Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[**Important legal notice**](http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/editorial/legal_notice.htm)

*|*

# 52007SC0463

**Commission staff working document - Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) - Evaluation of 2004 national data collection programmes undertaken under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001 /\* SEC/2007/0463 \*/**

  

SEC(2007) 463

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)Evaluation of 2004 national data collection programMes undertaken under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001

This report has been adopted by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) through a fast track procedure by correspondence

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 3

STECF COMMENTS 4

APPENDIX 1 REPORT OF SUBGROUP 5

INTRODUCTION

STECF was requested to evaluate the 2004 national reports delivered by each EU Member State within the framework of the data collection programme under the Council Regulation (EC) No1543/2000 and the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001.

Accordingly, STECF convened a meeting of its SubGroup on Research Needs (SGRN) from 27 June-2 July 2005. The SGRN was invited to evaluate the achievements of each Member States (MS) with respect to the requirements of the agreed National programmes (NP) for 2004. The SGRN was invited also to underline whether the achievements are in line with the international obligations of the EU in regards to the Regional Fisheries Organizations.

In particular the SGRN was requested to:

Evaluate National technical Reports (NRT) and provide an advice on the measures taken by each MS, the appropriateness of the methods used and the results achieved as regards the data collection and management.

This report presents the response of the STECF to the findings in the SGRN report on Evaluation of 2004 data collection national projects undertaken under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1639/2001. The STECF review was undertaken by correspondence. The SGRN report is attached at Appendix 1.

STECF Comments

STECF WELCOMED THE SGRN REPORT ON THE EVALUATION OF 2004 DATA COLLECTION NATIONAL PROGRAMS UNDERTAKEN UNDER COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) NO 1639/2001. STECF AGREES WITH, AND ENDORSES THE FINDINGS OF THE SGRN REPORT AND DRAWS PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING POINTS.

1. STECF strongly supports the process for the evaluation of member States NP which is described in the SGRN Report on the Evaluation of the National Technical Reports (NTR) in 2004 (Appendix 1).

2. STECF recognises the important role played by the guidelines to improve both the presentation and the evaluation of the NTR. SGRN decided to issue a new, amended version of the Guidelines (version 2005) before the next round of evaluation. The chair of SGRN was given the task of putting this new version together by October 2005, for subsequent approval by SGRN and STECF.

3. STECF also strongly supports the recommendation of the SGRN that MS submit their NTR by the agreed deadline of 31 May, to give sufficient time for translation and proper evaluation. STECF notes also that several of NTR for 2004 were submitted in languages other than English and as a consequence such reports had to be evaluated in their original languages causing large difficulties within SGRN members.

4. STECF notes that the quality of the Technical Reports improved compared to the submissions for 2003 except for module J (see below). However, SGRN re-iterates its standpoint that NTR should be as concise as possible, while at the same time providing all the information that is necessary for the evaluation of the MS's achievements.

5. STECF supports the structure of the evaluation process as set up by SGRN, assuring both objectivity and efficiency in the evaluation (See sections 2.3 and 2.4 of the Report). Also the presentation of the evaluation criteria (See section 2.5) is clear and allows a fair assessment of the motivations behind SGRN acceptance or criticism of each NP.

6. STECF notes that several MS have not calculated any or part of the precision levels. SGRN stressed that the ICES Workshop on Sampling Design for Fisheries Data held in Pasajes (Spain), clearly showed that the critical issue is on the calculation of precision for the number-at-age estimates (WKSDFD, 2005) (2) and that no particular difficulties were reported for the calculation of precision for any of the other parameters. Therefore, SGRN recommends that MS include calculation of precision level of parameters other than number-at-age estimates in the future as those are straightforward and do not need had-hoc WG for establishing the estimation methodology.

7. Concerning module J, STECF recommends that in future Technical Reports, MS should define their vessel populations according to the requirements of the DCR. STECF also insists that in future NTR, only activities referring to data collection undertaken in the reference year should be reported in the relevant standard tables, the year to which the data collected refers, should be clearly indicated.

8. Taking into account the above comments, STECF endorses the SGRN report.

APPENDIX 1 REPORT OF SUBGROUP

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER

SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES (STECF)

SUB-GROUP ON RESEARCH NEEDS (SGRN)

EVALUATION OF 2004 NATIONAL DATA COLLECTION PROGRAMS UNDERTAKEN UNDER COMMISSION REGULATION

(EC) NO 1639/2001

JUNE 27 TH - JULY 2 ND , 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 8

1.1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 8

1.1.1 STECF Members 8

1.1.2 Invited experts 8

1.1.3 STECF Secretariat (European Commission) 8

1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE 9

2 . EVALUATION OF 2004 TECHNICAL REPORTS - GENERAL COMMENTS 10

2.1 ON DEADLINES AND TRANSLATION PROBLEMS 10

2.2 ON THE QUALITY OF THE TECHNICAL REPORTS 10

2.3 ON THE EVALUATION PROCESS IN GENERAL 10

2.4 ON THE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN PARTICULAR 11

2.5 ON PRECISION LEVELS 12

2.6 ON SAMPLING LEVELS FOR TUNA 13

2.7 ON MODULE J 13

2.8 GUIDELINES FOR THE SUBMISSION OF 2005 TECHNICAL REPORTS 13

3 VALUATION OF 2004 TECHNICAL REPORTS – COMMENTS BY MS 14

3.1 BELGIUM 14

3.1.1 General comments 14

3.1.2 Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program 14

3.1.3 Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program 17

3.2 DENMARK 17

3.2.1 General comments 17

3.2.2 Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program 18

3.2.3 Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program 21

3.3 FINLAND 21

3.3.1 Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program 22

3.3.2 Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program 25

3.4 FRANCE 25

3.4.1 Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program 26

3.4.2 Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program 29

3.5 GERMANY 30

3.5.1 General comments 30

3.5.2 Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program 30

3.5.3 Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program 33

3.6 GREECE 33

3.6.1 General comments 33

3.6.2 Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program 34

3.6.3 Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program 36

3.7 IRELAND 36

3.7.1 General comments 36

3.7.2 Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program 37

3.7.3 Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program 40

3.8 ITALY 40

3.8.1 General comments 40

3.8.2 Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program 41

3.8.3 Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program 44

3.9 NETHERLANDS 44

3.9.1 General comments 44

3.9.2 Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program 45

3.9.3 Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program 48

3.10 PORTUGAL 49

3.10.1 General comments 49

3.10.2 Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program 49

3.10.3 Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program 52

3.11 SPAIN 53

3.11.1 General comments 53

3.11.2 Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program 53

3.11.3 Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program 57

3.12 SWEDEN 57

3.12.1 General comments 57

3.12.2 Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Progrm 60

3.13 UNITED KINGDOM 63

3.13.1 General comments 63

3.13.2 Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program 63

3.13.3 Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program 66

4 SGRN OPINION ON TUNA TAGGING EXPERIMENTS 68

5 SGRN PROPOSAL ON A SYNOPTIC OVERVIEW OF DISCARD INFORMATION 69

5.1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL 69

5.2 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS 69

5.3 SGRN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 70

6 JRC PROPOSAL ON CODIFICATION 71

6.1 CODIFICATION SCHEME AND STANDARD OUTPUTS 71

6.2 SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED 71

6.3 FURTHER STEPS TO BE TAKEN 72

INTRODUCTION

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

STECF Members

Cardinale, Massimiliano

Di Natale, Antonio (part-time)

Invited experts

Arneri, Enrico

Eltink, Guus

Figueiredo, Ivone

Folmer, Ole

Gambino, Monica (part-time)

Hatcher, Aaron (part-time)

Klepper, Rainer (part-time)

Koutrakis, Manos

Martin, Paloma

Millner, Richard

Motova, Arina (part-time)

Myllylä, Timo

Newton, Andrew

Ní Chonchúir, Gráinne

Redant, Frank (chairperson)

Schultz, Norbert

Vigneau, Joël

STECF Secretariat (European Commission)

Geronymaki, Maria (JRC) (part-time)

Moguedet, Philippe (DG Fish) (part-time)

Pertierra, Juan Pablo (DG Fish) (part-time)

Ziegler, Robert (JRC)

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Sub-Group on Research Needs (STECF-SGRN) met in Centre Borschette, from June 27th till July 2nd, 2005, with the following Terms of Reference:

9. The Sub-group shall evaluate how Member States (MS) get to implement Council Regulation No. 1543/2000. The analysis shall be done on the basis of Technical Reports submitted by MS. The main aim is to deliver a critique review of the situation by evaluating what MS had proposed in their National Programs for 2004 and what they have finally achieved. The Sub-group shall also underline whether the achievements are in line with the international obligations of the EU in regards to the Regional Fisheries Organizations. The Sub-group shall feel free to make any comment, suggestion or critique, but also to be pragmatic in this approach. In particular, SGRN is requested to evaluate National Technical Reports and provide an advice on the measures taken by each MS, the appropriateness of the methods used and the results achieved as regards data collection and management.

10. The Sub-group shall review the First Report from the Planning Group on Tuna Tagging in the East Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea (Bari, 4-6 April 2005), in response to the SGRN questions.

In addition, STECF-SGRN also discussed:

11. A proposal launched at the December 2004 meeting of SGRN on the compilation of a synoptic overview of the discard information collected so far within the framework of the DCR.

12. A proposal by JRC on the standard codification for data transmissions between MS, and between MS and the Commission.

Item (1) is dealt with in Sections 2 and 3 of the present report, item (2) in Section 4, item (3) in Section 5, and item (4) in Section 6

. EVALUATION OF 2004 TECHNICAL REPORTS - GENERAL COMMENTS

ON DEADLINES AND TRANSLATION PROBLEMS

SGRN notes that three Technical Reports (France, Spain and UK) were submitted to the Commission well after the deadline of May 31st. SGRN insists that, in future, MS scrupulously respect the deadline.

SGRN also notes that two reports (France and Spain) were submitted in languages other than English. Since there was insufficient time to translate these reports prior to the meeting of SGRN, the reports were read and evaluated in their original version.

ON THE QUALITY OF THE TECHNICAL REPORTS

In general, SGRN was pleased by the improved quality of the Technical Reports compared to last year's submissions. However, major weaknesses were seen in many reports in the sections on Modules J and K (economic parameters of fishing vessels and processing industry), where the 2004 achievements had clearly gone down compared to 2003.

Again, SGRN noted that several reports contained information that should be considered redundant in view of what the Technical Reports are meant for (e.g. lengthy introductions on the background of the DCR, lists of participants to surveys, maturity ogives, etc.). SGRN re-iterates its standpoint that the Technical Reports should be as concise as possible, while at the same time providing all the information that is necessary for the evaluation of the MS's achievements. Nothing less, but also nothing more.

ON THE EVALUATION PROCESS IN GENERAL

At the SGRN meeting, the sections on Modules C to I + Databases + Co-ordination in the Technical Reports were first reviewed in four area-based sub-groups (Baltic, North Sea, NE Atlantic and Mediterranean), which were composed in such a way that none of the SGRN experts were involved in the evaluation of his / her own country's report. The sections of the reports dealing with Modules J and K (economic data on fishing fleets and on the processing industry) were evaluated by a single sub-group of economists. All sub-groups had common guidelines on which aspects of the Technical Reports they had to address in particular. The findings of the different sub-groups were then discussed in plenary.

During the evaluation process, SGRN particularly focused on the extent to which MS had met / tried to meet the DCR requirements. For those parts of the DCR where the DCR requirements can be translated in terms of actual numbers (e.g. number of stations or vessels to be sampled, number of fish to be measured for length and age, etc.), MS were considered to have complied with the DCR if they had achieved more than 90 % of its requirements. However, the fact that SGRN has introduced this 90 % threshold to evaluate the levels of achievement does not mean that from now on, MS should only try to achieve 90 % of the DCR requirements. Ultimately, MS should keep trying to achieve the full 100 % of the requirements .

For several Modules of the DCR, MS have proposed to do (considerably) more than what is required by the DCR, in order to maintain / increase the quality of the data series concerned. This particularly applies to sampling for length and age of stocks that are under an EC recovery plan or whose data series are used for tuning purposes. Quite often, MS also applied for and have been granted additional funding to perform such sampling in excess of the DCR requirements. In SGRN's opinion, the submission of such proposals and their subsequent acceptance by the EC implies that there is a moral obligation for the MS to at least try to achieve the proposed level of sampling, even though there is no formal obligation to do so. In line with this, in its evaluation of the achieved levels of sampling, SGRN has made a distinction between the DCR targets (i.e. the sampling levels formally required by the DCR) and the so-called "national targets" (i.e. the sampling levels proposed by the MS themselves, in as much as these exceeded the DCR requirements).

Generally speaking, when a MS failed to meet the requirements of the DCR, this may be due to two major reasons: (i) anything that could be classified as " force majeure " (e.g. bad weather conditions or damage to sampling gear during a survey, fishers refusing to have their landings sampled or to take sea-going observers, temporal closures of fishing areas, etc.), and (ii) anything that could be classified as "lack of initiative" or "poor organisation". In SGRN's opinion, " force majeure " is an acceptable reason for non-compliance with the DCR requirements, while lack of initiative and poor organisation are not.

ON THE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN PARTICULAR

In its evaluation of the Technical Reports, SGRN has addressed several issues, related to (i) the report, its structure and its presentation in general , and (ii) each Module section of the DCR separately . For each MS, SGRN's appreciation of the achievements is summarised in three tables: a first table with overall "ratings" and comments on the Technical Report as a whole, and two tables with Module-specific "ratings" and comments, one for the achievements under the MP and one for the achievements under the EP.

In the summary tables on the achievements under the MP and the EP, similar sets of questions appear under each Module or section thereof of the DCR. The terminology used by SGRN in answering these questions and its meaning is given below:

Question: Were DCR targets met?

Yes = All DCR requirements were met, without exceptions

Yes for most = Most but not all DCR requirements were met

In part = Only part of the DCR requirements were met

No = None or only a marginal part of the DCR requirements were met

Unclear = SGRN was incapable of drawing a final conclusion (e.g. because the report did not contain the necessary information)

N/A = DCR does not specify particular targets

Derogation = MS obtained derogation for this Module section of the DCR

Pilot study = MS carried out pilot study for this Module section of the DCR

Question: Were national targets met?

Yes = All national targets were met, without exceptions

Yes for most = Most but not all national targets were met

In part = Only part of the national targets were met

No = None or only a marginal part of the national targets were met

Unclear = SGRN was incapable of drawing a final conclusion (e.g. because the report did not contain the necessary information)

N/A = National targets did not exceed DCR requirements

Derogation = MS obtained derogation for this Module section of the DCR

Question: Did data collection include vessels < 10 m?

Yes = Data collection included vessels < 10 m

No = Vessels < 10 m should have been included in data collection schemes but were not

Unclear = SGRN was incapable of drawing a final conclusion (e.g. because the report did not contain the necessary information)

N/A = MS has no registered fishing vessels < 10 m

Derogation = MS obtained derogation for this Module section of the DCR

Question: Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained?

Yes = All deviations from aim were sufficiently well explained

In part = Most but not all deviations from aim were sufficiently well explained

No = None or only a marginal part of the deviations were sufficiently well explained

Unclear = SGRN was incapable of drawing a final conclusion (e.g. because the report did not contain the necessary information)

N/A = No shortfalls and hence no need for an explanation

Derogation = MS obtained derogation for this Module section of the DCR

Question: Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable?

Yes = Suggested action considered sufficient to fully remedy shortfalls

In part = Suggested action considered to remedy shortfalls only in part

No = No remedial action suggested by MS or suggested action considered insufficient to remedy shortfalls

Unclear = SGRN was incapable of drawing a final conclusion (e.g. because the report did not contain the necessary information)

N/A = No shortfalls and hence no need for remedial action

Derogation = MS obtained derogation for this Module section of the DCR

ON PRECISION LEVELS

Several MS extensively commented on the problems they experienced in calculating precision levels for the different Modules of the DCR, or included working papers on the issue as an annex to their Technical Report.

SGRN notes that several MS have not calculated any or part of the precision levels, with some of them arguing that they were waiting for the development of common tools to do so, or for international co-ordination, pending the outcome of the 2005 meeting of the ICES Planning Group on Commercial Catch, Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS, 2005)[1]. SGRN wants to stress that the ICES Workshop on Sampling Design for Fisheries Data held in Pasajes (Spain), clearly showed that the critical issue is on the calculation of precision for the number-at-age estimates (WKSDFD, 2005)[2] and that no particular difficulties were reported for the calculation of precision for any of the other parameters.

SGRN recalls that all the information concerning the calculation of precision and the raising procedures to adopt in discard sampling programs, are described in the report of the discard workshop that was held in Charlottenlund (Denmark) in 2003. This report is available as an annex to the 2004 report of PGCCDBS[3]. The linkage between DCR precision levels and the coefficient of variation (CV), the parameters to estimate in Modules H and I, and the methods to estimate their precision, can be found in the report of the ICES Workshop on Sampling and Calculation Methodology for Fisheries Data (WKSCMFD, 2004)[4]. The precision criteria for vector-type estimators and the calculation of precision of some case studies can be found in the report of the ICES Workshop on Sampling Design for Fisheries Data and in working document no. 1, in annex to the report of this workshop[5].

SGRN recommends that all relevant documents in relation to precision (such as reports of past ICES working groups, workshops, etc.) be made available on the DCR website hosted by JRC.

ON SAMPLING LEVELS FOR TUNA

SGRN notes that the figures for tuna sampled for length by France and Spain are extremely high (in the order of hundreds of thousands of fish measured per species per year), and well over the requirements of the DCR. In the case of skipjack ( Katsuwonus pelamis ) for instance, more than 500,000 individuals (in total) have been reported to be measured in 2004. SGRN has doubts on the validity of these figures, and on the utility of such high sampling levels for stock assessment purposes.

ON MODULE J

In future Technical Reports, full information should be provided in tabular form about the population, sample numbers and sample rates by fleet segment, according to Appendix III of the DCR. To that aim, a new table has been added to the set of standard tables (the new Table 12.1 in the revised set of standard tables). MS should define their vessel populations according to the requirements of the DCR, i.e., fishing vessels registered and licensed according to Regulation 3690/93 or otherwise authorised to fish commercially.

SGRN also insists that in future Technical Reports, only activities referring to data collection undertaken in the reference year should be reported. In the relevant standard tables (Tables 12.2, 12.3 and 13.x in the revised set of standard tables), the year to which the data collected refers, should be clearly indicated. To that aim, an extra column has been inserted into the standard tables, which should be used to fill in the year to which each dataset applies.

Full information is also required on sampling strategies and methodologies. The relevant standard tables (Tables 12.2 and 12.3 in the revised set of the standard tables) should be completed for each segment defined as above, not aggregated across segments.

GUIDELINES FOR THE SUBMISSION OF 2005 TECHNICAL REPORTS

SGRN has identified several areas where the Guidelines for the submission of Technical Reports could be improved. Instead of issuing a separate list of modifications to the Guidelines (which would run the risk of not being noticed by the authors / compilers of the 2005 Technical Reports), it was decided to issue a new, amended version of the Guidelines (version 2005) . The chair of SGRN was given the task of putting this new version together by October 2005, for subsequent approval by SGRN and STECF (by e-mail) and distribution to the National Correspondents (through the STECF-SGRN website hosted by JRC).

VALUATION OF 2004 TECHNICAL REPORTS – COMMENTS BY MS

BELGIUM

General comments

Was Technical Report submitted to Commission before May 31st deadline? | Yes |

Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? | Yes for most |

Did Technical Report give precision levels for all parameters for which this is required by the DCR? | No |

Did Technical Report contain sufficient information on the methods used to calculate precision levels? | Yes |

Did Technical Report include information on both national and international co-ordination? | Yes |

General SGRN comments on MS's Technical Report: None.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program

Summary table Minimum Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 1 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

D | Fuel consumption |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 2 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 2 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 2 |

Fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 1 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Species-specific fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 1 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

E | Landings |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 3 |

Were national targets met? | Yes for most | 3 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes |

Recreational fisheries |

Were DCR targets met? | Derogation |

Were national targets met? |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 1 |

Were DCR targets met? |

Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) | Yes |

Beam Trawl Survey (North Sea) | Yes |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | In part | 4 |

Were national targets met? | In part | 5 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 5 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes | 6 |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 3 |

Were national targets met? | Yes for most | 3 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 7 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 7 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 7 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fecundity data |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling required | 8 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 9 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling planned |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

13. Combination of demersal trawlers 12-24 with 24-40 m is acceptable, given the less than 10 vessels rule. Combination of static gear 12-24 m is an extension of the previous rule. This extension is not an official rule but is acceptable, given the small number of vessels involved (4 in total).

14. The collection of fuel consumption data is running one year behind schedule. One fleet component (even small) is not covered.

15. The planned Bay of Biscay observer trips could not be achieved due to practical reasons.

16. 8 out of 14 stocks for length and 2 out 9 stocks for age are sampled well in excess of the targets, with an acceptable explanation. 4 stocks out of 9 failed to achieve the DCR requirement for age with an acceptable explanation.

17. 4 out of 14 stocks failed to achieve the national targets for length and 4 out of 9 stocks failed to achieve the national targets for age.

18. Remedial action is suggested but should be made more specific.

19. No explanation for absence of precision estimates and no action proposed to remedy this shortfall.

20. Belgium has no fisheries of importance on species / stocks for which regular fecundity updates are required.

21. The population is not clearly enumerated; there is no apparent random sampling strategy – the sample appears entirely self-selecting; cost data includes a mix of economic costs and transfer payments; asset values should be measured as either insured value (preferred) or replacement value; precision levels are not relevant in the case of a census; the data refers to 2003 for some parameters and 2004 for others.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program

Belgium only planned work under Module F for the EP.

Summary table Extended Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

DENMARK

General comments

Was Technical Report submitted to Commission before May 31st deadline? | Yes |

Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? | Yes for most |

Did Technical Report give precision levels for all parameters for which this is required by the DCR? | No |

Did Technical Report contain sufficient information on the methods used to calculate precision levels? | No |

Did Technical Report include information on both national and international co-ordination? | Yes |

General SGRN comments on MS's Technical Report: None.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program

Summary table Minimum Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

D | Fuel consumption |

Were DCR targets met? | Reported under Module J |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Species-specific fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 1 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

E | Landings |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | In part | 2 |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | No |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | In part | 2 |

Recreational fisheries |

Were DCR targets met? | In part | 3 |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 3 |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 1 |

Were DCR targets met? |

BITS 1st Quarter | Yes | 4 |

BITS 4th Quarter | Yes |

IBTS 1st Quarter | Yes |

IBTS 3rd Quarter (typing error in Technical Report) | Yes |

Herring Acoustic Survey (North Sea) | Yes |

Atlanto-Scandian Herring Survey | Yes |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | No | 5 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 6 |

Were national targets met? | In part | 7 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 8 |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 9 |

Were national targets met? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 10 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 10 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fecundity data |

Were DCR targets met? | No | 11 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 11 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes | 11 |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 12 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes | 13 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A | 14 |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

22. SGRN requests that future Technical Reports should explicitly mention work under species-specific fishing effort.

23. SGRN notes that Denmark has suffered industrial injuries and a period of non co-operation by the fishing industry. The obvious remedy is closer co-operation between scientists and industry but if this failed, then a re-allocation of the sampling effort should be a serious consideration by the MS.

24. SGRN acknowledges the effort expended by Denmark on collecting recreational fishery data, but also notes that in SEC (2004) 1066 it is suggested that no annual monitoring of the Danish recreational fisheries for salmon is required.

25. SGRN noted that although Denmark claims 100 % achievement, Table 9.1 shows a shortfall of 10 hauls.

26. Under-sampling of cod in Sub-areas IV & VIId, due to the fact that the actual landings were roughly half the expected landings as calculated from the reference period 2000-2002.

27. In many cases, Denmark has considerably over-sampled for length and/or age, e.g. herring (III, IV & VIId), lemon sole (IV & VIId), Nephrops (IIIa), etc. Under-sampling however, also occurred in a number of cases, e.g. blue whiting (IV & VIId), horse mackerel (IV & VIId), Nephrops (IV), etc.

28. In many cases, the achieved sampling was lower than the national targets e.g. for length: blue whiting (IV & VIId), herring (IIId), horse mackerel (all areas except IIIa & IV), Nephrops (IV), Norway pout (IIIa & IV), etc.; for age: herring (IIa and IIId), blue whiting (IIIa, IV & VIId), horse mackerel (all areas except IV & VIId), Norway pout (all areas), etc.

29. SGRN can accept decreases in landings as a justification for a failure to achieve the planned levels of sampling but in such cases, evidence for the reduction in landings should be provided. SGRN notes Denmark's intention to improve co-operation amongst DIFRES and Fishery Control staff, but considers that the remedial action proposed is too general to ascertain that it will cover all shortfalls.

30. In the absence of information on the planned numbers of trips per metier, SGRN was unable to evaluate any achievements of the discard sampling program.

31. According to Tables 11. 2 and 11.3, Denmark also achieved sex ratio and sexual maturity sampling on blue whiting (IV & VIId), but there is to mention of this in Table 11.1. With respect to fecundity sampling on mackerel and horse mackerel, SGRN has noted a conflict between Section 11.5 and Table 11.1 of the Technical Report, on the one hand, and the relevant text in the NP proposal, on the other.

32. No fecundity data collected for mackerel and horse mackerel in IV, but sampling activities are planned for 2005.

33. The samples are self-selected and not truly random; Denmark is referred to the DCR with respect to the measurement of capital asset values, which should reflect the current market value of physical capital.

34. SGRN queries the turnover threshold which effectively removes most of the < 10 m vessels; Table 12 needs clarification as to coverage by length group.

35. Shortfalls should refer to the national program, not the DCR!

Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program

Denmark only planned work under Module J for the EP.

Summary table Extended Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 15 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes | 16 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A | 17 |

36. The samples are self-selected and not truly random; Denmark is referred to the DCR with respect to the measurement of capital asset values, which should reflect the current market value of physical capital.

37. SGRN queries the turnover threshold which effectively removes most of the < 10 m vessels; Table 12 needs clarification as to coverage by length group.

38. Shortfalls should refer to the national program, not the DCR!

FINLAND

General comments

Was Technical Report submitted to Commission before May 31st deadline? | Yes |

Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? | Yes for most |

Did Technical Report give precision levels for all parameters for which this is required by the DCR? | No |

Did Technical Report contain sufficient information on the methods used to calculate precision levels? | No |

Did Technical Report include information on both national and international co-ordination? | Yes [\*] |

General SGRN comments on MS's Technical Report:

[\*] Table 15.1 only contains information on the meetings eligible under the DCR.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program

Summary table Minimum Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

D | Fuel consumption |

Were DCR targets met? | In part | 1 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Unclear | 1 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes |

Fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

D | Species-specific fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

E | Landings |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | Derogation & Pilot Study | 2 |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Recreational fisheries |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 1 |

Were DCR targets met? |

BITS 4th Quarter | Yes |

Herring Acoustic Survey | Derogation |

Sprat Acoustic Survey | Derogation |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Derogation |

Were national targets met? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 3 4 |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | In part | 4 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Derogation |

Were national targets met? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Derogation & Pilot Study | 5 |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 6 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A | 6 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A | 6 |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 6 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A | 6 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A | 6 |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 6 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A | 6 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A | 6 |

Fecundity data |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling required | 7 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 8 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Unclear | 9 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes | 10 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes | 10 |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 11 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

39. SGRN was unable to confirm that vessels < 10 m were included in the database for fuel consumption.

40. Pilot study on discards of salmon and sea trout. Derogation for other fisheries (see SEC (2004) 179 and page 2 of Technical Report).

41. SGRN notes that Finland is using the exception rule in Appendix XV(c) of the DCR to reduce the amount of age sampling for herring. It is requested that the MS provides information to justify the reduction in age sampling.

42. Finland is including tag recoveries in Table 10.1. SGRN requests that the MS provides evidence that this does not cause a bias in sampling.

43. The MS has a derogation for discard sampling, but also carried out pilot studies for salmon and sea trout for vessels >15 m in 2004.

44. SGRN assumes that all targets were met, however, Finland failed to provide the level of sampling in Tables 11.2 and 11.3. Consequently SGRN could not confirm the data.

45. Finland has no fisheries of importance on species / stocks for which regular fecundity updates are required.

46. The population should be defined as set out in the DCR; the population, sample and sampling method by segment should be clearly set out in a table; insufficient information on survey methodology; where replacement value is used instead of insured value this should be justified and explained.

47. The data in Table 12 should be segmented as set out in the DCR.

48. The problem with fuel consumption / fuel costs is not clear.

49. More information is needed on population, sampling and survey methodology; part of the sector appears to have been excluded.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program

Finland only planned work under Modules E (Recreational fisheries), H (Landings) and K for the EP.

Summary table Extended Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

E | Recreational fisheries |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes for most | 12 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 13 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

50. The only shortfall relates to flounder, where Finland achieved 82 % for length and 81 % for age.

51. More information is needed on population, sampling and survey methodology; part of the sector appears to have been excluded.

FRANCE

General comments

Was Technical Report submitted to Commission before May 31st deadline? | No |

Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? | Yes for most [a] |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? | Yes for most [a] |

Did Technical Report give precision levels for all parameters for which this is required by the DCR? | Yes |

Did Technical Report contain sufficient information on the methods used to calculate precision levels? | No [b] |

Did Technical Report include information on both national and international co-ordination? | In part [c] |

General SGRN comments on MS's Technical Report:

[a] In general, the Technical Report pays insufficient attention to non-compliance with the DCR requirements and the national targets, nor to the action taken to remedy the shortfalls.

[b] Information given on the calculation of precision for discards, but not for the other Modules of the DCR.

[c] No information provided on national co-ordination.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program

Summary table Minimum Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

D | Fuel consumption |

Were DCR targets met? | Reported under Module J |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Species-specific fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

E | Landings |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | In part | 1 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Unclear |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 2 |

Recreational fisheries |

Were DCR targets met? | Derogation |

Were national targets met? |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 3 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 1 |

Were DCR targets met? |

IBTS 1st Quarter | Yes |

Western IBTS 4th Quarter, EVHOE | Yes |

Sardine, Anchovy, etc. Acoustic Survey PEGAS | Yes |

MEDITS | Yes |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 4 5 6 |

Were national targets met? | Yes for most | 4 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 7 |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 8 |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 8 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 8 |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 8 9 |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 8 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 8 |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 10 11 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 10 11 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 10 11 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No |

Fecundity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 10 11 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 12 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Unclear | 13 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling planned |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

52. In many of the discard programs, the percentage achieved by observers was clearly short of what was planned.

53. The Technical Report suggests that the problems encountered in 2004 will be resolved, but no information is provided on how this will be achieved.

54. There appears to be a mismatch between the CPUE data series reported in the Technical Report and what was planned according to the NP proposal. A number of tuna CPUE series were reported in the Technical Report, but in the NP it is stated that no specific action was planned for 2004 on tropical tunas.

55. Sampling fell short of the targets for a number of tuning stocks, whereas a number of other stocks were sampled in considerable excess.

56. In the Mediterranean, no samples of tuna were collected because all tuna are transhipped to cages. Although SGRN previously agreed to a derogation for this fishery (because of the difficulty of obtaining data when fish are transhipped), it is felt that the lack of data remains a problem which should be reviewed.

57. The number of tuna measured as reported in Table 10.1 under the highly migratory species program, appears to be very high (388,360). Clarification and justification of these high numbers is required (see general comment on Sampling levels for tuna, Section 2.6 of present report).

58. Insufficient information was provided to enable SGRN to evaluate whether the problems encountered in 2004 would be resolved in future.

59. Numbers of otoliths collected were not reported and France reports that this will be remedied in future, but no details are given on why the information was missing or how it will be resolved in future.

60. SGRN considered that the table on discards could be made more informative by only listing the species of Appendix XII and XIII separately, and summarising the total number of other species in a single row.

61. The table on long-term planning (Table 11.1) does not appear to relate to the data that are actually being collected. In many cases, data are probably being collected annually (such as e.g. Nephrops sex ratios), but they only appear in Table 11.1 as being collected in selected years. In other cases, sampling appears to have been planned for 2004, but no data are reported in Table 11.2 or 11.3 (except for tropical tuna).

62. A number of species are required to be sampled / reported annually, such as recovery stocks and fecundity in anchovy (for which France had a TAC of 3300 t in 2004).

63. Insufficient information regarding population, sampling methodology, response rates, data definition and collection methods to judge the adequacy of the economic survey work.

64. According to Table 12, the < 12 m trawler population is too small for sampling and yet a sampling strategy of stratified random sampling is reported. Again, there is insufficient information. What about other < 12 m / < 10 m vessels ?

Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program

France only planned work under Modules C, G and H (Landings) for the EP.

Summary table Extended Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 2 |

Were DCR targets met? |

CGFS | Yes |

PELMED | Yes |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

GERMANY

General comments

Was Technical Report submitted to Commission before May 31st deadline? | Yes |

Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? | Yes for most |

Did Technical Report give precision levels for all parameters for which this is required by the DCR? | No |

Did Technical Report contain sufficient information on the methods used to calculate precision levels? | No |

Did Technical Report include information on both national and international co-ordination? | Yes |

General SGRN comments on MS's Technical Report: None.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program

Summary table Minimum Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 1 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

D | Fuel consumption |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 2 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A ? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 3 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Species-specific fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 4 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | No | 4 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 4 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 4 |

E | Landings |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 5 |

Were national targets met? |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Recreational fisheries |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 6 |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes Yes es |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 1 |

Were DCR targets met? |

Baltic International Trawl Survey (BITS) 1st Quarter erring Acoustic Survey (Baltic International Acoustic Survey) Baltic Sprat Acoustic Survey International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) North Sea Herring Acoustic Survey North Sea Beam Trawl Survey (BTS) Demersal Young Fish Survey Mackerel and Horse Mackerel Egg Survey | Yes |

Baltic International Trawl Survey (BITS) 4th Quarter erring Acoustic Survey (Baltic International Acoustic Survey) Baltic Sprat Acoustic Survey International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) North Sea Herring Acoustic Survey North Sea Beam Trawl Survey (BTS) Demersal Young Fish Survey Mackerel and Horse Mackerel Egg Survey | Yes |

Baltic Herring Acoustic Survey | Yes |

Baltic Sprat Acoustic Survey | Yes |

International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) 1st Quarter | Yes |

International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) 3rd Quarter | Yes |

North Sea Herring Acoustic Survey | Yes |

North Sea Beam Trawl Survey (BTS) | Yes |

Demersal Young Fish Survey | Yes |

Mackerel and Horse mackerel Egg Survey | Yes |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 7 |

Were national targets met? | Yes for most | 8 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 5 |

Were national targets met? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 5 |

Were national targets met? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 9 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 9 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 9 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fecundity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 9 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 10 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes | 11 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

65. The process of calculating the true values of gross tonnage is not completed yet for all vessels.

66. Confused explanation of how fuel consumption is derived for the entire fleet.

67. Ongoing process for estimation of effort for vessels < 10 m (first results expected in August 2005).

68. No information available for < 10 m vessels.

69. In the absence of information on the planned numbers of trips per metier, SGRN was unable to evaluate any achievements of the discard sampling program.

70. Germany has undertaken a pilot study on recreational fisheries for cod in advance of the DCR requirements.

71. 5 stocks out of 24 failed to achieve the DCR requirements for length. 4 stocks out of 19 failed to achieve the DCR requirements for age.

72. 5 stocks out of 24 failed to achieve the national targets for length. 5 stocks out of 19 failed to achieve the national targets for age.

73. Waiting for the outcome of PGCCDBS 2005 to calculate precision levels for Other biological parameters is not acceptable (also see general comment on Precision levels, Section 2.5 of the present report).

74. Insufficient information on population and sampling; the sample is voluntary and therefore self-selecting; methodology for asset valuation not yet developed; data only refers to 2002.

75. Pilot survey undertaken.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program

Germany did not plan work for the EP.

GREECE

General comments

Was Technical Report submitted to Commission before May 31st deadline? | Yes |

Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? | Yes for most |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? | Yes for most |

Did Technical Report give precision levels for all parameters for which this is required by the DCR? | No |

Did Technical Report contain sufficient information on the methods used to calculate precision levels? | No |

Did Technical Report include information on both national and international co-ordination? | Yes |

General SGRN comments on MS's Technical Report:

[a] Sampling intensities (in numbers of boats sampled per fleet segment) are unclear for all segments and for most Modules. Greece states that the "sampling grid" for fuel consumption and fishing effort by gear type covered 85 % of the vessels, but no further details are given.

[b] There also is a need for specific references to the < 10 m vessels. Sampling intensities suggest that this segment has been covered, but it is not specifically outlined.

[c] On several occasions, Greece has said that they will increase sampling intensities as an action to remedy shortfalls and to meet the required precision levels, but insufficient details are provided on how they intend to do this.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program

Summary table Minimum Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

D | Fuel consumption |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Species-specific fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 1 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes | 2 |

E | Landings |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 1 |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes | 2 |

Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Recreational fisheries |

Were DCR targets met? | Derogation |

Were national targets met? |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 1 |

Were DCR targets met? |

MEDITS | Yes |

Bluefin Tuna Tagging | No | 3 |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling required | 4 |

Were national targets met? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling required | 4 |

Were national targets met? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes | 5 |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes | 6 |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes | 6 |

Fecundity data |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling required | 7 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 8 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling planned |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

76. Lowest required precision level not achieved for all species.

77. More details are required on how proposed improvements will be achieved in the field.

78. Only 88 % of planned tagging achieved.

79. Greece has no fisheries for species / stocks that are under a recovery plan.

80. Additional partial sampling, particularly aiming at the smallest and largest size classes in a population to study age-at-length, risks introducing a bias.

81. More details are required on the proposed plan for increased sex ratio and sexual maturity sampling.

82. Greece has no fisheries for species / stocks for which regular updates of fecundity are required.

83. Sampling information does not specify population or response numbers; tables refer to sample rates but there is no indication of non-responses although significant data gaps are referred to in the text; asset valuation methodology unclear (refer to DCR) - decommissioning rates are not relevant here

Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program

Greece only planned work under Module G for the EP.

Summary table Extended Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

G | Surveys Priority 2 |

Were DCR targets met? |

Anchovy (small pelagic) | Yes |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

IRELAND

General comments

Was Technical Report submitted to Commission before May 31st deadline? | Yes |

Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? | Yes for most |

Did Technical Report give precision levels for all parameters for which this is required by the DCR? | No [a] |

Did Technical Report contain sufficient information on the methods used to calculate precision levels? | No [a] |

Did Technical Report include information on both national and international co-ordination? | Yes [b] |

General SGRN comments on MS's Technical Report:

[a] Table 3.1 is incomplete. Precisions levels and calculation methods are only given for Modules E (discards), I and J.

[b] Table 15.1 does not include all meetings listed in the NP.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program

Summary table Minimum Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

D | Fuel consumption |

Were DCR targets met? | Reported under Module J |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 1 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | In part | 1 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 2 |

Species-specific fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | In part | 1 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No |

E | Landings |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 3 |

Were national targets met? | Unclear |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | No |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes | 4 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes |

Recreational fisheries |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 1 |

Were DCR targets met? |

International Norwegian Herring Acoustic Survey | Yes |

Western IBTS 4th Quarter Groundfish Survey | Yes |

North West Herring Acoustic Survey | Yes |

Celtic Sea Herring Acoustic Survey | Yes |

Mackerel/Horse mackerel Egg and Larval Survey VII | Yes |

Mackerel/Horse mackerel Egg and Larval Survey VIaS VII | Yes |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 5 |

Were national targets met? | Yes for most | 6 7 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes for most | 6 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 7 |

Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 8 9 |

Were national targets met? | Yes for most | 6 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes for most | 6 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 10 |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 11 12 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 11 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 11 13 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fecundity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 11 13 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 14 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes | 15 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling planned |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

84. There is an inconsistency between the NP proposal and the Technical Report. In the NP, a pilot study was proposed for vessels < 12 m, but in the Technical Report the reference is only to vessels < 10 m. SGRN was informed that this is a typing error, and that the 2004 program did cover vessels < 12 m. Further, the pilot study proposed in the NP for vessels < 12 m was modified from a voluntary logbook scheme to a program of collection of sales records from processors and observer trips in three inshore shellfish fisheries. It appears that not all < 12 m finfish fisheries were sampled. SGRN however was informed, that the finfish catches by vessels < 12 m are marginal. Evidence to be provided by MS.

85. SGRN is not convinced that the proposed action to remedy shortfalls is sufficient to fill in all the gaps.

86. Two of the main fleets were not fully sampled.

87. Deviation from the main program explained as due to staff shortage.

88. List of recovery stocks given in Table 10.1 is incorrect in a number of cases.

89. SGRN notes the very high level of sampling for many species and questioned why the national targets were often so low in comparison to the achieved sampling. No explanation is given for this discrepancy. SGNR was informed however, that Table 10.1 contains several typing errors and that it will be re-submitted.

90. Orange roughy: This is a recovery stock and no explanation is given for the under-achievement for length and age sampling. No remedial action is suggested.

91. SGRN insists that data on Lophius be reported by species.

92. SGRN notes that there is no obligation to sample Nephrops outside FUs.

93. Albacore tuna: SGRN accepts that measurements should be made in the country of first sale (in this case France) and suggests that Ireland and France set up a bilateral agreement to ensure this sampling.

94. SGRN insists that Table 11.1 should include all species / stocks for which data on Other biological parameters need to be collected, regardless whether such data have been collected in the reference year or not.

95. Data were combined across areas and stocks for cod, anglerfish and sole because of the low numbers sampled. SGRN notes that this is not biologically appropriate.

96. Targets are believed to have been met from comments in the text, but Table 11.3 is missing.

97. Information about population, sampling strategy, etc., is absent; SGRN assumes that a postal survey was undertaken and considers that the very low response rates cannot be assumed representative; "sample rates" in Table 12 are meaningless.

98. Results reported for just 9 vessels in the voluntary sample.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program

Ireland only planned work under Modules F and G for the EP.

Summary table Extended Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 2 |

Were DCR targets met? |

Juvenile Plaice Survey | Yes |

Nephrops Ecology | Yes |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

ITALY

General comments

Was Technical Report submitted to Commission before May 31st deadline? | Yes |

Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? | Yes for most |

Did Technical Report give precision levels for all parameters for which this is required by the DCR? | Yes |

Did Technical Report contain sufficient information on the methods used to calculate precision levels? | Yes |

Did Technical Report include information on both national and international co-ordination? | Yes |

General SGRN comments on MS's Technical Report:

[a] There seems to be some confusion with precision level definitions. In Module D the 25 % limit is defined as level 3, where this is actually level 1 according to the DCR.

[b] Generally, a short explanation of methodologies used in questionnaires would be helpful, inserted as an annex to the Technical Report, instead of a reference to the NP submission.

[c] The Technical Report makes reference to the NP and not specifically to the requirements under the DCR. SGRN assumed that these are one and the same.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program

Summary table Minimum Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

D | Fuel consumption |

Were DCR targets met? | Reported under Module J |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Species-specific fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

E | Landings |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling planned |

Were national targets met? |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Recreational fisheries |

Were DCR targets met? | No | 1 |

Were national targets met? | No | 1 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | No | 1 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 1 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes | 2 |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 1 |

Were DCR targets met? |

MEDITS | Yes |

Tuna Tagging | In part | 3 |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 3 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 3 |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling required | 4 |

Were national targets met? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 5 6 |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 7 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 8 |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling required | 4 |

Were national targets met? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling planned |

Were national targets met? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 9 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 9 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 9 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Fecundity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 9 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A | 10 |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling planned |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

99. According to ICCAT rules, all recreational fisheries for bluefin tuna need to be monitored on an annual basis. Italy did not apply for funding to carry out such sampling under the DCR in 2004, but has started a routine sampling program on its recreational bluefin tuna fisheries in 2005. In the absence of information, SGRN was unable to judge whether the required 2004 data on bluefin tuna were submitted to ICCAT.

100. The proposed action to remedy the shortfall was found under required and achieved sampling, and not under the correct heading.

101. This Tuna Tagging is not a survey, but rather a research project. Italy applied for 40 PAT tags in its NP proposal, bought 30 and used 21. Table 9.1 does not contain information on planned or achieved numbers. There is no explanation for the deviation from the targets.

102. Italy has no fisheries for species / stocks that are under a recovery plan.

103. Eutrigla gurnardus, Lophius piscatorius, Raja clavata and Trachurus mediterraneus have low sampling levels achieved for length. The following species also have low reported sampling levels for age: Eutrigla gurnardus, Lophius budegassa and Lophius piscatorius.

104. Table 10.1 has been altered and the column headings have shifted, i.e. achieved age numbers are now under % achieved. The meaning of the precision achieved is difficult to interpret.

105. There are deviations from both the DCR and the national sampling targets, but these are not explained.

106. No specific action is outlined as a remedy for the shortfalls.

107. Biological sampling data, collected under Module I, were reported in 2002 and are not due again until 2005. Nevertheless, sampling achieved in 2004 (as hinted in Table 11.1) should be reviewed in the 2004 Technical Report and summarised in Tables 11.2 and 11.3. Long-term planning table (Table 11.1) has no information on sampling in 2005 and beyond.

108. SGRN understands that capital insured values will be collected in future surveys.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program

Italy only planned work under Modules F and G for the EP.

Summary table Extended Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 2 |

Were DCR targets met? |

GRUND | Yes |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

NETHERLANDS

General comments

Was Technical Report submitted to Commission before May 31st deadline? | Yes |

Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? | Yes for most [a] |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? | Yes for most [b] |

Did Technical Report give precision levels for all parameters for which this is required by the DCR? | No |

Did Technical Report contain sufficient information on the methods used to calculate precision levels? | Yes |

Did Technical Report include information on both national and international co-ordination? | Yes |

General SGRN comments on MS's Technical Report:

[a] Surveys should be listed with exactly the same names as in Appendix XIV of the DCR (see Guidelines, Section G.18).

[b] There is no mention of sampling in Mauritanian waters for landings and biological data in the Dutch NP proposal, nor in the Technical Report. In December 2004 (SEC (2005) 255, page 4), STECF advised that sampling in Mauritanian waters should be continued. SGRN was informed that the Netherlands did collect landings and biological data on stocks fished in Mauritanian waters in 2004. The sampling programs however, were not included in the NP proposal or the Technical Report because they were run at national expense. SGRN requires that the MS should provide evidence that landings and biological data on stocks fished in Mauritanian waters have been collected in 2004.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program

Summary table Minimum Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

D | Fuel consumption |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Species-specific fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

E | Landings |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | No | 1 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Recreational fisheries |

Were DCR targets met? | Derogation |

Were national targets met? |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 1 |

Were DCR targets met? |

IBTS | Yes |

NS Herring Acoustic Survey | Yes |

Mackerel Egg Survey | Yes |

SNS | Yes |

BTS | Yes |

DFS | No | 2 |

Atlanto-Scandian Herring Survey | Yes |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 3 |

Were national targets met? | In part | 4 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 5 |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 6 7 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 6 7 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 6 7 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fecundity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 6 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 8 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | No | 8 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes | 9 |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

109. SGRN deduced from the duration of the trips that no vessels < 10 m were sampled.

110. Due to poor weather conditions, the survey fell short of fish hauls sampled.

111. 5 out of 22 stocks failed to achieve the DCR requirements for length. 3 out of 14 stocks failed to achieve the requirements for age.

112. 6 out of 22 stocks failed to achieve the national targets for length. 8 out of 20 stocks failed to achieve the targets for age.

113. No remedial actions proposed.

114. Waiting for international agreement to calculate precision for the Other biological parameters is not acceptable (also see general comment on Precision levels, Section 2.5 of present report).

115. In Tables 11.2 and 11.3, data should be given for the different species of ray separately.

116. Vessels which are inactive for administrative reasons should be included if they have significant capital value; the turnover threshold of 50 k€ seems high and effectively excludes < 10 m vessels; the voluntary panel sample cannot necessarily be considered random and unbiased.

117. SGRN welcomes the planned pilot survey of "inactive vessels".

Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program

The Netherlands only planned work under Modules G, H (Landings and Discards) and I (all parameters except Fecundity) for the EP.

Summary table Extended Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

G | Surveys Priority 2 |

Were DCR targets met? |

Herring Larvae Survey | Yes |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling planned |

Were national targets met? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 10 11 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 10 11 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 10 11 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 12 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | No | 12 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes |

118. Waiting for international agreement to calculate precision for the Other biological parameters is not acceptable (also see general comment on Precision levels, Section 2.5 of present report).

119. Data should be given for the different species of ray separately.

120. Vessels which are inactive for administrative reasons should be included if they have significant capital value; the turnover threshold of 50 k€ seems high and effectively excludes < 10 m vessels; the voluntary panel sample cannot necessarily be considered random and unbiased.

PORTUGAL

General comments

Was Technical Report submitted to Commission before May 31st deadline? | Yes |

Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? | Yes for most |

Did Technical Report give precision levels for all parameters for which this is required by the DCR? | Yes |

Did Technical Report contain sufficient information on the methods used to calculate precision levels? | No [\*] |

Did Technical Report include information on both national and international co-ordination? | Yes |

General SGRN comments on MS's Technical Report:

[\*] In Section 3 of the Technical Report, only one generalised method for the calculation of CVs is provided, but no information on how the variances were derived for any of the separate Modules.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program

Summary table Minimum Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

D | Fuel consumption |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 1 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes |

Species-specific fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 1 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes |

E | Landings |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | In part | 2 3 |

Were national targets met? | In part | 2 3 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes | 3 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 4 |

Recreational fisheries |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 1 |

Were DCR targets met? |

Mackerel and Horse mackerel Egg Survey | Yes |

Western IBTS 4th Quarter | Yes |

Sardine, Anchovy, Horse mackerel Acoustic Survey | Yes |

Flemish Cap Groundfish Survey - NAFO | Yes |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 5 |

Were national targets met? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 6 |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 7 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 5 |

Were national targets met? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 8 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 8 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 8 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fecundity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 9 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Unclear | 9 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling planned |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

121. The precision for mainland Portugal and Madeira is given as exhaustive, but for vessels < 10 m, data were collected by inquiry which would require a precision level to be estimated.

122. Discard data were collected from the fleet operating in the Irminger Sea and off Norway but no data are reported; in Table 7.1, the proportion of the fishing trips sampled is not given.

123. Sampling of vessels < 10 m in IXa is carried out by interview after the boats have landed. No information is provided on the verification or effectiveness of this program.

124. A number of pilot studies were carried out, e.g. in the Azores and CECAF Division 34.1.2, but no plans are given for extending these as routine surveys in future years.

125. No separate information is provided for recovery stocks, which made it difficult to evaluate the results of the program.

126. Derogations were accepted for a number of species and the remainder were mostly sampled adequately. For some stocks (hake, blue whiting, horse mackerel, Octopus, Loligo, etc.) however, the numbers for length in Table 10.1 seem very high. SGRN assumed this is correct, but it should be verified.

127. Not all deviations are explained. For example, age measurements of Lophius budegassa in IXa, sardine in IXa, Trachurus in IXa, cod in 3M, Sebastes in 3O.

128. Most species appear to have been sampled, but relatively few precision levels are reported. One species, Conger in Division X, was not fully sampled for sex ratios and maturity; Lophius in IXa was not sampled for maturity and no explanation is given; cod in 3M, only 4 individuals sampled; megrim in IXa, only 15 individuals sampled; tuna in North Atlantic not sampled because of high cost.

129. Insufficient information on population and sampling, data definition, data collection methodology, etc.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program

Portugal only planned work under Module G for the EP.

Summary table Extended Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

G | Surveys Priority 2 |

Were DCR targets met? |

Sardine Acoustic Survey | No | 10 |

Nephrops | Yes |

Groundfish Survey (summer) | No | 10 |

Deep Sea Fish Survey | No | 10 |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes |

130. Three out of the four Priority 2 surveys were not carried out due to a breakdown of the research vessel.

SPAIN

General comments

Was Technical Report submitted to Commission before May 31st deadline? | No |

Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? | Yes for most |

Did Technical Report give precision levels for all parameters for which this is required by the DCR? | No |

Did Technical Report contain sufficient information on the methods used to calculate precision levels? | Yes |

Did Technical Report include information on both national and international co-ordination? | Yes |

General SGRN comments on MS's Technical Report:

[a] Some of the comments made in the introduction to the Report should be made under the relevant Modules.

[b] There are no references to the tables in the text.

[c] See general comment of Sampling levels for tuna (Section 2.6 of present report).

Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program

Summary table Minimum Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 1 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

D | Fuel consumption |

Were DCR targets met? | Reported under Module J | 2 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 2 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Species-specific fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 2 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

E | Landings |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 2 3 |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | In part | 4 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No |

Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | In part | 5 |

Were national targets met? | In part | 5 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Unclear | 6 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 7 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 8 |

Recreational fisheries |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 9 |

Were national targets met? |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 1 |

Were DCR targets met? | 10 |

IBTS Cantabrian | Yes |

IBTS Gulf of Cadiz ARSA 1104 | Yes |

PELACUS 2004 (Acoustic Small Pelagics) | Yes |

Bioman (DEPM) | Yes |

Mackerel Egg Survey 1 | Yes |

Mackerel Egg Survey 2 | Yes |

MEDITS | Yes |

Flemish Cap 2004 | Yes |

Calibration Flemish Cap | Yes | 11 |

Tuna Tagging | No | 12 |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 13 |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 14 |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Unclear | 16 |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | In part | 15 |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Unclear | 16 |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Unclear | 16 |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 17 18 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 20 |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 18 19 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 20 |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fecundity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | No | 21 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | No |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling planned |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

131. Precision level not reported in Table 3.1. The text suggests that the achieved precision level is "All", because the data have been sampled by census.

132. Precision levels for Modules D and E are not reported in Table 3.1.

133. It is unclear from the Technical Report whether separate landings statistics are being collected for species that are landed mixed, such as Eledone spp., Trachurus spp., Mullus spp. and Lophius spp. Spain makes no reference to a derogation on this. Moreover, it is unclear whether landings statistics have been collected for Aristeomorpha foliacea , Dicentrarchus labrax and Pagellus erythrinus .

134. For vessels < 10 m, sales notes and vessel database are combined to estimate the landings by fleet segment. SGRN however, has doubts on the validity of this approach. To be clarified by MS.

135. Many fisheries appear to be under-sampled with respect to what was planned. The column referring to number of hauls sampled is not always filled in. It is not clear whether this means that no sampling has taken place.

136. No mention in the Technical Report of sampling of vessels < 10 m for discards.

137. Explanation given for under-sampling of VHVO pair trawl VII hake is not clear. For long distance fisheries in ICES I-II, no explanation is given for under-sampling.

138. Remedial action suggested is not clear.

139. No information provided by MS.

140. Survey reports are not needed in the main document (see Guidelines).

141. Calibration should be considered part of the main Flemish Cap survey.

142. See SGRN's opinion on tuna tagging (Section 4 of present report).

143. Nephrops in ICES Sub-areas VIIIc and IXa are under a recovery plan, but this is not specified in Table 10.1, although sampling levels are OK.

144. It is unclear what kind of length measurements are obtained for rays, and whether species-specific length data have been collected, given the fact that rays are landed mixed; insufficient sampling for Micromesistius in VIIIc and IXa; Octopus in the CECAF area is under-sampled; two species of Merluccius in the CECAF area are pooled; many stocks in the NAFO area are under-sampled; Lophius spp . in the Mediterranean are pooled and under-sampled; Sardina in the Mediterranean is under-sampled for age.

145. In Table 10.3, there is no mention of Nephrops in ICES Sub-areas VIIIc and IXa.

146. It is difficult to distinguish between the remedies proposed for landings and discards.

147. Some species for which regular updates of Other biological parameters are required (e.g. mackerel and horse mackerel in the CECAF area) are missing in Table 11.1.

148. Data on Merluccius senegalensis and M. polli , and on highly migratory sharks should be reported by species.

149. Cod in NAFO and ICES Sub-areas I and II are missing. Samples from surveys are not divided by sex.

150. Only remedial actions suggested for ICES area.

151. Almost no information supplied, although there is a reference to data collection with respect to the year 2001. Note that Tables 12 and 13 contain example entries from SGRN’s Guidelines! These should be deleted before submitting the report.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program

Spain did not plan work under the EP.

SWEDEN

General comments

Was Technical Report submitted to Commission before May 31st deadline? | Yes |

Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? | Yes for most |

Did Technical Report give precision levels for all parameters for which this is required by the DCR? | No |

Did Technical Report contain sufficient information on the methods used to calculate precision levels? | No |

Did Technical Report include information on both national and international co-ordination? | Yes |

General SGRN comments on MS's Technical Report: None.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program

Summary table Minimum Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

D | Fuel consumption |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 1 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

Fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A | 2 |

Species-specific fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 3 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes | 3 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A | 3 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A | 3 |

E | Landings |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | In part | 4 |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | No |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 5 |

Recreational fisheries |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 1 |

Were DCR targets met? |

BITS 1st Quarter | Yes |

BITS 4th Quarter | Yes |

IBTS 1st Quarter | Yes |

IBTS 3rd Quarter | Yes |

Herring Acoustic Survey (Baltic) | Yes |

Atlanto-Scandian Herring Survey | Yes |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes | 6 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | No | 7 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 7 |

Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 8 |

Were national targets met? | Yes for most | 9 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Unclear | 10 |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 4 |

Were national targets met? | In part | 11 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Unclear | 10 |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 12 |

Were national targets met? | In part | 11 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Unclear | 10 |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fecundity data |

Were DCR targets met? | No sampling required | 13 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 14 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes | 15 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 16 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 16 |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

152. The Technical Report refers work on fuel consumption to the economic section but fuel consumption is not mentioned in Module J.

153. SGRN recognises that there is no shortfall; the action taken, in effect, is an improvement to the database.

154. In future Technical Reports, there should be explicit mention of species-specific fishing effort in the text of the report, not only in the tables.

155. SGRN notes the problem of non co-operation by the Swedish fishing industry over the deployment of discard observers.

156. There is no text covering this aspect, but SGRN notes that any remedy must include closer co-operation between scientists and industry. If this fails, then a re-allocation of the sampling effort should be a serious consideration by the MS.

157. SGRN notes that according to the agreed NP, Sweden sought to undertake four days calibration with a Danish vessel concerning trawling efficiency within the IBTS surveys, but there is no mention of this in the Technical Report. However, a five day calibration occurred between two Swedish vessels to compare the existing catch composition and fish abundance indices from coastal area surveys (Nephrops trawl 70mm) and IBTS surveys (GOV 16mm), but there is no mention of this in the Swedish NP proposal.

158. There were major shortfalls in most sampling programs for cod. A more detailed explanation is required of how Sweden intends to remedy these shortfalls.

159. Sweden failed to meet the DCR requirements for length for sprat in IIIb-d. According to the text, this was a deliberate policy, as increased sampling does not improve precision. SGRN requests evidence of this.

160. Sweden states that the shortfall for herring in IIIb-d was due to less fishing activity than expected. SGRN requests evidence of this.

161. Remedial action is proposed but it is too general to ascertain whether it will cover all shortfalls.

162. The shortfall relates to the number of trips achieved against the number planned and not to the numbers measured and aged.

163. Discarded sole were not aged although, according to the DCR, they should be sampled for age.

164. Sweden has no fisheries of importance on species / stocks for which regular fecundity updates are required.

165. A table of population and samples should be included in the text; sampling methodology is unclear - if postal, the final sample cannot be random; what is meant by "random sample and panel" in Table 12 ?; it appears that some vessels are excluded but SGRN does not know on what basis; more data definition required, e.g., fixed costs are defined as "average costs" - what does this mean ?

166. The "small vessel" sample size appears rather low.

167. Data shortfalls unclear and plans to remedy this not apparent.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Progrm

Sweden only planned work under Modules E (Discards), H (Landings and Discards), I (all parameters), J and K for the EP.

Summary table Extended Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

E | Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | In part | 17 |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Unclear | 18 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 19 |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes (eel) |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | In part | 20 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 21 |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | N/A |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | No | 22 |

Were national targets met? | Unclear |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 22 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fecundity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Unclear | 23 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 24 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes | 25 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 26 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 26 |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

168. SGRN notes the problem of non co-operation by the Swedish fishing industry over the deployment of discard observers.

169. It was unclear to SGRN whether the < 10 m fleet was included in the discard sampling.

170. There is no text covering this aspect, but SGRN notes that any remedy must include closer co-operation between scientists and industry. If this fails, then a re-allocation of the sampling effort should be a serious consideration by the MS.

171. Sweden under-sampled one species for length and four species for age.

172. Remedial action is proposed but it is too general to ascertain whether it will cover all shortfalls.

173. SGRN notes that Sweden did not age various species under the EP, while this is required according to the provisions of the "original" DCR (Appendix XV of EC Regulation No. 1639/2001). However, the "original" DCR does not require age sampling for these species under the MP. This is illogical, and therefore SGRN accepts this shortfall by the MS. SGRN also notes that this inconsistency has been corrected in the revised version of the DCR (EC Regulation No. 1581/2004).

174. There seems to be a printing error in Table 11.4 with respect to Coregonus lavaretus (is mentioned as planned for fecundity, but this is not required by the DCR). To be clarified by MS.

175. A table of population and samples should be included in the text; sampling methodology is unclear - if postal, the final sample cannot be random; what is meant by "random sample and panel" in Table 12 ?; it appears that some vessels are excluded but SGRN does not know on what basis; more data definition required, e.g., fixed costs are defined as "average costs" - what does this mean ?

176. The "small vessel" sample size appears rather low.

177. Data shortfalls unclear and plans to remedy this not apparent.

UNITED KINGDOM

General comments

Was Technical Report submitted to Commission before May 31st deadline? | No |

Did Technical Report comply with DG Fish / STECF-SGRN Guidelines? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary standard tables? | Yes |

Did Technical Report have all the necessary information to allow DG Fish / STECF-SGRN to evaluate the achievements of the MS 2004 National Program? | Yes for most |

Did Technical Report give precision levels for all parameters for which this is required by the DCR? | Yes |

Did Technical Report contain sufficient information on the methods used to calculate precision levels? | Yes |

Did Technical Report include information on both national and international co-ordination? | Yes |

General SGRN comments on MS's Technical Report: None.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Minimum Program

Summary table Minimum Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 1 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 2 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 3 |

D | Fuel consumption |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | In part | 4 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes | 4 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 3 |

Species-specific fishing effort |

Were DCR targets met? | In part | 4 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes | 4 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 3 |

E | Landings |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | In part | 5 |

Were national targets met? | N/A |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | No | 6 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes | 7 |

Recreational fisheries |

Were DCR targets met? | Derogation |

Were national targets met? |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 1 |

Were DCR targets met? |

IBTS 1st Quarter (English) | Yes |

IBTS 1st Quarter (Scottish) | Yes |

Atlanto-Scandian Herring Survey (ASH) | Yes |

IBTS 3rd Quarter (English) | Yes |

IBTS 3rd Quarter (Scottish) | Yes |

North Sea Herring Acoustic Survey | Yes |

BTS Demersal Young Fish Survey | Yes |

Demersal Young Fish Survey | Yes |

Western IBTS 4th Quarter (English) | Yes |

Western IBTS 4th Quarter (Scottish) | Yes |

ISBCBTS September | Yes |

Mackerel/horse mackerel Egg Survey (English) | Yes |

Mackerel/horse mackerel Egg Survey (Scottish) | Yes |

Spawning/pre-sp. Herring Acoustic Survey VIa | Yes |

Spawning/pre-sp. Herring Acoustic Survey VIIa | Yes | 8 |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

H | Landings - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | In part | 9 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 9 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes |

Landings - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 10 |

Were national targets met? | In part | 11 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 11 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes |

Discards - Recovery stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Discards - Other stocks - Length & age |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

I | Growth data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 12 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sex ratios |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 13 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Sexual maturity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes | 14 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

Fecundity data |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

J | Economic data fishing fleets |

Were DCR targets met? | No | 15 |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | No | 15 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 15 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 16 |

K | Economic data processing industry |

Were DCR targets met? | In part | 17 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

178. Data are collected exhaustively, but allocation of vessels to some segments was impossible due to lack of information on activity.

179. SGRN does not understand the grouping of gear segments for vessels > 10 m. The combination of fleet segments where there were less than 10 vessels has not been made clear in the report.

180. Only information on shellfish activity for vessels < 10 m is proposed to be collected exhaustively. Registration of buyers and sellers is not expected to provide any information on gear used and effort.

181. Fishing effort for vessels < 10 m is not collected exhaustively and the methods used to derive estimates of fishing effort are unclear.

182. No discards samples from Northern Ireland were collected due to lack of co-operation from the fishing industry.

183. Explicitly stated in the NP that the < 10 m fleet cannot be sampled for health and safety reasons.

184. SGRN acknowledges the effort made by the UK to improve the situation in Northern Ireland.

185. Nautical miles of the transects should be given instead of number of transects.

186. 3 out of 5 stocks failed to achieve the national target. No explanation is given to explain the deviations from aim, although it is stated that the surplus from the DCR requirements is done at national expense.

187. 6 stocks out of 34 failed to achieve the DCR requirements.

188. 13 stocks out of 34 failed to achieve the national targets. No explanation was given to explain the deviation from aim, although it is stated that the surplus from the DCR requirements is done at national expense. The under-sampling against the DCR requirements is well explained.

189. Plaice and mackerel in ICES Sub-area IV, and anglers in the western area did not reach required precision level, due to difficulty to obtain sufficient numbers of fish from the surveys.

190. Precision level 3 was not reached for many species, due to the high variability of the data.

191. The relatively low numbers of fish caught during the surveys did not allow to reach precision level 3 for 18 stocks out of 25.

192. The NP proposal foresaw a "full survey" in 2004, but this was not done; the bio-economic modelling referred to is not relevant to the requirements of the DCR.

193. A 2005 survey is promised but no details are supplied.

194. Survey undertaken but some parameters not estimated.

Comments by Module of the DCR – Extended Program

The UK only planned work under Modules C, E (Discards), F and G for the EP.

Summary table Extended Program |

Module | Subject | SGRN appreciation | See comment |

C | Fleet capacity |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes for most | 18 |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | No | 19 |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | No | 20 |

E | Discards |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Were national targets met? | Yes |

Did data collection include vessels < 10 m? | No |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

F | Species-specific CPUE data series |

Were DCR targets met? | Yes |

Are deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | N/A |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | N/A |

G | Surveys Priority 2 |

Were DCR targets met? |

Nephrops TV Survey (Inshore) | Yes |

Nephrops TV Survey (Offshore) | Yes |

Nephrops TV Survey | Yes |

Nephrops TV Survey (Sea lochs) | In part | 21 |

WCBTS | Yes |

Egg Production Survey | Yes |

DARD Groundfish 1st Quarter | Yes for most | 21 |

DARD Groundfish 4th Quarter | Yes |

DARD Herring Larvae | Yes |

DARD Mik-net | Yes |

DARD Nephrops IBTS (WCGFS) Scottish west coast young fish survey | Yes |

IBTS (WCGFS) | Yes |

Scottish West Coast Young Fish Survey | Yes |

Were deviations from aim sufficiently well explained? | Yes |

Are suggested actions to remedy shortfalls acceptable? | Yes |

195. Data are collected exhaustively, but allocation of vessels to some segments was impossible due to lack of information on activity.

196. SGRN does not understand the grouping of gear segments for vessels > 10 m. The combination of fleet segments where there were less than 10 vessels has not been made clear in the report.

197. Only information on shellfish activity for vessels < 10 m is proposed to be collected exhaustively. Registration of buyers and sellers is not expected to provide any information on gear used and effort.

198. The survey did not achieve its objectives due to bad weather conditions.

SGRN OPINION ON TUNA TAGGING EXPERIMENTS

SGRN extensively discussed the report of the Planning Group on Tuna Tagging (Report of the First Meeting of the Planning Group on Tuna Tagging in the East Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, Bari, 4-6 April 2005), and more precisely the responses the Planning Group has formulated to the questions raised by STECF/SGRN in its June 2004 report (SEC (2004) 1312, pages 12-13).

Firstly, SGRN was not particularly impressed by the quality of the answers provided by the Planning Group. Although they contained some background information on the existing problems in relation to the assessment and management of tuna stocks, they failed to properly address the concerns raised by SGRN. Neither did they contain the decisive arguments that could have convinced SGRN of the usefulness of the proposed tagging studies. Many of the replies of the Planning Group are in fact open-ended, and suggest uses that could be made of the results of tuna tagging experiments, instead of indicating how such data are currently being used in stock assessments or how they will be used to improve existing data series (as was requested by SGRN). Therefore, SGRN requests a new document, containing hard evidence of:

199. the use that is currently being made of tagging data in tuna stock assessments;

200. the major problem areas and data-related weaknesses in these assessments;

201. the impact of these weaknesses on the quality of the assessments;

202. what kind of data would be needed to resolve these;

203. how and to what extent tagging experiments can be expected to help resolve the problems under (ii), given the high degree of uncertainty in data recovery in tuna tagging experiments; and

204. possible alternatives to tagging to resolve the data-related weaknesses.

SGRN insists that such a document be compiled before the discussions on the revision of the DCR, since this document will be used as a starting point to decide on the priority status that will be given to tuna tagging surveys in the new version of the DCR.

Secondly, SGRN has doubts on the extent to which the tagging experiments proposed for 2005 can be expected to actually resolve the assessment-related problems they are supposed to resolve. The more so since they seem to address several aspects of tuna biology, population dynamics and assessments simultaneously (migrations, mixing of stocks, variability in growth patterns, estimates of mortality parameters, tuning of CPUE data series, etc.), some of which clearly are outside the scope of the DCR.

Finally, SGRN re-iterates its view that the prime aim of the DCR should be to provide the general framework for (i) the collection of basic data sets, and (ii) the continuation of existing fleet-related, biological and economic data series in support of the CFP. In SGRN's opinion, new approaches and methodologies can only become part of the DCR once their usefulness and soundness for monitoring or stock assessment purposes has been proven . Their development and exploration however, should be done outside the DCR, e.g. within the framework of nationally or EU-funded study projects of limited duration. According to SGRN, the proposed tuna tagging experiments are a typical example of such a short-term, primarily developmental and methodological study.

SGRN PROPOSAL ON A SYNOPTIC OVERVIEW OF DISCARD INFORMATION

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL

A progress report on the Discard Atlas (a comprehensive summary of the discard information collected throughout the EU in the period 2002-2006) was presented to SGRN.

The main objective of the "Discard Atlas Project" is to compile information already collected by MS from pilot studies on discard sampling and from on-going discard sampling programs . Often, extensive discard information is collected as part of the MS's National Data Collection Programs, but not all the data are used by assessment working groups (e.g. discards of species that are not formally assessed). Hence, there is a potential risk that valuable information is lost for the scientific community.

Prior to the meeting of SGRN, a subgroup co-ordinated by Joël Vigneau met by correspondence in order to establish a general framework of what should be done in this area. Please refer to the PowerPoint presentation (see Appendix 2) for details on the proposal that was elaborated by this sub-group.

SGRN notes that the Discard Atlas Project looks very ambitious but also very necessary in establishing a synthesis in the area of discard monitoring. The co-ordination of such a project however, will require a considerable amount of resources and commitment, and a dedicated person to drive the project. SGRN itself does not have the resources to see the project through, but can voice its support to such a worthwhile endeavour.

Several SGRN-members expressed concerns that the project may become bogged down, as it is considered to be a hugely ambitious and hence time consuming task. A suggestion was made by SGRN that the project be broken down into two, more manageable, tasks as follows:

Task 1: Collate the data in a harmonised format

It was thought that SGRN could initiate and lead this task in establishing the Discard Atlas, and use it as a starting point for the analysis stage (see further). A request could be sent to all MS to fill out established discard forms, to ensure a standard format for reporting discard data. A workshop could be convened in 2006 to compile these.

Task 2: Analysis of the database and reporting

The analysis of the discard data is seen as the more time consuming and extensive task, which will require more thought and consideration. SGRN notes that if there is a full description of all discard data collected so far, and a detailed explanation of the sampling protocols, then discard data from the various MS may be integrated. However, the correct methodology to integrate this information has not been finalized yet.

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS

The Discard Atlas Project should allow the quantification of the discard rates per métier, time of the year and geographical area, and their potential impact on the ecosystem. Through this project, current gaps within the discard sampling system will be identified, and it will allow a more focused international discard sampling scheme and a rationalization of the discard sampling programs currently operating within the framework of the DCR.

SGRN also notes that there will be a need to incorporate ecological concerns into the atlas. The next revision of the DCR is likely to include a requirement to assess the impact of fishing activities on both target and non-target species. One of the possible ways of achieving this is to extend the existing discard sampling programs to also cover non-target species, vertebrates as well as invertebrates.

Several SGRN-members raised concerns around the issue of access to the discard data. It was felt that access to the resultant international discard data set, made up of national discard data, might cause problems. Difficulties are anticipated with the industry over the ability of other bodies to identify the discard information from various fleets and countries. If the industry is unhappy, then it may jeopardize the already tentative co-operation in many MS with regards to getting discard observers to sea on commercial fishing vessels. In the long-term however, fisheries may run the risk of being closed down if there is an impression of high discard rates and if there is an absence of hard data to prove otherwise . Consequently, the availability of good quality discard data may ensure the feasibility of particular fisheries. In such cases, the industry will benefit from the availability of objective data.

SGRN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SGRN strongly supports the idea of the Discard Atlas and recommends awarding a short-term study contract in order to progress the overlay of fishing activities with information of discard sampling programs, as a first step in establishing the Atlas.

Subsequently, SGRN recognizes that the analysis stage of the discard project will require a pan-European study project on the most appropriate methodologies to be utilized in the analysis of the data and on the synthesis of the available discard data itself.

In order to initiate the process, Joël Vigneau and the Chair of SGRN will contact the Commission to discuss the possibilities for funding the Discard Atlas Project.

JRC PROPOSAL ON CODIFICATION

CODIFICATION SCHEME AND STANDARD OUTPUTS

JRC, following a recommendation of STECF, attended the SGRN meeting on the evaluation of 2004 Technical Reports and presented its recent work on the codification scheme, carried out at the request of DG FISH. The objective of the presentation was to receive the scientists' input on which biological and sampling information to include in the scheme, so as to better define the datasets to be reported, and increase data quality.

SGRN agreed that the codification scheme needed to be reviewed and enhanced with more information, mainly on biological and sampling parameters. Particular attention was also given to the issue of (intellectual) property of the data collected by MS and on the publishing rights of the Commission and JRC. In SGRN's opinion, procedures similar to those followed by the International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) should be put in place before the Commission or JRC can publish reports containing data retrieved from the MS.

t was agreed that SGRN would not evaluate the complete codification document on a table by table basis, but that it would rather focus on specific issues raised in the presentation by JRC. The departure of the economists one day earlier was regretted by the JRC representative, as the codification of economic data could not be discussed in their absence. Standard outputs were not discussed either. Eventually, the following issues were discussed:

- CPUE

- Biological sampling

- Sampling information

- Species taxonomy

- Fleet classification

- Flagging derogations

SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED

Regarding CPUE, attention was drawn to the need to distinguish between CPUE, LPUE and DPUE (catch, landings and discards per unit of fishing effort), stressing that it is important to report the three separately. SGRN notes that the DCR requires Catches per Unit Effort data (under Module F of the DCR), but what the Member States have been reporting so far is actually Landings per Unit Effort (LPUE). Furthermore, SGRN proposes to distinguish effort measurement units according to the fishery for which data are reported (trawl fisheries, fisheries with static gears, etc.).

On biological data, SGRN proposes the addition of new fields that would provide details on the way the data have been collected, for example on the different types of length measurements (standard length, fork length, carapace length, etc.), the methods used for age reading (otolith readings, scale readings, etc.), the intervals used to group length or age data, together with the starting value of the smallest group, etc. With regards to market and discard sampling, SGNR proposes to add details on the number of samples taken, average sample size, the periodicity and location of the sampling activities, etc. Also, a field indicating the coefficient of variance should accompany all parameters that have been estimated with a certain level of precision.

For species taxonomy, NODC's TSN codification system (Taxonomic Serial Number of the National Oceanographic Data Centre) was proposed, as this comprises an exhaustive list of all genera and species referred to in the DCR. The TSN codification system also leaves the possibility of communicating e.g. landings or discard data for mixed groups of similar species, such as Raja spp., Trigla spp., Lophius spp., etc., for which most of the other existing codification systems do not have separate codes.

For fleet classification, it was suggested to use the classification system that was adopted at the Nantes workshop (2005) on fleet segmentation.

SGRN thought that including the possibility to flag derogations was indeed a good idea. In case of missing data, it was agreed that MS will be given the possibility to indicate why data collection had not taken place (derogation, data not collected yet, not processed yet, force majeure , etc.).

FURTHER STEPS TO BE TAKEN

It was agreed that JRC will implement the modifications suggested by SGRN and circulate an updated draft of the codification document for further consultation with SGRN. The consultation will last until the end of September 2005. By then, a final proposal, which will have the approval of SGRN, should be ready for presentation to the relevant committees, particularly the Management Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture.

APPENDIX 2

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER

SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES (STECF)

Sub-Group on Research Needs (SGRN)

Presentation on the Discard Atlas Project

Copy of PowerPoint presentation

given by Joël Vigneau on July 1 st , 2005

[1] http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACFM/2005/PGCCDBS/directory.asp

[2] http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACFM/2005/WKSDFD/directory.asp

[3] http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACFM/2004/PGCCDBS/directory.asp

[4] http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACFM/2005/WKSDFD/directory.asp

[5] Sampedro, P., Sainza, M. & Trujillo, V. (2005): A simple tool to calculate biological parameters uncertainties. Working document 01 of the Workshop on Sampling Design for Fisheries Data (WKSDFD, Pasajes, 2005).

[pic]

hõb>\*[pic]B\*[6]U[pic]mHnHphÿu[pic]mHnHu[pic]ht.0JmHnHu[pic]-jht.0JU[pic]mHnHu[pic]5?B\*[pic]mH phsH j5?B\*[pic]U[pic]mH phsH hïx/mH nH sH tH

hÔtamH sH hïx/B\*[pic]mH ph EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8 [pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[Top](#document1)