission. The Member States will provide 
explanations and resubmit the WPs if necessary. The communication will be streamlined in a 
dedicated feedback table, provided in Teams by the Commission. For Member States that 
submit their WP in the IT platform, the feedback should be also communicated via comments 
in the platform. 

The experts will use the evaluation grid (background document 2). They should use clear and 
neutral language in the evaluation for self-explanatory and fact-based comments. The 
comments must be aligned among sections and Member States, i.e. similar issues must be 
assessed and summarised in a similar way. More guidance is included in the stand-alone 
document of assessment criteria (background document 3), and in the guidelines on the 
WP/AR templates (background document 4). 

The experts should pay particular attention that the submitted national WPs: 

  address the issues raised in the assessment grids during past evaluations 
  address the issues raised in COM assessment grids 
  consider recommendations from end users, RCGs and STECF 

14 

 
 
 
ToR 2: Evaluate high-severity DTi from the 2024 Fleet Economics data call (EWG 24-03 and 
EWG 24-07) and medium- and low-severity issues from 2023 data calls 

Following EWG 24-08, the MS were requested to take actions on medium- and low-severity 
2023 DT issues, and report on these actions in the DTMT. 

As a result, EWG 24-15 is requested to evaluate the high-severity issues from: 

 

 

the 2024 Fleet Economics data call (EWG 24-03 and EWG 24-07) recorded in the 
DTMT (1 issue reported), and 
the medium- and low-severity issues from 2023 data calls (Med&BS EWG 23-09 and 
EWG 23-12, FDI EWG 23-10, Processing EWG 23-14, ICES, IOTC, ICCAT) where 
MS should have taken actions (157 issues reported). 

The DTMT guidelines with a decision tree must be used for the evaluation; the experts may 
agree to further modify the guidance if necessary. All changes to the guidance must be 
documented for future reference in a separate electronic annex. The DTMT table and 
guidance have been modified in 2024, to better capture the follow-up that Member States 
undertake to address the recorded issues. 

ToR 3: Test and provide input on the DCF IT platform 

In 2021, the Commission initiated an IT project to build a DCF IT platform for submitting and 
evaluating the WPs and the ARs. Throughout 2024, the IT platform was tested for AR and 
WP submission by a group of users from several Member States, and in November 2024, it 
will be deployed in the production environment. The Commission intends to further test the 
use of the platform during the real assessment cycle, involving the STECF experts, and 
requests EWG 24-15 to participate in this exercise and to provide feedback on the 
experience. In parallel to the traditional communication channels, the experts should use the 
platform to comment on WPs, and the Members States should address these comments and 
try updating their WPs through the platform. 

EWG 24-15 report 

The EWG should produce a Word document with general explanations and an Excel file with 
the assessment grid and comments of each WP. The Word document should include an 
overview of the assessment and overall evaluation of the Work Plans (horizontal issues, 
spanning many MS/ sea basins): 

1) per Member State (National Work Plans): 

a)  an evaluation of the WP content (compliance with DCF Regulation, EU MAP and end 

user needs); in particular, integration of pilot study results in the regular data collection 
and the follow-up on STECF and COM comments from previous evaluations, 
b)  conclusions from the consistency check with all relevant regional work plans, 
c)  conclusions from the format check (template guidelines) in general and per WP 

section; 

2) a summary of the evolution in national WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027, per MS and 
per region; 

3) regarding Data Transmission issues (DTi): 

15 

 
 
 
 
a)  an evaluation of Member State performance (main and recurring issues) by Member 

State, complementary to and following EWG 24-08 findings, 

b)  an evaluation of Member States’ responses via the DTMT online platform to issues 

raised by end users of scientific advice. EWG 24-15 is requested to evaluate DTi, and 
close issues which have been clarified and require no further action, 

c)  in the evaluation of high-severity (fleet economics) issues, identify the comments 

which require a reaction from Member State (draft a summary list). 

4) At EU level: 

a) a feedback on the DCF IT platform testing. 

Background documents 

For WP assessment ToR 1: 

1) WP 2025-2027 submitted by the MS and RWPs 2025-2027 submitted by RCGs (folder 01) 

2) WP evaluation grid (as used by EWG 23-16) 

3) Stand-alone document for WP evaluation (approved by EWG 21-17: 
https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/d/dcf/wp-assessment-instructions-for-
evaluators ) 

4) Guidance on WP/AR templates (COM Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/39, updated 
September 2024 online: https://dcf.ec.europa.eu/wps-and-ars/wpar-templates_en ) 

5) 2021 COM assessment grids (folder 02) 

For DTi assessment ToR 2: 

6) https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/d/dcf/dtmt-guidance-version_2024-06-03 

7) DT issues recorded in the Data Transmission Monitoring Tool: 
https://dcf.ec.europa.eu/dtmt_en (Excel export file will be provided) 

8) STECF EWG 24-03 and EWG 24-07 report (Annual Economic Report) 

For DCF platform ToR 3: 

9) https://acceptance.work-plans-reports.dcf.ec.europa.eu/work-plans 

Additional background documents: 

The experts should consider relevant assessment files from previous STECF EWGs, 
including STECF EWG 21-17 (WP), EWG 22-18 (WP), EWG 23-08 (AR), EWG 23-16 (WP), 
EWG 24-08 (AR). 

The experts may also consult previous WPs and ARs: 

https://dcf.ec.europa.eu/wps-and-ars/work-plans_en 

https://dcf.ec.europa.eu/wps-and-ars/annual-reports_en 

and other relevant documents (e.g. ICES reports for meetings relating to the relevant data 
calls, Liaison Meeting and RCG recommendations etc.) 

16 

 
 
 
 
2 

EVALUATION OF MEMBER STATES’ WORK PLANS 2025-2027 

2.1 

Background information 

To carry out the evaluation, the EWG was provided with the Work Plan (WP) tables and WP 
text (boxes) of the 24 MS which submitted WPs for 2025-2027 (except Austria and Slovakia). 
The EWG used various supporting information such as relevant EWG reports, guidelines and 
templates, see ToRs above. 

2.2 

Pre-screening 

As in previous years when a new set of WPs was submitted (e.g. in Oct 2021 for the 2022-
2024 period), all WPs were subject of thorough pre-screening performed by a group of ad-
hoc experts. The pre-screening comments were sent to MS on 22 Oct 2024 with a deadline 
of providing responses and revised WP tables/text (where necessary) by 28 Oct 2024, i.e. 
the first day of the EWG 24-15. 

The preparatory work by the pre-screeners was an enormous help to the evaluation process. 
The MSs who resubmitted their WP based on the pre-screening, generally tried to address 
the comments and recommendations from the pre-screening. However, not all MSs provided 
a supplementary information on how the pre-screeners comments were dealt with. In future, 
the evaluation would benefit from such information to identify how the comments were 
processed. 

2.3 

Evaluation criteria, assessment grid and procedures 

The EWG used the evaluation sheets (assessment grids) and guidance for evaluators 
developed by STECF during 2020-2022 (mainly within the EWG 20-18). 

2.4 

Sub-groups and task allocation 

The evaluation of WPs was split by sub-groups and experts were allocated to each sub-
group according to their expertise. Each sub-group was tasked with the assessment of 
particular sections of the WP according to Table 2.4. 

Table 2.1. EWG 24-25 sub-groups by sections and expertise 

Sub-
group 

Section 

Expertise 

1 

2 

3 

Biological data (sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5), corresponding parts 
of Annex 1.1 

Biologists 

Diadromous species (section 2.3), Recreational fisheries (2.4), 
corresponding parts of Annex 1.1 

Biologists 

General information (section 1), Research surveys at sea 
(section 2.6), Impact of fisheries on marine biological resources 
(section 4), corresponding parts of Annex 1.1 

Biologists 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
4 

Fishing activity data (section 3), economic & social data 
(sections 5, 6 and 7), corresponding parts of Annex 1.2 

Economists 

Source: Member States submissions to 2024 Work Plans. 

2.5 

Evaluation process 

The EWG took the pre-screening comments and MS replies into account in the EWG 
assessment, sent further comments (via DG MARE) to the MS by 29 Oct c.o.b., with a 
deadline of 31 Oct 2024 lunchtime. After consideration of those replies and revised WPs, the 
EWG had further comments and questions for some MS, which were again communicated to 
the MS via DG MARE, with a deadline of 11 Nov. Those MS replies were dealt with by 
STECF Plenary during 11-15 Nov 2024, i.e. one week after the EWG. The continuation of 
this so-called ‘ping-pong’ process between STECF and MS beyond the EWG is, however, not 
optimal as not all experts of the EWG are available for reviewing the information coming in 
from MS after the EWG has finished.  

2.6 

General information 

In section 1 of the WPs, all MSs provide the relevant information in a harmonized way 
following the guidelines and the requirements of the regional work plans (RWPs). However, 
some minor editorial issues were detected during pre-screening and solved during the EWG. 

In the Marine Action Plan (document COM(2023)102 final of 21 Feb 2023), MS are asked to 
"By the end of 2024, submit updated national DCF work plans to improve data collection 
planning and efforts, including in relation to by-catch of sensitive species and impact of 
fishing on the seabed." MSs that did not refer to the Marine Action Plan in their WP were 
asked during EWG to include such a reference. In the end, most MSs included this reference, 
although, as was mentioned by one MS, there is no formal basis to include such a reference. 

As part of the ToRs, the EWG was asked to “summarise the evolution in WPs from 2022-
2024 to 2025-2027 per MS (...)”. The following table provides an overview of the main 
changes and EWG comments on those. 

Table 2.2. Evolution in WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027. Section 1 on “General information”. 

Member 
State   Main changes  

EWG comments  

Table 1.3: New bilateral agreement was added between Belgium 
and The Netherlands about support for quality in age reading. 

BEL 

Text Box Data Collection on national level: new partner is 
involved in eel data collection and recreational fisheries. 

No comments 

Text Box 1a: new test studies inserted. 

Text Box 1b: regional activities and new projects inserted. 

BGR 

Textbox 1b: New activities added from RWP ECON 2025-2027, 
RWP Med&BS 2025-2027. 

No comments  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Text Box 1b: According to RWP Med&BS  

CYP  

Table 1.2: a new table with meetings relevant to Med&BS was 
included and  

Text Box 1b: 2 regional activities concerning RWP Med&BS 
2025-2027 were inserted. 

Text Box 1.b: During the EWG, MS provided 
justification for not including the test study on 
CKMR on Bluefin tuna from the RWP LP.   

CZE  

DEU  

Text Box 1.b: funding of RCG secretariat was added  

No comments  

Tables 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. and Text Box: Data collection at National 
Level are updated.  

Text Box 1a: RWP Baltic and NANSEA test studies listed. 

Text Box 1b:  

-  RWP Baltic and NANSEA planned;  
other data collection activities listed;  
- 
update of text box WFD-Diadromous; 
- 
new text box for eDNA-Diadromous;  
- 
new text box for Telemetry-Diadromous. 
- 

No comments  

Table 1.2: updated according to RWP NANSEA & Baltic 2025-27 

All RWP NASEA & Baltic agreed test studies with relevance for 
DNK have been added: Genetics, Diadromous species data 
collection, Regionally coordinated stomach sampling program, 
North Sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) stock marine recreational 
fisheries sampling. 

DNK  

No comments  

A national test study on EM on Kattegat trawlers has been 
included 

Text Box 1.b: updated according to RWP NANSEA & Baltic 
2025-27 

Text Box 1a: a number of test studies have been added and 
three test studies that have been completed have been removed. 

ESP  

Text Box 1b: updated following the RWP 2025-2027; several 
activities removed (as they will not be funded by the EMFAF 
Data Collection) and several activities included due to national 
interest. 

No comments  

Tables 1.1, 1.2, 1.3: updated to be consistent with the 
corresponding table in RWP 2025-2027     

EST  

Table 1.3: Agreement between Estonia and Finland giving 
permission to board the vessels in harbour and share the 
samples at landing was left out from WP. There has been no 
need to use that agreement for several years, thus it was 
decided by the parties to cancel the agreement.    

Data collection framework at national level - DCF-related 
elements in the Marine Action Plan are added, as well as linking 
to RWP Baltic. 

No comments 

FIN  

Text Box 1a: two new test studies are added (EM monitoring of 
bycatch, social indicators). 

No comments 

Text Box 1b: two new activities are added (IMPROFISH, 
Scientific cod fishing in Åland islands). 
Table 1.3: only relevant agreement with EU MS’s is included.  
Table 1.3: No continuation of NLD/FRA agreement.  

FRA  

Text Boxes 1a and 1b: New activities added from RWP NANSEA 
2025-2027, RWP LP 2025-2027, RWP Med&BS 2025-2027, 
RWP ECON 2025-2027  

No comments  

Text Box 1a: Five new national test studies added to Text Box 1a 
related with the aims to increase knowledge on recreational 

19 

 
 
 
  
 
 
  
fisheries, follow-up on recommendations from ICES working 
groups, improving data collection in the outermost regions and 
Corsican small scale fisheries. 

Table 1.1: updated to be consistent with the corresponding table 
in RWP Med&BS 2025-2027 and to follow to guidelines. 

Table 1.2: updated to be consistent with the corresponding table 
in the RWP Med&BS  2025-2027. Also to include all guideline-
specified meetings and the most commonly attended meetings 
by the MS. 

GRC  

Text Box 1a: new test study: additional social variables for 
fisheries. 

Text Box 1b: two new text boxes inserted for the relevant 
regional studies. 

Text Box 1a: New test studies on CKMR on bluefin tuna (CKMR-
BFT) was included, Monitoring spawning intensity of European 
pilchard and European anchovy in the Eastern Adriatic 
(SPAMon) and were included. 

Text Box 1b: New activities on Regional Coordination taking 
place in ISSGs and pan regional cooperation between RCGs, 
Med&BS Regional data base (RDBFIS), Regional data base 
development for large pelagics data and Monitoring of tuna 
fisheries and farming (PRUT) were included.  

Data collection framework at national level - contacts updated. 

Text Box 1b: dates, weblinks updated, minor wording 
supplementation for better understanding;  

Activity RCG Secretary updated. 

Updated and corrected respective tables.   

No amendments reported by MS  

Text Box 1a, Text Box 1b: New test studies and other data 
collection activities as specified in the RWP BAL 2025-2027, 
RWP NANSEA 2025-2027, ECON RWP 2025-2027, 
RWP_LDF_2025-2027 and five new national activities were 
added to the WP.   

Text Box 1a: Information from BALTIC RWP, NANS&EA RWP, 
Nacional test studies added. 

Text Box 1b: Information from BALTIC RWP, Long Distance 
Fisheries RWP, NANS&EA RWP, ECON 2025-2027 is added; 
Information from RWP ECON 2025-2027 is added. 

HRV  

HUN  

IRL  
ITA  

LVA  

LTU  

MS supplied justified information why it did not 
include the activity "Regional data base 
development" related to the RWP LP. 

No comments  

No comments   

No comments  

No comments  

No comments  

No comments  

MLT   No amendments reported by MS   

No comments 

NLD  

POL  

Table 1.1: MS does not participate in NSMEGS anymore based 
on end-user needs, and therefore won’t submit any data.  

Text Box 1a and 1b: New test studies and other data collection 
activities as specified in the RWP NANSEA 2025-2027, ECON 
RWP 2025-2027, RWP_LDF_2025-2027 were added.   

No comments  

Table 1.1: 
-  Due to low activity of Polish fleet in the North Sea and 

Eastern Arctic region in the reference period, no stocks were 
selected for sampling in 2025-2027 according to Table 2.1. 

-  Sampling in the North Pacific is included according to 

multilateral agreement on NPFC sampling. 
-  Minor update on data availability for data subset 

“Recreational catches”.  

Table 1.2: Update only 

20 

No comments  

 
 
 
  
Table 1.3:  
- 

adjusted multilateral agreement on sampling in CECAF and 
SPRFMO 

-  multilateral agreement on sampling in NPFC area added 
- 
- 

renewed two bi-lateral agreements  
added SWE-POL agreement 

Text Box 1a: text box added as follow up of RWP Baltic 2025-
2027 

Text Box 1b: updated following the RWPs. 
Table 1.1: Updated. 

Table 1.2: Meetings in which Portugal typically does not 
participate were removed. 
Text Box 1a: Six new test studies added 
Text Box 1b: New Activities added 

No comments 

Text Box 1a: added a new national pilot study and regional 
studies. 

Text Box 1b:  environmental data on aquaculture added. 

No comments 

Table 1.2 was updated. 

Text Box 1a: a new test study was included (Collecting data from 
costal free time fishing) in order to get more information from 
recreational fisheries   

No comments 

Table 1.1: Minor changes; specified N+1, specified regions. 

Table 1.3: Updated following updates in RWPs. 

Text Box 1a: Split by region. Test studies listed following RWPs.  
One national test study on eDNA described. Added information 
concerning the studies since SE will analyse two social indicators 
during 2025. However, these analyses do not require any 
additional data collection therefore no added rows in excel-file or 
additional information in annex 1.2. 
Text Box 1b: Activities listed following the RWPs.  

No comments  

PRT  

ROU  

SVN  

SWE  

 Source: Member States submissions to 2024 Work Plans. 

2.7 

Biological data 

All MS were requested to supply an overview of the changes compared to the previous 
period of the WP. The EWG 24-15 used this information to compile an overview of the 
evolution of the WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027 (Table 2.7.1). Additionally, previous 
evaluations of WPs (EWGs 21-17, 22-18 and 23-16) were used to determine whether any 
actions were followed and that previous issues have been solved. 

As the reference period to which the data refers has changed, the WPs of all MS have 
changed accordingly. Due to these changes, it is not possible to conduct a numerical 
comparison of the number of species or variables. It is possible that a decrease in numbers 
planned to be sampled does not reflect a decrease in quality, but only a change in the fishery 
resulting in lower landings. It is therefore only possible to comment on the overall picture from 
a subjective point of view. 

With the Regional Work Plans (RWPs) coming in from 2025 onwards, the EWG 24-15 
acknowledges the fact that each MS takes into account the RWPs in their WP. The 
introduction of the RWP in the WP could also result in some cases in a significant change in 
numbers and the WP quality, which are difficult to assess. 
During the evaluation of the WPs 2025-2027, although in the previous WP period, a separate 
in-depth evaluation of the annexes has not taken place yet, the EWG experienced that the 
overall quality of the Annexes 1.1 have in general improved. 

21 

 
 
Table 2.3.1. Evolution in WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027. Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5 on biological 
data. 

Member 
State 

Main changes 

BEL 

BGR 

CYP 

The Table 2.1 was amended according to NANSEA 
RWP as well as the list of species selected for sampling 
in Tables 2.1, 2.2. 

Table 2.5. Some changes in the sampling design in 
Belgium were noted as two sampling schemes instead of 
three are reported. 

Table 2.5: disaggregation of sampling on polyvalent 
fisheries to reallocate observation days at métier level 

Table 2.1: Six species with MCRS of national interest 
were excluded. Reduces by two Sampling scheme 
identifiers: PG_DEF_GSA25_<6m and  
PG_DEF_GSA25_>=6m 

CZE 

NA. No Table 2.1, 2.2 nor 2.5 

DEU 

DNK 

Improvement of commercial sampling design (Table 2.5) 
by merging sampling frames for more efficient allocation 
of effort. Update of all tables 
The At-Sea observer scheme has been changed: one 
unique observer scheme for all the fleet (At-sea 
observer) but every fleet segment has its own “Sampling 
frame identifier”. Main reason being the improvement for 
reporting by fleet segment. MS has upgraded the 
sampling of program on small pelagic and industrial 
fishery sampling to a more comprehensive at sea co-
sampling program with additional sampling at a lower 
lever from shore on the smaller vessels 

Sampling scheme identifier: 
ESP_AZTI_AtSea_Catch&ETP_ICES combines two old 
ones: ESP-AZTI_AtSea_ICES and  ESP-
AZTI_AtSea_PET_ICES 

Sampling scheme identifier: ESP_IEO_P2_StockSpecific 
is split into new ones: 
ESP_IEO_P2_StockSpecific_AtSea and 
ESP_IEO_P2_StockSpecific_OnShore 

Sampling scheme identifier was updated with the 
description of current situation of SFPAs: ESP-
IEO_P3_AtSea_Africa 

ESP 

Sampling scheme identifier was included, following the 
RWP LP: Tuna Sampling On Shore scheme including 
sampling scheme identifier: ESP_IEO_P4_OnShore_sp 

Sampling scheme identifier was included, following the 
RWP LP: Observe scheme. 

In Table 2.5 included a new sampling scheme for PETS 
ESP_SGP_PET_ AtSea to increase the coverage for 
PET sampling. 

EWG comments 

No comment 

Improvement of the WP through minor changes 

No major changes were made. 

No comments 

No comments 

Improvements in the sampling design for at-sea 
scheme 

A new sampling scheme for PETS was added. 
Additionally minor changes to sampling 
schemes were made. 

EST 

EST included for some stocks the collection of maturity. 

In the North Sea and Eastern Arctic and NAFO area, 
biological variable maturity, EST added to the sampling 
plan of Gadus morhua, Hippoglossoides platessoides, 
and Reinhardtius hippoglossoides. In the NAFO area, 
additionally Limanda ferruginea and Sebastes spp. are 
sampled for maturity 

No comments 

22 

 
 
 
 
FIN 

No major changes have been done. 

No comment 

FRA 

GRC 

HRV 

In all the biological tables, FRA adjusted the tables to fit 
the DCF IT platform.  

Text 2.5: FRA has extended their WP with sampling 
salmon and sea trout (WGTRUTTA) and with sampling 
on-board trawlers in Corsica based on end-user needs. 

Table 2.1 is derived from RWP Med & BS and Large 
Pelagic RWP. Minor changes have been made in Tables 
2.1 and 2.2 according to the landings of the new 
reference period. 

Table 2.5: Changes occurred in the number of PSUs 
planned (about 150 on-board trips were allocated to 
small scale fisheries métiers to increase coverage and 
PETS sampling (one métier removed, PSU reallocated). 

Table 2.1 is derived from RWP Med & BS and RWP 
Large Pelagic. In Tables 2.1 and 2.2, the list of species 
to be sampled for length and biological variables has 
been updated according to the landings of the new 
reference period and the exclusion from sampling of 
certain gears targeting these species. 

Table 2.5: The sampling coverage has been increased; 
the seine nets and small purse seine nets have been 
excluded from sampling as they are no longer used in 
Croatia; the fixed nets métiers were aggregated to 
update sampling scheme with the statistical 
methodology for catch declaration scheme. 

No comment 

No major changes were made 

No comment 

HUN 

Not applicable for Table 2.1, 2.2, and 2.5 

Not applicable for marine fisheries 

IRL 

ITA 

Table 2.1 has been updated with agreed statistics, also 
some national adjustments were made for some 
species. In Table 2.2, some species were removed at all 
from sampling while for some other species certain 
variables were removed. 

No changes have been made to Table 2.5, only typo 
errors have been corrected. 

Table 2.5: Although the MS included all out-of-
frame (OOF) parts of the population, there are 
still some issues pending like filling in with a 
number (not NA) all the cells in the column 
"Average number of PSUs during the reference 
years" in the next NWP submission and to 
correct the columns S and T referring to PETS 
in the cases of OOF sampling. 

Table 2.1 is derived from RWP Med & BS and RWP 
Large Pelagic. In Tables 2.1 and 2.2, the list of species 
to be sampled for length and biological variables has 
been updated according to the landings of the new 
reference period. In Table 2.2 the sampling has changed 
to opportunistic only. Species-area combinations have 
been changed to follow the guidelines. The typo error 
regarding the sampling for biological variables for some 
large pelagic species was restored in this edition. 

In Table 2.5, a new métier was added due to the 
existence of a local multiannual plan and one more for 
the sampling of incidental bycatch of sensitive species. 
The estimation of the optimal number of primary 
sampling units (PSUs) was based on a sampling 
optimization tool. 

Improvement of the NWP through the changes 
made for 2025-2027 

LVA 

Tables updated, no major changes detected 

No comments 

LTU 

MLT 

adjustments according to the guidelines and the linkage 
to RWP 

No comments 

Tables 2.1, 2.2 & 2.5 have been amended according to 
Med &BS RWP. 

Fields copied from previous NWP, updating ‘Reference 
Year’ and ‘Implementation Year’ as needed. Only major 

23 

Improvement of the WP through minor changes 

 
 
 
 
change is increasing the ‘Planned number of PSUs’ of 
market samples of ‘Trammel nets in the Maltese fleet’ 
from 3 to 4 for each year; in order to have better 
representation of the fishery across each quarter. 

Species included/excluded based on identified (inter) 
national data needs and usage for commercial sampling 
data: the selection of L. piscatorius (3a,4,7d), M. 
merlangus (3a,4,7d) and L. vulgaris (4,7d) to be included 
in the commercial sampling plans, while T. lucerna is 
discontinued. 

Updated species/variable list for commercial fisheries 
sampling schemes to reflect (inter)national end-user 
needs based on the application of data collected 
previously. Collection of biological variables (other than 
length) for M. kitt, L. Limanda and P. flesus from area 
3a,47d, is discontinued under the commercial fishing 
sampling schemes, while M. merlangus has been added 

For the sampling scheme DEMPAS, the planned number 
of PSUs increased from 10 to 20. 

For the sampling scheme DEMACT1, the planned 
number of PSUs has been increased from 10 to 16. 

For the sampling scheme DEMACT2, the planned 
number of PSUs has been increased from 160 to 180. 

Sampling schemes for CECAF, SPRFMO and NPFC 
added based on multilateral agreements as part of 
RWP_LDF_2025-2027. 

According to Baltic, LDF and NANSEA RWPs, the list of 
species selected for sampling has been amended. 
Following the Multilateral agreement on NPFC 
(RWP_LDF) the sampling of Scomber japonicus from 
commercial fisheries in the North Pacific is now included. 
A new sampling scheme identifier: NPFC at-sea 
sampling has been added in the WP and a description of 
it is included in Annex 1.1. 

Because of lower activity of the Polish fleet in the North 
Sea and Eastern Arctic region, the sampling of Gadus 
morhua in this area is not planned anymore. 
Correspondent sampling scheme identifier and Annex 
1.1 have been revised accordingly. 

Two stocks not listed in the COMMISSION DELEGATED 
DECISION (EU) 2021/1167 and not included in the WP 
2023-2024 were added. 

Two Sampling frame identifiers were added to 
accommodate end user needs in terms of ETPs bycatch 
risk. 

In Table 2.1, EU TAC (%) for turbot and sprat updated in 
accordance with Council Regulation (EU) 2021/90 of 28 
January 2021. In Table 2.5. MS changed the method of 
PSU selection (from SRSWR to SRSWOR). 

No major changes were made 

No comments 

Improvement of the WP through minor changes 

No major changes. No comments. 

Tables 2.1 & 2.2 have been mainly implemented 
following the Med &BS RWP.  

A new sampling scheme identifier “Discard and 
incidental by-catch (BCD)” is added in the WP, meaning 
that onboard fishing vessel observation will occur. 

Major improvement from previous WP. For the 
next WP submission, MS should consider the 
request from regulation GFCM/40/2016/2 and 
update Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5 accordingly. In 
Table 2.5, MS has to add comment for the rows 
where "Catch fraction" is selected has "other”. 

24 

NLD 

POL 

PRT 

ROU 

SVN 

 
 
 
SWE 

SWE listed changes which are mainly adjustments 
according to the guidelines and the linkage to RWP. 

No comments 

Source: Member States submissions to 2024 Work Plans. 

 

Relation between national Work Plans (WPs) and regional Work Plans 
(RWPs) 

With the introduction of Regional Work Plans (RWPs), MS are encouraged to follow these 
plans and incorporate elements from them into their national Work Plans (WPs). This year 
marks the first experience working with RWPs and the EWG has encountered some 
challenges. For example, some RWPs contained errors that, when introduced by MS in their 
WPs, led to issues stemming from these mistakes. 

The EWG has identified the need to establish a framework to address such cases (see 
below). Given that this is our initial experience, we anticipate that this framework and the 
general recommendations will be expanded and refined in future meetings, with input from 
Regional Coordination Groups and the Commission as necessary. The framework focuses 
on biological data, addressing Table 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5, but it could be applied and extended to 
all WP sections. 

Additionally, the EWG has identified the need to allocate time specifically for RWP review, as 
the number of mistakes found shows that a thorough assessment is required even after those 
regional plans are approved. In section 3, a brief summary of errors identified in the RWPs is 
provided. 

Currently, one RWP (RWP LDF) is not endorsed yet by STECF. But, in any case, even if all 
RWPs reach this status, the EWG agreed that the most efficient approach for the RWP 
review is to identify the issues and develop solutions (table 2.7.2).  

The EWG agreed that MS should be requested to modify their WPs according to the 
Commission Implementing Decision 2021/1168 and, in parallel, DG MARE should identify a 
way to communicate the identified issues of the RWPs to the Regional Coordination Groups 
(RCGs). This would enable RCGs to promptly address and amend the corresponding RWP 
as needed. The EWG did not discuss the specific details of how and when the RWPs should 
be amended. 

Table 2.4.2. Identification of discrepancies between RWPs and national WPs and possible solutions. 

RWP 

CORRECT 

CORRECT 

WP 

CORRECT 

INCORRECT 

INCORRECT 

CORRECT 

INCORRECT 

INCORRECT 

EWG recommendation 

No comments to MS – no action needed 

Comments sent to MS: MS to revise and resubmit the 
incorrect part of the WP based on EWG comments. 

 After the identification of issues by EWG, the identified 
issues will be transmitted to the respective RCGs. 
Modification of RWP needed. MS should be informed 
about this process. 

Comments sent to MS: MS to revise and resubmit the 
incorrect part of the WP based on EWG comments. MS 
to put in ‘WP Comments’ column that the differences 
between RWP and WP are because of mistakes found in 
RWP. 

After the identification of issues by EWG, the list of 
identified issues will be transmited to the respective 

25 

 
 
 
RCGs. Modification of RWP needed. MS should be 
informed about this process. 

Source: Member States submissions to 2024 Work Plans. 

A frequent issue that has been identified in several WPs was that references to RWP tables 
or parts that don’t exist (yet). It is not recommended to refer to a RWP in a specific table if no 
such specific Table exists in the RWP. This refers to the “Comments” column in Table 2.1 
and to columns “Regional work plan name” in Tables 2.2 and 2.5. As an example, the column 
“Regional work plan name” in Table 2.2 and Table 2.5 cannot be filled with 
“NANSEA_RWP_2025-2027" because Table 2.2 and Table 2.5 are not included in the 
NANSEA RWP. 

2.8 

Diadromous species and recreational fisheries 

Work plans generally evolved well and appear more harmonized across the regions. Some of 
the formerly common formal errors (empty cells) have been reduced, potentially through the 
experiences of the screening process and the use of the DCF IT platform. Another issue that 
recurred during evaluations was that there was confusion regarding information whether 
sampling was agreed upon on regional level. A positive example for recreational fisheries 
data collection is the use of multi-species survey approaches, mainly in the Med&BS region. 
This approach was broadly adopted by most MS. For eel data collection, one central issue 
was that it had been unclear how biological data including age, length and sex are relevant 
for end-users (here especially ICES WGEEL), as DCF data for a long time have not been 
used nor specifically asked for. This changed in 2022, when WGEEL for the first time 
included a new table “Annex 10 other sampling data” which included individual biological 
variables including age, as defined in the EU Delegated Decision 2021/1167 to be collected 
under the EU-MAP. To advance assessment methodologies and to foster the use of available 
data in eel assessment, a designated project (DIASPARA) currently aims at specifically 
making recommendations to enhance DCF data collection and specify end-user needs as 
well as to tackle the challenge of providing for regional work plans for diadromous species. 
MS often provide links and documents for sampling and quality documentation in national 
languages, which poses issues for evaluation. MS have therefore been asked to provide this 
information in English in future submissions. 
As part of the ToRs, the EWG was asked to “summarise the evolution in WPs from 2022-
2024 to 2025-2027 per MS (...)”. The following table provides an overview of the main 
changes and EWG comments on those. 

Table 2.5. Evolution in WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 on diadromous 
species and recreational fisheries. 

Member 
State 

Main changes 

EWG comments 

BEL 

BGR 

Text passages for diadromous were shortened in Text Box 
2.3 and descriptions of data collection population were 
moved to Annex 1.1. Regarding Table 2.3: comments were 
added to column U. Information was added to Annex 1.1. 

EWG suggested to introduce different SSIs for 
different sampling purposes for eel sampling 
(e.g.: for recruitment, standing stock and for 
silver eel escapement). 

No indication of changes in submitted summary of changes 
document for 2.4. Most important change in WP is that a 
new telephone off-site survey is planned for 2027 (the last 
one was 2024). In the new survey, all species present in the 
Black Sea are included. MS therefore submitted a WP in 
line with RWP and includes triennial multi-species off-site 
survey. 

26 

EWG asked the MS to indicate when the results 
from the 2024 survey will be available. 

 
 
 
 
CYP 

CZE 

Regarding recreational fisheries data collection, MS 
submitted a WP in line with RWP and includes triennial 
multi-species off-site survey. 

CZE did not indicate relevant changes in their summary of 
changes document. CZE has reduced information on the 
planned methodologies in eel data collection and provided 
incongruent information of data collection plans and 
purpose. 

EWG asked for more elaborate description of 
planned methodologies in the WP. 

EWG asked to clarify. 

DEU 

Germany introduced eDNA sampling as described in the 
respective text boxes and annexes. 

No comment 

Indicated changes in the summary document were: Text 
Box 2.3 was updated, national specifics for sampled rivers 
were reported. MS stated that age data collection for eel 
was not conducted due to no end-user need. This was 
discussed during communication. While quality annexes for 
salmonids are elaborate and informative, those for eel data 
collection are still poorly described. Regarding 2.4: Some 
specifics were updated for relevant regions. MS stopped 
collecting salmon biological data and claim salmon fishing is 
prohibited. This is not true. Salmon fishing in Danish coastal 
and marine waters is possible. 

Table 2.3: MS reduced electrofishing efforts for eel and 
stopped sampling in Valencia. Regarding recreational 
fisheries data collection, MS submitted a WP in line with 
RWP and includes triennial multi-species off-site survey. 

Annual silver eel sample size has been reduced to 50 
individuals due to a low number of silver eels in the catches 
of commercial fishermen. 

DNK 

ESP 

EST 

FIN 

MS added sampling schemes for eel for one river. 

FRA 

GRC 

HRV 

Regarding diadromous species, MS added information on 
sea trout sampling. Regarding recreational fisheries data 
collection, MS submitted a WP in line with RWP and 
includes triennial multi-species off-site survey. 

MS plans reduced sampling effort for eels, age data will be 
derived from growth functions. Regarding recreational 
fisheries data collection, MS submitted a WP in line with 
RWP and includes triennial multi-species off-site survey. 

MS clarified that only marine fisheries for eel exist. MS 
provided separate Annexes for SSIs 

HUN 

No changes due to no data collection 

A slight reduction in silver eel sampling has been 
implemented, while new elver traps have been introduced. 
Additionally, the number of fishing nights has been 
decreased for one sampling scheme. 

Regarding eel inland fisheries, MS improved its organisation 
of eel fishery-independent sampling efforts. Covering 
different environments (lagoons & rivers). Regarding 
recreational fisheries data collection, the off-site multi-
species survey fulfils the strategic approaches of the RWP 
Med & BS. 

EWG highlighted the need to still collect age 
data for eels, due to existing end-user need. The 
MS revised the WP accordingly. 

No comment 

No comment 

No comment 

No comment 

No comment 

No comment 

No comment 

No comment 

No comment 

Regarding diadromous data collection in freshwaters: The 
number of sampling sites for Salmo salar in certain rivers 
was increased. Also new traps for eels were added. 

No comment 

The updated Table 2.3 introduces new data collection 
methods using questionnaires on the number and weight of 
harvested and released salmon, sea trout, and eels in 

No comment 

27 

IRL 

ITA 

LVA 

LTU 

 
 
 
inland waters, improving data accuracy. Changes in Text 
Box 2.3 reflect these updates and include information from 
the BALTIC RWP and NANSEA RWP. Table 2.4 has been 
supplemented with new information on recreational fisheries 
in line with the latest WP guidelines. 

MLT 

Regarding recreational fisheries data collection, MS 
submitted a WP in line with RWP and includes triennial 
multi-species off-site survey. 

NLD 

No major changes 

The number of samples for salmonids was increased, while 
the biological samples from commercial eel fishing were 
reduced. According to MS, the sample sizes are statistically 
adjusted to meet the requirements of stock modeling. 
Regarding recreational fisheries, no sampling is planned for 
Gadus morhua and Anguilla anguilla due to fishing ban. 

No comment 

No comment 

No comment 

POL 

PRT 

ROU 

SVN 

SWE 

Regarding recreational fisheries, the on-site survey 
sampling scheme identifier in the WP 2022-2024 was 
removed and replaced by an off-site sampling scheme. 

No comment 

NWP is not compliant with RWP of Med & BS. No big 
changes compared to old NWP. 

No comment 

National work plan does not comply with first RWP for Med 
& BS because MS has good coverage of recreational 
fisheries data collection in their national strategy. 

No comment 

In Text Box 2.3, descriptions were clarified, and information 
on the ongoing evaluation of the eel management plan was 
added.  
Unclarities with planned units for sampling.  
Table 2.4 removed cod sampling in recreational fisheries 
due to a new ban and introduced a new scheme for sea 
trout catches in the Baltic Sea. 

The Baltic Sea trap net catches salmon survey will now be 
on a triennial basis instead of annual. 

MS was asked to clarify units for sampling, so 
evaluation is made possible 

Source: Member States submissions to 2024 Work Plans.. 

2.9 

Surveys 

For one MS, two surveys, one mandatory and one non-mandatory, were removed from the 
WP 2025-2027. This was justified by the MS as, following the results of an ICES Benchmark 
assessment workshop, both surveys are not used anymore by the corresponding 
assessment working groups.  

Another MS removed two surveys. The first removed survey was incorporated in the 
sampling for a triennially executed mandatory survey in another survey which resulted in 
shifting the execution of the survey by one year. This would interrupt the triennial cycle of the 
survey. The MS explained that there is a need to optimize research surveys at sea (in terms 
of the monitoring methods used, days at sea, number of fishing hauls and specialized human 
resources) whilst taking end-user needs into account. The MS provided reference to the 
interaction that has taken place between them and the end-user on this proposed change in 
the triennial survey. However, as no formal approval from the end-users was provided by the 
MS, the MS is still requested to provide full documentation, justification and evidence on 
approval by the end-users. For the second removed survey, two actions are implemented by 
the MS, namely to test (i) methodology that is internationally agreed within ICES Working 

28 

 
 
group within Test study with the aim to use it as a routine monitoring method in future WPs 
and (ii) the sampling of depth strata to provide data on geographical distribution in space and 
time as well as on biological parameters of species that were covered with the sampling 
design of the removed survey. 

As part of the ToRs, the EWG was asked to “summarise the evolution in WPs from 2022-
2024 to 2025-2027 per MS (...)”. The following table provides an overview of the main 
changes and EWG comments on those. 

Table 2.6. Evolution in WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027. Section 2.6 on surveys-at-sea. 

Member 
State  

Main changes  

EWG comments  

BEL 

BGR 

CYP 

CZE 

DEU 

No amendments reported by MS 

Minor editorial comment 

No amendments reported by MS 

Only minor changes were made in the name of sampling 
activities in accordance with RWP Med&BS 2025-2027 

NA 

No comments 

No comments 

NA 

Table 2.6 is updated: Days at sea and number of sampling 
activities were checked and updated, when necessary, 
adapted to guidelines (only numbers in days at sea and 
number of sampling activities planned, only one type of 
sampling activities per line etc.) 

Table 2.6: has been entirely updated to be consistent with 
the RWPs NANSEA& Baltic 2025-27 and to follow the 
guidelines. 

Minor editorial comment 

DNK 

National surveys presently not in regional coordinated or 
mandatory were added 

No comments 

Text Box 2.6: has been updated. For some surveys, it is 
indicated that reduced funding might result in reduced 
survey activities 

- 

- 

Text Box 2.6 and Table 2.6: 
- Surveys have been updated to be consistent with the 
RWP 2025-2027 and national changes. 
- ECOCADIZ and BOCADEVA are not included in the WP 
from 2025 onwards as both surveys are not used anymore 
by corresponding assessment working groups. 

Text Box 2.6: for a number of surveys the links to manual 
and 2023 survey plan were updated. 

ECOCADIZ and BOCADEVA are not included in the 
WP from 2025 onwards. MS justified in the changes 
summary document; both surveys are not used 
anymore by the corresponding assessment working 
groups. This reasoning was also added to Section 1 
of the NWP. 

The National survey Estonian Fish Larvae Survey (ELFS) 
to study the distribution and abundance of fish larvae and 
juveniles with the aim to provide primary information on 
herring year class abundance and to understand the 
affecting environmental background was left out from WP. 
It was decided to conserve resources, as the study had 
limited applicability for the assessment and management of 
Baltic herring stocks. 

No comments 

ESP 

EST 

FIN 

No amendments reported by MS 

No comments 

FRA 

Stomach content analysis on 2 surveys (MEDITS and 
IBTS_Q1) and survey The NourDem was added. The 
NourDem monitoring network is based on scientific 
sampling campaigns using a Large Vertical Opening trawl 
in the estuaries of the Seine River. Its aim is to produce 
abundance and biomass indexes for all animal species that 
can be sampled by trawl (and of a size greater than 3 cm 
due to the size of the trawl mesh), whether benthic 
(epigeal), demersal or pelagic. 

No comments 

29 

 
 
 
GRC 

HRV 

HUN 

IRL 

ITA 

LVA 

LTU 

MLT 

NLD 

POL 

PRT 

Table 2.6: has been updated to be consistent with the 
RWP Med&BS 2025-2027 and to follow the guidelines. In 
Table 2.6 of the RWP Med&BS some errors were detected 
in columns P “Days at sea planned” and R “Number of 
sampling activities planned”. These values have been 
corrected in the NWP and justified in the WP comments 
column. 

Text Box 2.6: for both surveys only national specifics are 
reported. For MEDIAS, the egg and mesozooplankton 
surveys are also reported for the first time. 

No amendments reported by MS 

NA 

Table 2.6: updated 

Text Box 2.6: Updates to accurately capture the 
changes/improvements to the programme. 

No comments 

No comments 

NA 

MS has indicated and clarified that an estimation for 
the number of sampling activities cannot be given for 
certain sampling activities in Table 2.6. 

One non-mandatory survey was deleted and added as 
commercial sampling 

No comments, MS gives justification for deletion of 
non-mandatory survey. 

Three new national research surveys are planned: 
ICHTHYO (Ichthyoplankton survey), NEKTOBENTHOS 
(Nektobenthos survey), ZOOPLANKTON (Zooplankton 
survey). Additional zoobenthos sampling is added to 
GORDEM survey. The aim of these new surveys to 
support ecosystem and food web analysis. 

Table 2.6: Research surveys at sea: Updated with new 
information and information from BALTIC RWP. 

Text Box 2.6: Updated with new information and 
information from BALTIC RWP. 

No comments 

No comments 

Text Box 2.6 for MEDITS and MEDIAS was updated 
according to the requirements of both surveys following the 
recommendations and decisions of the RWP MED&BS. 

No comments 

National surveys not contributing to DCF-related advice 
deleted (ENSIS, MOSKOK, FYOE). Survey description 
IHLS-DRS updated according to current situation. The 
IHLS-DRS design is updated upon request of the end user, 
based on evaluation of the first five years of sampling 

No comments 

Text Box 2.6: rearrangement due to follow up of RWP 
Baltic 2025-2027. 

No comments 

Text Box 2.6: Research survey at sea “MEGS” (which is 
triennial and was expected to be implemented in 2025) will 
be incorporated into research survey at sea “SDEPM” 
(which is triennial and will be implemented as initially 
expected in 2026). 

-  Research survey at sea “NepS” will not be implemented in 
2025-2027, and two actions will be implemented, namely: 
(i) an essay will be implemented to test the methodology of 
Underwater Television (UWTV) surveys, which is 
internationally agreed under ICES WGNEPS for estimating 
the density of Nephrops burrows and distribution of 
Nephrops aiming at its use as a routine monitoring method 
for FUs 28 and 29 in future WPs and (ii) an essay will be 
implemented in IBTS_Q4 to test the sampling of a 4th 
depth strata to provide data on geographical distribution in 
space and time as well as on biological parameters of 
species that were covered with the sampling design of 
NepS but not with the current design of IBTS_Q4. 

MEGS: MS indicates that the mandatory MEGS is 
now incorporated in SDEPM and will be carried out 
in 2026 instead of 2025. MS was asked during the 
EWG to provide justification for this incorporation 
and that it has been accepted by the MEGS planning 
group (WGMEGS). During the EWG provided 
interaction between the MS and WGMEGS. 
However, the MS did not provide a formal approval 
from WGMEGS. The EWG acknowledges that the 
interaction that has taken place between PRT and 
WGMEGS. However, no formal approval from the 
end-users was provided by PRT. Full documentation, 
justification and evidence on approval by the End-
users is needed from PRT. 

NepS: Integrated in ICES WGNEPS that coordinates 
Nephrops surveys. 

ROU 

SVN 

No amendments reported by MS 

No amendments reported by MS 

No comments 

No comments 

30 

 
 
 
 
Table 2.6:  Survey SSS_Q4 is stopped 2025-2027 (not a 
mandatory survey). 

SWE 

Text Box 2.6: Surveys described in RWP s- only a 
reference is included. Survey SSS_Q4 is not included 
2025-2027. 

-  Cod Kattegat Survey National specifics is described. 
-  UWTV Megafauna described as National Specifics. 

 Source: Member States submissions to 2024 Work Plans. 

No comments 

2.10 

Impact of fisheries on marine biological resources 

The EWG briefly verified on basis of the report on “Assessing pilot studies under EU-MAP 
2017- 2019 (2020-2021) - Pilot Study 2: Level of fishing and impact of fisheries on biological 
resources and marine ecosystem” whether MSs have integrated the results of their pilot 
studies into their regular sampling programmes. The sampling activities described in the pilot 
studies were included in NWPs 2025-2027 of most MSs. 

As part of the ToRs, the EWG was asked to “summarise the evolution in WPs from 2022-
2024 to 2025-2027 per MS (...)”. The following table provides an overview of the main 
changes and EWG comments on those. 

Table 2.70. Evolution in WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027. Section 4 on the impact of fisheries on 
marine biological resources. 

Member 
State  

BEL  

BGR  

CYP  

Main changes  

EWG comments  

Text Box 4.1: Text box on RWP inserted. 

Text Box 4.2: Text box on RWP inserted; National study 
inserted. 

No comments  

Text Box 4.2: The activities planned for monitoring of 
fisheries by observers on board also fully contribute to the 
specific national measures to minimize by-catch of 
sensitive species with regard to the EU Marine Action 
Plan: Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for 
sustainable and resilient fisheries.   

No comments  

Cyprus amended this part in line of the RWP Med&BS 

The study on mapping of trawling activity in GSA 25 
identification of areas that are mostly impacted on the 
trawling activity was not prolonged for 2025-2027 period.   

No comments  

CZE  

NA  

NA  

Text Box 4.1: updated. 

DEU  

Text Box 4.2: Text was updated with additional 
information. 

No comments  

Text Box 4.3:   Study SeaPen was added. 

Table 4.1 has been updated to be consistent with the 
RWP RCG NANSEA & Baltic 2025-27 and follow the 
guidelines. 

DNK  

Text Box 4.2 has been updated to be consistent with the 
RWP Baltic and NANSEA 2025-27 and the Marine Action 
Plan. 

No comments  

Text Box 4.3 New study on fisheries impact on marine 
habitat has been added to be consistent with the RWP 
Baltic and NANSEA 2025-27 and the Marine Action Plan 

ESP  

Table 4.1: changes following the RWPs and national 
changes.  

No comments  

31 

 
 
 
Text Box 4.2: text boxes included following the RWP 
2025-2027 
some sampling scheme identifiers updated with new 
information. 
new sampling scheme added that focuses on PETS. 

- 

- 

Text Box 4.3: new text box included to explain the 
different actions that are carried out and one text box 
included following the RWP 2025-2027.  

EST  

No amendments reported by MS  

No comments 

FIN  

No amendments reported by MS  

No comments 

FRA  

GRC  

HRV  

HUN  

IRL  

ITA  

LVA  

Stomach analysis on MEDITS and IBTS added based on 
end-user needs. Information box on two future programs 
on accidental bycatches: risk analysis (FEAMPA ARP) 
and a LIFE project in North-East Atlantic and Med&BS 
(Life MMS) added, information on OBSCAMe+ programm 
updated.   

No comments    

Table 4.1: has been updated to be consistent with the 
RWP Med&NS 2025-2027 and follow the guidelines. 

No comments 

Text Box 4.3: New study on fishing footprint of small-scale 
fisheries. 

Text Box 4.2: MS has adjusted the planned PETS 
sampling activities and significantly increased the number 
of PSUs to ensure optimal coverage of by-catches of PET 
species in line with GFCM and ICCAT requirements. 

No comments 

Text Box 4.3: Regional activities (stomach sampling for 
demersal species) and national projects (METAGENOM 
and SSCF-IMPACT) were updated.    

NA  

No amendments reported by MS  

alignment with RWP Med&BS 

Text Box 4.3: Discontinuation of the assessment of 
fisheries impact on marine habitats. In recent years, 
demersal trawling effort in the Latvian EEZ has been 
significantly reduced due to the cod fishing ban and the 
low interest of fishermen in the flounder fishery. 

NA 

No comments  

No comments  

No comments  

Table 4.1: Updated with information from BALTIC RWP. 

LTU  

Text Box 4.2: Updated with information from BALTIC 
RWP, Long Distance Fisheries RWP, NANS&EA RWP. 

Text Box 4.3: Updated information. 

There is no Table 4.1 in the Baltic RWP. However, 
BITS Q1 and Q4 are included in the RWP which 
also included stomach sampling.   

As MS is mainly active in the Baltic region and only 
operating in the other region with a few vessels, 
the risk assessment was only conducted for the 
Baltic. MS is recommended to seek guidance 
within WGCATCH, WGBYC etc. to solve the 
methodology difficulties it faces in future WP 
submissions. 

MLT  

NLD  

Text Box 4.2 and text for two studies in Text Box 4.3 were 
updated.  

No comments  

Table 4.1, Text Box 4.3: Stomach sampling related to 
RWP NANSEA 2025-2027 was added. 

No comments  

Text Box 4.2: Increased number of PSU for sampling 
scheme DEMPAS and sampling scheme DEMACT1. 

POL  

Text Box 4.3: rearrangement due to follow up of RWPs.  No comments 

32 

 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
PRT  

ROU  

Text Box 4.2: In regions “North-East Atlantic” and “North 
Sea and Eastern Arctic”, responses were added to the 
first two questions of the text box template, which concern 
assessments of bycatch risks. 

No comments  

Text Box 4.3: Text Box not included. 

Text Box 4.3: only kept the regional coordination on fish 
stomach contents collection and analysis in the Med&BS. 
The previous national study mentioned in this box will 
have the final results next year. 

No comments  

SVN  

Table 4.1: Planned sampling was increased.  

No comments  

SWE  

Table 4.1: Updated with new list of species following the 
list in RWP NANSEA. 

No comments  

Text Box 4.2: Minor updates. 

Source: Member States submissions to 2024 Work Plans. 

33 

 
 
 
 
2.11  Economic and social data 

Recurrent issues: 

In previous Annual Report (AR) submissions, it had been occasionally observed that a MS 
has justified the lack of data collection for certain variables with the lack having existed in the 
WP already. In order to address this issue, EWG 24-15 made use of the 24-08 AR evaluation 
grid, thus checking for issues which had been raised with respect to the WP. In some cases, 
MSs had justified a lack of data collection with reference to the WP where the respective 
variable was not listed. This approach was meaningful. This time, however, all the gaps that 
could be found were already detected independently during the pre-screening and EWG 
evaluation procedure. 

Work Plans approved for 2022-2027 

Some MSs had submitted WPs for the period 2022-2027 which had been approved. The 
relevant Implementing Decision 2022/39 came into force after the approval of the “2022+” 
WPs. The EWG 24-15 assessed the WPs submitted for 2025-2027 irrespective of what had 
been approved in the past. 

Availability of CR data 

The EWG 24-15 discussed the indication of data availability in Table 1.1 for data which are 
collected under the Control Regulation (CR). The CR defines by when data have to be 
collected by MS. This deadline is within few days, i.e. there is no need to describe the 
availability of CR data within the WP. 

Cluster names 

According to WP Guidelines, the activity indicator for fleet Tables 3.1, 5.1, 5.2 should be 
reported in a separate column and not be a part of cluster name. 

Quality reporting on PIM 

There are basically two approaches for the collection of data related to the capital value for 
the fleet sector: PIM and sampling. The EWG 24-15 recommends that if PIM is used, MS 
should provide a separate Annex 1.2 on this topic, providing details on input parameters 
(percentage rates, useful lifetime, price per capacity unit). It appears advisable to develop a 
template for this particular part of Annex 1.2 (task e.g. for RCG ECON). If PIM is not 
applied, quality information on the respective variables should be provided in the “regular” 
Annex 1.2. 

Implementation years for social variables 

The EWG 24-15 observed that several MSs presented a range of implementation years 
(2025-2027) for the collection of social data. Experience has shown that in some cases, this 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
is a copy-and-paste entry from the economic variables. It is regarded helpful if MS could 
confirm in the WP comment column that data are collected annually. In any case, data 
availability as indicated in Table 1.1 should be consistent with the indication of the 
implementation year(s) in the respective rows in Tables 5.2, 6.1 and 7.1. 

Thresholds application in aquaculture 

The relevance of the aquaculture threshold in Table 6.1, column ‘I’ remains unclear. The 
threshold options A and B imply that data collection is not implemented. Therefore, only 
options “C” and “NA” can literally be used in Table 6.1. Option C implies that MS can apply a 
“simplified methodology”, but the meaning of this is not defined anywhere. Hence, there is no 
sensible value added in the distinction between C and NA for thresholds in Table 6.1.  

The EWG 24-15 supports the general idea of requesting specific information on MS 
aquaculture production in Text box 6.1. The information which is relevant for the WP 
evaluation is in the total aquaculture production as EU % as well as a list of species with 
more than 5% of total production, where applicable. Decision 2022/39 is less specific in this 
respect. 

On fish processing: 

Legislation is unclear with respect to requirements of data collection on fish processing. The 
EWG 24-15 states that there is a request to provide a justification why MS perform a 
complementary data collection (Decision 2022/39 for Table 7.1:“Specify data collection for 
variables not covered by Eurostat or for which additional sampling is required” and for Text 
Box 7.1: “The Member State should justify complementary data collection for fish processing 
in addition to Eurostat data”). 

The EWG 24-15 observed that some MS did not provide this kind of justification. 

It is stressed that the PGECON 2020 [1](p. 21 pp.) report provides a list of reasons why 
complementary data collection on fish processing is justified. 

The EWG also discussed the requirements for filling Table 7.1. Legally there is no document 
specifying that all variables from the MasterCodeList (MCL) have to be listed in Table 7.1. 
Hence, it would be up to the MS which variables to collect.  

The EWG concludes that it is up to the MS which variables from the MCL are collected and 
provided in Table 7.1.  

However, for the future, the EWG  24-15 recommends that if MS collects fish processing 
data, it should provide a complete list and indicate 0% sampling in case of using other data 
(e.g. Eurostat data) for that particular variable. Currently, the MCL does not provide the 
code “NA” for data source and data collection scheme which would be appropriate for 
this case. This should be amended. 

The reference for fish processing variables should be Annex V of the PGECON 2020 report, 
as referred to in Decision 39/2022 ”Type of variables (E/S)” for fish processing (p.40).  

However, this might not apply to data related to raw material as in the past most MS had 
faced serious problems with the collection of data on raw material (see STECF 2023-14: 

35 

 
 
 
 
“nine (9) out of the twenty […] MS participating in the Fisheries Data Reporting scheme 
provided data about raw materials used in 2020 and 2021”. The Regional Work Plan ECON 
2025-2027 characterises data on raw material (weight and value) as optional. 

Concerning the evaluation of the WPs 2025-2027, the EWG 24-15 decided to accept any set 
of variables in Table 7.1, regardless of completeness (as long as they are in line with the 
MCL).  

First element of Annex 1.2 

For many MSs, it was not clear how to prepare the first, almost empty "survey specification 
record” of the quality report in Annex 1.2 and how to proceed with providing sector name for 
the rest of the boxes in the annex. The guidance could be more descriptive (maybe with an 
example) with providing information that a reference to the RWP should be provided only 
once in the field for sector name in the first box with Sampling scheme identifier RWP ECON. 

[1] https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/d/dcf/2020_pgecon 

Table 2.81. Evolution in WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027. Economic and social data. 

Member 
State 

Main changes 

EWG comments 

The test study 5 is planned under section 1a 
aimed at improving data collection on actual 
‘capital value’ and capital costs’ data for the 
fleet, and Test study 6 planned for 
aquaculture. 

BEL 

Table 5.1 and 5.2: Inclusion of the Activity 
indicators for all fleet segments. 

Sections 6.1 and 7.1: Changes in 
methodology to improve the data collection. 

Annex 1.2 MS improved methodological 
Annex for the fleet, aquaculture and fish 
processing. 

Improvements based on considered previous EWG 
comments and MS experience in previous WP 
implementation. 

BGR 

CYP 

CZE 

DEU 

DNK 

ESP 

EST 

No main changes 

No main changes 

No main changes 

No comment 

No comment 

No comment 

Sampling scheme of fleet social data was 
change to Census 

Change in aquaculture data collection scheme 
for some variables (from PSS to CENSUS or 
IND) 

MS introduced improvements in the data collection 
scheme for several variables for fisheries, 
aquaculture and fish processing industry. 

Change in processing data collection scheme 
for some variables (from PSS to CENSUS) 

Section 3.1: Improvement in fleet 
segmentation methodology for coherence 
between fishing activity variables in 3.1 and 
fleet economic data provided in 5.1 and 5.2. 

MS follow the RWP Baltic and NANSEA 2025-27. 

No main changes 

No main changes 

No comment 

No comment 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
3.1. MS stopped collecting complementary 
data for the fish prices as data are now 
received under Control regulation 

FIN 

5.1 - 5.2 textboxes and tables: updates fleet 
segments upon guidelines 

No mandatory data collection for Processing 
Industry 

FRA 

GRC 

7.1 textbox and table: no more data collection 
for some economic variables 

Table 5.1 and 5.2: Inclusion of the Activity 
indicators for the regions French Guiana and 
Guadeloupe fleet segments. 

Table 6.1 Deleted oysters nurseries 

Table 5.1: Significant changes in fleet 
segmentation 

No comment 

Table 5.2: Different sample rates per segment, 
based on the new structure of the Greek 
Fishing fleet 

No comment 

Text Box 5.2: Different clustering scheme 

HRV 

No main changes 

No comment 

HUN 

IRL 

ITA 

LVA 

LTU 

MLT 

NLD 

POL 

Table 6.1: changes on sources for variables 
“Gross sales per species” and  “Weight of 
sales per species” 

Improvement of consistency on variables 

No main changes 

No main changes 

No main changes 

No comment 

No comment 

No comment 

In the fish processing industry, segments were 
added 

More detail information for fish processing 
stakeholders 

No main changes 

No main changes 

No comment 

No comment 

Table 6.1: the data collection was extended to 
cover sturgeon, divided into two identified 
production methods: enclosures and pens, 
and tanks and raceways. 

Table 7.1: data collection is extended for non-
main activity. 

Improvement in aquaculture and fish processing 
data collection. 

PRT 

No main changes 

ROU 

No main changes 

SVN 

No main changes 

SWE 

No main changes 

No comment 

No comment 

No comment 

No comment 

Source: Member States submissions to 2024 Work Plans. 

37 

 
 
 
 
2.12  Amendments of the guidance and templates for WPs 

 

Change of column name in Table 2.1 

The EWG noticed a discrepancy in the use of column O (‘Selected for sampling of biological 
variables’) in Table 2.1 between MSs. Some MS marked this column with ‘Y’ when the 
biological samples will be collected during a research survey at sea, while other MS only 
entered a ‘Y’ in this column if the biological variables are collected by commercial sampling.  
Therefore, the EWG recommends adjusting the guidelines to specify that Table 2.1 only 
refers to commercial sampling.  
The following text in bold could be added to the guidelines for Table 2.1; ”General comment: 
This table fulfils Article 5(2)(a), Article 6(3)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 and 
Chapter II point 2.1(a) of the EU MAP Delegated Decision annex. This table is intended to 
specify data to be collected under Table 1 of the EU MAP Delegated Decision annex. Use 
this table to give an overview of the collection of data from commercial sampling at the 
level of area/stock. All individuals sampled shall be identified to species level and have length 
measurements taken, where possible. Other biological data different from length are 
specified in Table 2.2, and may include data collected under the surveys at sea.” 

 

Out-of-frame population in Table 2.5 

The EWG identified that some MS had incorrectly addressed the unsampled part of the 
population (‘out-of-frame population’) in Table 2.5. It is necessary to identify and provide the 
size of the out-of-frame population to accurately assess the coverage and scope of the 
sampling design, as well as to understand the potential bias of the resulting estimates 
derived from the collected data. 

According to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/39 laying down rules on the 
format and timetables for the submission of national work plans and annual reports, in Table 
2.5, an ‘out-of-frame’ row must be added by Sampling scheme identifier, that is, for all 
sampling scheme identifiers: 

Sampling scheme identifier (Table 2.5): 

“Indicate a unique name (free text) to identify each combination of ‘Observation type’ * 
‘Sampling scheme type’ * ‘Species coverage’. Use identical references in text boxes and in 
Annex 1.1.  

If your Member State’s landings are sampled by another Member State under a bi- or 
multilateral agreement, put a row in this table referring to the other Member State’s sampling 
scheme identifier. 

Add an ‘out-of-frame’ row per sampling scheme identifier, even if all sampling population is 
covered. In this case, enter ‘0’ for the planned PSU number, and duplicate other 
specifications (eg. observation type, frequency, PSU type etc.).” 

However, in the Interactive Guidelines (https://dcf.ec.europa.eu/wp-templates_en), the 
definition is incorrect. Instead of the correct text from the Decision, the definition for the 
“Sampling Frame Description” was used in place of the “Sampling Scheme Identifier”. As a 
result, what appears is: 

38 

 
 
 
 
  
“To inform on the actual coverage of the sampling design, enter at least one row per 
‘Region’*’RFMO’*’Sampling scheme identifier’ combination for out-of-frame parts of the 
population [e.g. unsampled (on-shore), unsampled (at-sea)]. It is recommended for all 
combinations, but it should be provided at least for the ones where ‘Sampling scheme 
type’=‘commercial fishing trip’.” 

This discrepancy between the Decision and the Interactive Guidelines has led some MS to 
omit a row for each out-of-frame entry. During the EWG, the Commission was informed of 
this error to facilitate corrections in the Interactive Guidelines. MS that did not address the 
out-of-frame entries were asked, through the ‘ping-pong’ process, to resubmit and provide 
the WP in accordance with the legal framework. 

 

Inconsistency between “NA” and “N/A” 

Inconsistency between the Interactive Guidelines and Commission Delegated Decision on 
applying ‘NA’ and ‘N/A’ indicating the number of individuals to sample using opportunistic 
sampling allowed MS to use both. To prevent an incorrect display of percentages of 
‘Achieved % of sampled individuals at national level’ of AR in the DCF platform, some 
formulas of achievements presentation and formulas on indication of result of achievement, 
which is require a comment in AR, were corrected. For correct display, ‘N/A’ indication is 
required 

2.13  Amendments of the evaluation procedures and assessment grid 

 

Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5 

The EWG reviewed the assessment grid for WP evaluation and identified areas for 
improvement to enhance clarity and reduce potential confusion in Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5.  
Where specific questions had been interpreted differently by experts, modifications are 
proposed to prevent misunderstandings (7 cases). Questions that were deemed unhelpful 
are recommended for removal (2 cases). Additionally, a new question has been added in 
each table to allow for a more in-depth analysis of the WP in case the experts need it (3 
cases). 

The proposed revised assessment grid is available in the electronic annexes of this report. 

Table 2.1: 

  Table 2.1. The question “Are the justifications provided for not sampling required 
stocks/species acceptable?” should be modified to: “In case that no threshold 
rules used, are the justifications provided for not sampling required 
stocks/species acceptable?” (The reason for this change is that when a threshold 
is used, it is a justification by default). 

  Table 2.1. The question “Are the data subsets from Table 2.1 correctly referred to in 
table 1.1?” should be modified to: “Is "Commercial length structure" included in the 
"Data subset" in Table 1.1.?”  

  New question is proposed: “Are there any other remarks to be considered regarding 

Table 2.1?” 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.12. Assessment grid for WP evaluation and identified areas for improvement to enhance 
clarity and reduce potential confusion in Table 2.1.  

Source: Member States submissions to 2024 Work Plans. 

Table 2.2: 

  Table 2.2. The question “Are all the Observation types*sampling scheme 

types*Sampling scheme identifiers listed in Table 2.2 clearly documented in a 
quality report (Annex 1.1)? should be modified to “Are all the Observation 
types*sampling scheme types*Sampling scheme identifiers listed in Table 2.2 
documented with a quality report (Annex 1.1)?  

  Table 2.2. New question is proposed: “Are all ‘Sampling scheme identifiers’ 

listed in table 2.2 with identical names in all relevant Tables (2.4, 2.5, 2.6) and in 
Annex 1.1?”. The purpose is to clarify the existence of the Annex (previous 
question) and ensure a precise match of names, enabling unambiguous 
identification of the scheme and allowing an automatic match. 

  Table 2.2. The question “Are all the variables covered by an Observation 

type*sampling scheme type*Sampling scheme identifier?” is proposed to be 
deleted. The reason is that the question is asking for empty cells, and according 
to Guidance there is no possible to have empty cells. 

  Table 2.2. The question “In case that different sampling schemes apply to the same 

stock and not all of them are regionally coordinated, is it well explained in Table 2.2?”   
Proposed to be deleted. It’s unclear. EWG don’t see what the reason/added value 
behind this question is. 

  Table 2.2. The question “Are the data subsets from Table 2.2 correctly referred to in 
table 1.1?” should be modified to: “Are "Individual biological parameters" or/and 
"Commercial age structure" included in the "Data subset" in Table 1.1.?” 

  New question is proposed: “Are there any other remarks to be considered regarding 

Table 2.2?” 

Table 2.13. Assessment grid for WP evaluation and identified areas for improvement to enhance 
clarity and reduce potential confusion in Table 2.2.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Member States submissions to 2024 Work Plans. 

Section 2.5: 

  Table 2.5. the question “Are all parts of the population, including in and out of frames, 
reported? (at least for 'Sampling scheme type'='commercial fishing trip')” should be 
modified to “Are all parts of the population, including in and out of frames, reported?” 
  Table 2.5. the question “Are all the "Sampling scheme identifier(s)" listed in Table 2.5 
clearly documented in a quality report (Annex 1.1)?” should be modified to “Are all 
the Sampling scheme identifiers listed in Table 2.5 documented with a quality report 
(Annex 1.1)?  

  Table 2.5. New question is proposed: “Are all ‘Sampling scheme identifiers’ listed in 

table 2.5 with identical names in all relevant Tables (2.2) and in Annex 1.1?”    

  Table 2.5. The question “Are the data subsets from Table 2.5 correctly referred to in 
table 1.1?” should be modified to: “Are "PETS occurrences" included in the "Data 
subset" in Table 1.1.?” 

  New question is proposed: “Are there any other remarks to be considered regarding 

Table 2.5?” 

 Table 2.14. Assessment grid for WP evaluation and identified areas for improvement to enhance 
clarity and reduce potential confusion in Table 2.5.  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: Member States submissions to 2024 Work Plans. 

 

Diadromous species and recreational fisheries 

For the evaluation, include the comments for Annex 1.1 into the same group of questions of 
2.3 and 2.4 so it is not disconnected. 

Currently, there is no feedback question or cell in the evaluation grid to give feedback on the 
text boxes. The following question has been added to the assessment grid: “Does Text Box 
2.3 (2.4) contain all necessary information and is it consistent with the AR guidelines?” 

While the summaries of changes in WPs from the MS are supposed to highlight the most 
important changes and amendments of their 3-year WP compared to the last timeframe, MS 
do not follow a harmonized approach in providing this information. The level of detail differs 
and the understanding of what is important is subjective. There should be clear instructions 
what information should be provided and how this should be summarized in the summaries 
document, in order to make it valuable and usable for the evaluators to comment on the 
evolution of WPs. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3 

EWG COMMENTS ON REGIONAL WORK PLANS 2025-2027 

3.1 

Latest status of RWPs 

The regional Work Plans (RWPs) for all regions apart from the Long-Distance Fisheries 
(RWP LDF) have been commented by STECF previously (EWGs 21-17, 22-18 and 23-16). 
The RWP LDF has been submitted in September 2024 for the first time. In the RWP 
Med&BS, several changes have been made, which the EWG looked at. 

3.2 

Baltic 

Inconsistency between the provisions in COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 
2021/1168 Chapter II point 1(a) on the certain species sampling requirement when the sum 
of the shares of the Member States concerned exceeds 25 % of the TAC and the absence of 
indication of that species sampling in RWP was noticed by EWG 24-15.  One MS was 
excluded from small pelagic species sampling, when the threshold rules should not be 
applicable. Any further comments following that decision was not given in RWP. 

When both average landings and threshold are marked as 'None' in the RWP, the EWG 
considers this an improper application of threshold rules. To prevent inconsistencies, the 
EWG recommends that the RCG apply the 'Landings < 200t' indicator in such cases. This 
applies to all species except diadromous for which no threshold applies, and then “none” in 
average landings and “none” in threshold is possible. 

In Table 2.1, for the species selected for sampling in “Covered by commercial sampling 
scheme for length”, then, for those species the “Threshold rules used” should be “None” as it 
is specified in Com. Impl. Dec 2022/39. Some mistakes were found in the RWP. 
In table 2.5, no “out of frame” parts of the population. We consider it should be included to 
understand if RWP includes all the population or does not. 

3.3 

North Atlantic, North Sea and Eastern Arctic (NANSEA) 

Section 1: 

For test study 5 (North Sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) stock marine recreational fisheries 
sampling) in the RWP NANS&EA 2025-2027 it is indicated that it is applicable for all MS. 
However, one MS indicated that it does not conduct any recreational fisheries outside the 
Baltic Sea region. Therefore, there is no basis to be part of that study. Consequently, the MS 
did not include the study in their NWP. This should be adjusted in the next RWP NANSEA. 

Section 2: 

When both average landings and threshold are marked as 'None' in the RWP, the EWG 
considers this an improper application of threshold rules. To prevent inconsistencies, the 
EWG recommends that the RCG apply the 'Landings < 200t' indicator in such cases. This 
applies to all species except diadromous for which no threshold applies, and then “none” in 
average landings and “none” in threshold is possible. 

In Table 2.1, for the species selected for sampling in “Covered by commercial sampling 
scheme for length”, then, for those species the “Threshold rules used” should be “None” as it 
is specified in Com. Impl. Dec 2022/39. Some mistakes were found in the RWP. 
Section 4.3: 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
While it is mentioned within the text of the RWP test study “Regionally coordinated stomach 
sampling programme” which MS are involved in this regional coordinated programme, under 
the agreements and commitments it is stated “MS involved: ALL”. Here only the participating 
MS should be listed. 

3.4 

Mediterranean and Black Sea (Med&BS) 

Section 2:  

In Table 2.1 there is an error in column L "Threshold rules used". When in column G 
"Average landings, in the reference years (tonnes)", the value is “none”, then in column L the 
value should be Landings < 200t. This applies to all species except diadromous and the 
elasmobranchs  Mustelus asterias, Mustelus mustelus, Mustelus punctulatus, Prionace 
glauca, Squalus acanthias (species whose exploitation is regulated of the Barcelona 
Convention), for which no threshold applies. 

In Table 2.1, the species Callinectes sapidus, Galeus melastomus, Portunus segnis, Raja 
asterias, Raja clavata, Squalus acanthias, which are defined in different GSAs in Table 1 of 
Com.Del.Dec 2021/1167 and in GFCM-DCRF Appendix A.3, are reported twice by several 
MS, one under the area defined by Com.Del.Dec 2021/1167 (in comments column) and 
another one under the area defined by GFCM-DCRF Appendix A.3.  This is particularly 
confusing when MS selects the species to be sampled. The RCG must revise the RWP 
accordingly and find a solution to avoid these situations. 

Section 4.1: 

Two discrepancies were found between the RWP Med&BS and the WPs.  

-  For MSs who have a separate Annex 1.1 for stomach sampling for the MEDITS 

Survey, sampling scheme identifier “MEDITS_stomachs” should be filled in table 4.1. 
This has not been done in the RWP. 

-  For commercial fishing trips a generic sampling scheme identifier was filled in the 
RWP Med&BS. This does not correspond with the national sampling scheme 
identifiers reported in tables 2.5 and 2.2 

Both discrepancies were acknowledged by the RCG Med&BS and MSs were advised to 
either follow the RWP or change accordingly in their NWP. 

3.5 

Large Pelagics (LP) 

In the WP section 1, several MSs provided justification during the EWG of not including the 
test study on CKMR on Bluefin tuna from the RWP LP into their WPs. 

3.6 

Long-Distance Fisheries (LDF) 

Section 2: 

When both average landings and threshold are marked as 'None' in the RWP, the EWG 
considers this an improper application of threshold rules. To prevent inconsistencies, the 
EWG recommends that the RCG apply the 'Landings < 200t' indicator in such cases. This 

44 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
applies to all species except diadromous for which no threshold applies, and then “none” in 
average landings and “none” in threshold is possible. 

In Table 2.1, for the species selected for sampling in “Covered by commercial sampling 
scheme for length”, then, for those species, the “Threshold rules used” should be “None” as it 
is specified in Decision 2022/39.  

Brama brama was excluded from the MS sampling when species is listed in Table 1 of the 
EU MAP Delegated Decision annex and Member State’s fishing fleet catches exceeded 200 
t. Therefore, threshold rules are not applied. However, this species was not requested for 
sampling by the end user (CECAF), not included in multilateral agreement between 5 MS and 
not identified for sampling in RWP, even there is mandatory sampling by MS. This kind of 
derogation for sampling should be endorsed as an agreement by the respective RCG. 

Section 4.2: 

Data on by-catch including incidental catches of sensitive species are collected as a standard 
procedure provided in the observer manual relevant for the particular area. 

3.7 

Economic Issues (ECON) 

The EWG does not have any comments on the RWP ECON. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4 

EVALUATION OF DATA TRANSMISSION ISSUES (DTI) 

With the new assessment cycle for Data Transmission Issues (DTi), the evaluation of the DTi 
for data calls in 2023 were done during the EWG 24-15 meeting. These issues were low and 
medium severity issues from the 2023 data call which had one year to complete the cycle to 
give the opportunity for the MS to resubmit missing or erroneous data. From the 2024 data 
call only high severity issues from the Fleet Economics data call were assessed. 

4.1 

Assessment of DT Issues from 2024 data calls 

There was only one high-severity issue from the Fleet Economic data call 2024. This issue 
had no response from the MS, so it was assessed as ‘Unsatisfactory’ following the decision 
tree in the Guidance document (DTMT- Guidance Version_2024.06.03.pdf).  

4.2 

Assessment of DT Issues from 2023 data calls 

The DT Issues from the 2023 data call contained 49 DT Issues from ICES, 32 from FDI, 8 
from IOTC, 52 from Mediterranean and Black Sea. These issues were low- and medium-
severity issues and MS, when responding to the issues and when relevant, also indicated 
resubmission of missing or corrected data in the 2024 data call. For FDI, the end-user 
(STECF EWG 24-11) checked if the data were submitted and included this information in the 
columns ‘End User check’ and ‘End User comment’. This really helped the prescreeners and 
the EWG 24-15 when assessing the issues. A check was also provided by the Processing 
EWG (23-14) and for the Mediterranean and Black Sea EWG 23-09 indicating if the MS has 
resubmitted missing or corrected data.  

Experts followed the decision tree in the DTMT Guidance document (DTMT-Guidance 
Version_2024.06.03.pdf). The issues were assessed by prescreeners and then again by 
experts with the expertise in the field for the specific data call during the EWG. The experts 
found that the decision tree is very helpful and speeds up the assessment process.  

The issue was assessed as follow-up needed when the information provided by end-users 
and MS was contradictory. The follow-up responsible was then chosen as DG MARE. There 
were 5 DT Issues that were marked as ‘Follow-up needed’ which were all from ICES.  

In cases when no response was provided from MS, the assessment was ‘Unsatisfactory’. 
There was confusion by the prescreeners and experts assessing the DT Issues whether to 
allocate a follow-up responsible when the issues were assessed as ‘Unsatisfactory’. The 
EWG discussed and decided that in cases of ‘Unsatisfactory’ assessment, there will be no 
follow-up responsible, as the cycle already enables the MS to fix the issue until after the data 
call. This should be added to the DTMT Guidance document (Decision tree) when the 
document will be updated in in the STECF Spring Plenary 2025. The DT issues were also 
assessed in cases of failure concerning data collection and MS commitment to improve data 
collection in the future. This was following the decision tree. The EWG 24-15 noticed that the 
MS responses to IOTC and Med&BS data calls were mostly evaluated as ‘Unsatisfactory’ or 
‘Unsatisfactory-to be revised’. The reasons behind these submission deficiencies remain 
unclear.  

The DT Issues were assessed as ‘Unsatisfactory - to be revised’ where the MS had not 
submitted missing or corrected data set even if they have indicated that they would do it in 
the next data call. In these cases, the follow-up responsible was selected as ‘MS’ or ‘End 
User’ in cases where it wasn't checked if they had resubmitted the data.  

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.1. Assessment of the DT Issues from the data calls 2023, evaluated by EWG 24-15. 

Data Call 2023  STECF EWG DTi Assessment 

Number 

ICES 

FOLLOW-UP NEEDED 

SATISFACTORY 

UNSATISFACTORY 

UNSATISFACTORY – TO BE REVISED 

SATISFACTORY 

UNSATISFACTORY 

UNSATISFACTORY – TO BE REVISED 

UNSATISFACTORY 

UNSATISFACTORY – TO BE REVISED 

Total 

FDI 

Total 

IOTC 

Total 

Med and BS 

SATISFACTORY 

UNSATISFACTORY 

UNSATISFACTORY – TO BE REVISED 

Total 

Processing Ind.  SATISFACTORY 

UNSATISFACTORY 

UNSATISFACTORY – TO BE REVISED 

Total 

Source: Member States submissions to 2024 Work Plans. 

 

Suggestion for guidelines  

5 

34 

8 

2 

49 

17 

2 

13 

32 

5 

3 

8 

11 

15 

26 

52 

5 

3 

8 

16 

The EWG 24-15 noticed inconsistency between DTMT Guidance (version March 2024) and 
DTMT platform on the End User Check selection list. The Table 1 of DTMT Guidance shall 
be updated, where the selection from drop-down menu for End User Check field should be as 
follows: Cannot be checked/Checked not Ok/Checked ok/ Unknown. 

4.3 

Link between DT issues and WP 

The EWG checked the list of DT issues with a focus on the relevance for the current WP in 
relation to economic and social data. Overall, the EWG found no DT issues which referred to 
gaps in MS WP which have been used as explanation for failure in data transmission. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 

DCF IT PLATFORM 

5.1 

Upload of MS WPs to the platform 

17 Member States (MS) successfully submitted the National Work Plans (NWP) to the DCF 
IT platform before pre-screening and during the EWG 24-15 meeting. No major issues were 
reported by MS. The EWG noticed that the platform came up with warnings when uploading 
WPs, which required the MS to edit some parts to eliminate inconsistency with the EU-MAP 
or inaccurate typing. 

5.2 

Pre-screening comments using the platform 

The pre-screeners observed significant progress in the functionalities of the developed IT 
platform, which facilitates coherent and timely reporting of issues identified during the MS WP 
assessment to MS. In 2024, submitting the WP via the IT platform was not mandatory. 
However, 16 MS and 5 RWP successfully completed all required validations and submitted 
the WP through the platform. The WP submitted through the IT platform contained only minor 
editing errors compared to those submitted traditionally in previous years. Since the pre-
screened issues were commented on in grids and communicated to MS through both the 
traditional manual method and the IT platform, some additional time was required. 
Nevertheless, the MS and pre-screeners have learned to communicate at an advanced level 
and had the opportunity to investigate some deficiencies in facilities and functionalities. Pre-
screeners noticed that comments could not be added to text within sections. As a result, 
comments were provided by adding them to one of the column headers. In one instance, the 
issue definition could not be attached to the Annex, while in another, it was successfully 
added. Additionally, if the same comment needed to be applied to several cells in the sheet, 
there was no option to select multiple cells simultaneously to apply the comment.   

5.3 

EWG working with the platform 

The Bulgarian and Lithuanian national WP were selected to test the functionality related to 
EWG assessments and communication with MS on the IT platform. No major issues were 
observed. 

The EWG reviewed both MS WPs, provided comments on identified issues, and the MS 
subsequently updated and re-uploaded their revised WP. While there is room for further 
improvement, it remains unclear how WP with outstanding issues should be communicated 
to MS for follow-up actions. 

Additionally, the number of comments from the EWG and the corresponding responses 
should be counted separately and displayed clearly for better tracking. 

5.4 

EWG Feedback on ID rules from the IT platform 

Drawing from the expertise of the EWG, several examples of ID rules that do not appear to 
be working properly were highlighted. This is not an exhaustive analysis of all ID rules due to 
time constraints; rather, it is a note on certain issues that may assist IT developers. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Table 2.2 

Rule ID: 80 

Example of message: “Species "Buccinum undatum" is not found in region "North-East 
Atlantic". Please check Table 1 for reference.” 

There were a lot of species for several, if not all MS, which the platform identified as not 
found in the regions.  The Guidelines state: “You may add additional rows, at the end, for 
species or stock not included in Table 1 of the EU MAP Delegated Decision annex, for which 
sampling is conducted by your Member State, RFMOs or is agreed at marine region level. 
Justify such an inclusion in the ‘WP comments’ column.”  

Therefore, to restrict the species list does not make sense as the warning appears very often. 

Possible solution: The IT platform must have two lists of species, one from the EU-MAP 
decision (decision list) and another from Master Data Register (master list 
MDR_FAO_species.xls) where all species are listed. The IT platform firstly checks 
consistency with the decision list and if it isn't found there, it checks in the master list and if 
the species name isn't found in the master list, error is highlighted and this species name 
shall not be accepted. 

Rule ID: 86 

Example of message: “Biological variable is not unique for combination of NLD, 2025, 
Pleuronectes platessa, North Sea and Eastern Arctic, ICES, 4, 7d Age. Items count: 7.” 

But it has not to be unique. In this case, there are several “Age” lines because the “Sampling 
scheme identifier” is different. We have the sampling scheme identifier in Table 2.2 to allow 
that.  

This could be a mistake in the rules of the platform. 

Possible solution: unique combinations shall be revised probably by adding sampling scheme 
identifier. The same biological variable for the same species could be collected by different 
sampling schemes. 

Rule ID: 186 

Example of message: “PSU type has incorrect format. Value: vessel x time is given.” 

The problem is the values accepted for PSU type are wrong in the WP template guidelines 
(https://dcf.ec.europa.eu/wpar-mastercodes_en#psutype) 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
The options for PSU there are “SRSWR, SRSWOR, UPSWR, UPSWOR, SYSS, CENSUS, 
NPQSRSWR, NPQSRSWOR, NPQSYSS, NPJS, NPCS, FIXED” and that are “Methods for 
PSU selection”, not “PSU type”. 

50 

 
 
 
 
6 

CONTACT DETAILS OF EWG-24-15 PARTICIPANTS 

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

STECF members 

Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Grati, Fabio 

IRBIM-CNR 

fabio.grati@cnr.it 

Nimmegeers, Sofie 

Flanders research institute for 
agriculture, fisheries and food 

sofie.nimmegeers@ilvo.vlaanderen.be 

Stransky, Christoph 

Thünen Institute of Sea Fisheries 

christoph.stransky@thuenen.de  

Invited experts 

Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Accadia, Paolo 

Nisea Società Cooperativa 

accadia@nisea.eu 

Adamidou, Angeliki 

Fisheries Research Institute 

adamidou@inale.gr 

Armesto, Angeles 

Instituto Español de 
Oceanografía, (IEO), CSIC 

angeles.armesto@ieo.csic.es 

Berkenhagen, Jörg 

Thünen Institute of Sea Fisheries 

joerg.berkenhagen@thuenen.de  

Brigaudeau, Cecile 

UBO 

cecile.brig@gmail.com 

Chassanite, Aurore 

IFREMER 

aurore.chassanite@ifremer.fr  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Davidjuka, Irina 

Independent expert 

irina.davidiuk@inbox.lv  

Freese, Marko 

Thünen Institute of Fisheries 
Ecology 

Marko.Freese@thuenen.de  

Isajlovic, Igor 

Institute of Oceanography and 
Fisheries 

igor@izor.hr 

Jakoleva, Irina 

Fisheries Service under MoA 

irina.jakovleva@zuv.lt  

Koutrakis, Emmanouil  NAGREF-Fisheries Research 
Institut 

manosk@inale.gr  

Kovars, Maksims 

Institute of Food safety, Animal 
Health and Environment "BIOR", 
Fish resources research 
departmen 

maksims.kovsars@bior.lv  

Liontakis, Angelos 

Agricultural University of Athens 

aliontakis@agreri.gr  

Nermer, Tomasz 

National Marine Fisheries 
Research Institute 

nermer@mir.gdynia.pl  

Nicheva, Simona 

Executive agency for fisheries 
and aquaculture 

simona.nicheva@iara.government.bg 

Panayotova, Marina 

Institute of oceanology-BAS 

mpanayotova@io-bas.bg  

Rodriguez, Jose 

Instituto Español de 
Oceanografía, (IEO), CSIC 

jose.rodriguez@ieo.csic.es 

Sakas, Remigijus 

Marine Reseach Institute of 
Klaipeda University 

sakasremi@gmail.com 

Torreele, Els 

EV ILVO 

els.torreele@ilvo.vlaanderen.be 

Ulleweit, Jens 

Thünen Institute of Sea Fisheries, 
Federal Research Institute 

jens.ulleweit@thuenen.de  

Van Overzee, Harriet  Wageningen Marine Research 

harriet.vanoverzee@wur.nl  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Vukov, Ivana 

Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate 
of Fisheries, Unit for Data 
Collection Programme in 
Fisheries 

ivana.vukov@mps.hr  

Zhelev, Kolyo 

Executive Agency for Fisheries 
and Aquaculture 

kolyo.zhelev@iara.government.bg  

Zolubas, Tomas 

Marine Research Institute, 
Klaipeda University 

tomas.zolubas@gmail.com 

JRC experts 

Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Hekim, Zeynep 

Joint Research Centre 

hekim.zeynep@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 

Name 

Affiliation1 

Email 

Kostopoulou, Venetia  DG MARE, C.3 

venetia.kostopoulou@ec.europa.eu 

Sterczewska, Monika  DG MARE, C.3 

monika.sterczewska@ec.europa.eu 

Hekim, Zeynep 

JRC STECF secretariat 

jrc-stecf-secretariat@ec.europa.eu 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Annexes  

Electronic annexes are published on the meeting’s web site on:  
Data Collection Framework reports - European Commission (europa.eu) 

List of electronic annexes documents: 

EWG-24-15 – Annex 1 – Final WP evaluation grid by MS 

EWG-24-15 – Annex 2 – Revised WP evaluation grid 

EWG-24-15 – Annex 3 – Revised WP assessment instructions  

EWG-24-15 – Annex 4 – Revised WP AR guidelines 

List of Background Documents  

Background documents are published on the meeting’s web site on:  
EWG 24-15: Evaluation of Work Plans for data collection and data transmission issues - 
European Commission 
List of background documents: 

EWG-24-15 – Doc 1 - Declarations of invited and JRC experts (see also section 6 of this 
report – List of participants) 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Tables 

Table 2.4 EWG 24-25 sub-groups by sections and expertise 

Table 2.6 Evolution in WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027. Section 1 on “General information”. 

Table 2.7.1 Evolution in WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027. Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5 on 
biological data. 

Table 2.7.2 Identification of discrepancies between RWPs and national WPs and possible 
solutions. 

Table 2.8 Evolution in WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 on diadromous 
species and recreational fisheries. 

Table 2.9 Evolution in WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027. Section 2.6 on surveys-at-sea. 

Table 2.10 Evolution in WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027. Section 4 on the impact of fisheries on 
marine biological resources. 

Table 2.11 Evolution in WPs from 2022-2024 to 2025-2027. Economic and social data. 

Table 2.12 Assessment grid for WP evaluation and identified areas for improvement to enhance 
clarity and reduce potential confusion in Table 2.1.  

Table 2.13 Assessment grid for WP evaluation and identified areas for improvement to enhance 
clarity and reduce potential confusion in Table 2.2.  

Table 2.14 Assessment grid for WP evaluation and identified areas for improvement to enhance 
clarity and reduce potential confusion in Table 2.5. 

 
 
 
 
Getting in touch with the EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of the 
centre nearest you online (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

On the phone or in writing 

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, 

 via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_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 (european-union.europa.eu). 

EU publications 

You  can  view  or  order  EU  publications  at  op.europa.eu/en/publications.  Multiple  copies  of  free 
publications can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre (european-
union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-lex.europa.eu). 

EU open data 

The  portal  data.europa.eu  provides  access  to  open  datasets  from  the  EU  institutions,  bodies  and 
agencies.  These  can  be  downloaded  and  reused  for  free,  for  both  commercial  and  non-commercial 
purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European countries. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) provides 
independent, evidence-based knowledge and 
science, supporting EU policies to positively 
impact society 

EU Science Hub 
Joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu