Eu data collection framework (dcf), reg. 199/2008, 665/2008 and decision 2008/949/EC
TOR 5: How to ensure proper end users feedback/region
Download 1.29 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Other Matters
- Highly Migratory Species Sub-Group
- TOR 1-3: Allocation of Fishing Grounds/Inventory of Fisheries/ Current and Future Coordination
- Allocation of fishing grounds.
- Coordination
TOR 5: How to ensure proper end users feedback/regionRelevant meetings eligible for co-funding in 2011Data on catches, effort and biological information from Metiers “OTB_CEP ≥ 70_0_0”, “OTM_SPF ≥40_0_0”, “OTB_DEF ≥ 70_0_0”, “LLS_DEF_0_0_0”, “OTB_CRU ≥ 40_0_0” and “PS_SPF_0_0_0” in the Fishing Ground “From Morocco to Guinea Bissau” are transmitted to the FAO Working Groups on the Assessment of the stocks of the target species. For this reason the European RCM-LDF CECAF Sub-Group proposes the budget assistance to attend the following meetings: FAO Working Group on the Assessment of Small Pelagic Fish off Northwest Africa. Stocks: Sardina pilchardus, Sardinella aurita, Sardinella maderensis, Trachurus trachurus, Trachurus trecae, Caranx rhonchus, Scomber colias, Ethmalosa fimbriata and Engraulis encrasicolus. (2 scientists) FAO Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Fish off Northern Africa. Stocks: Black hakes (Merluccius merluccius and Merluccius polli), Cephalopods (Octopus vulgaris, Sepia hierredda and Sepia officinalis), and crustaceans (Parapenaeus longirostris and Farfantepenaeus notialis). (3 scientists) FAO Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Fish off Southern Africa. Stocks: Cephalopods (Octopus vulgaris, Sepia hierredda and Sepia officinalis), and crustaceans (Parapenaeus longirostris and Farfantepenaeus notialis). (2 scientists) Furthermore, the RCM-LDF CECAF subgroup would like to ask the consideration on the following. Sampling of the pelagic fleet off Mauritania is required, as well through DCF selection criteria, and following the Partnership Agreement between the EU and Mauritania, and the CECAF data needs. Although the Mauritanian Institute IMROP presently complies with the data needs of the CECAF Working Group (and the sampling programme on landings carried out by Spain is complying with the EU sampling rules), the DCF has no influence on the IMROP sampling programme. For the case of a data-call, there is a need for an agreement on data quality and data access. An annual technical report of the sampling activities carried out by Mauritanian observers is required to have a complete overview of the sampling activities. It is foreseen to be difficult to implement EU sampling rules in third countries; in fact only by the Joint Scientific Committee under the umbrella of a compelling Agreement, the EU can put pressure and make binding agreements with the Mauritanian counterpart with regard to scientific programming that benefits both the EU as well as the Mauritanian research. To promote and to ensure a correct and coherent sampling and use and access of the data in accordance with the EU (and CECAF) requirements and specifications the Joint Scientific Committee is the most appropriate moment and structure to decide on these elements.
Highly Migratory Species Sub-GroupDr. Laurie Kell and Dr. Carlos Palma from ICCAT Secretary presented an overview on the ICCAT integrated information systems and the stock assessment processes regularly developed from these sets of data. The group thanks the effort of both scientists to explain the complexity of the systems now established in the ICCAT frame. ICCAT representatives recommended standardising and fine tuning DCF data to that of ICCAT so to better integrate collected data into their models and to keep flag stratification in the data collection systems and “metiers” definition. The group agreed on this. The ICCAT representatives indicate that direct indicators are not usually available for tuna fisheries (large pelagic fisheries). So data from the fleets are frequently the almost unique source of information available. The CPUE information extracted from this information is a key element in the assessment processes. The tagging information should be also considered as a priority for these species and tagging programs should be encouraged. TOR 1-3: Allocation of Fishing Grounds/Inventory of Fisheries/ Current and Future CoordinationIt is known that highly migratory species are common to several RCMs groups, including long distance, Mediterranean and Black Sea and North Atlantic, so decisions have to be taken to coordinate work effectively between different RCMs. The overlap of these highly migratory species is huge, so coordination between different areas and management groups is essential to avoid overlapping or duplications. As already happened for the RCM Med and Black Sea, concern was again raised whether tuna and tuna-like species, as is the case of the bluefin tuna data collection in the Mediterranean is to be kept separate from the bluefin data collected for the long distance fisheries RCM (and from other areas). This was because the RCM Med and Black Sea did not agree with moving Mediterranean fraction of the EBFT to the long distance fisheries RCM. Concern during this meeting was on the technical validity of this approach and if this is the correct way to tackle sampling and data collection for efficient stock assessments taking into consideration the EBFT stock structure assumed by ICCAT (Atl. East+Med). The group also pointed out that most of the EBFT is distributed within North Atlantic areas, at least from 45º W to the Strait of Gibraltar and also into the Mediterranean Sea. Other tuna and tuna-like species, or large pelagic species in general, could be affected for similar problems (albacore, swordfish, etc.). Some participants indicate that the origin of the problems could be the initial regional stratification applicable to demersal and small pelagic fisheries which is not appropriate to be used for highly migratory species. The species, or at least stock units, should be taken into high consideration for the RCM definitions. These points were identified as a problem and it was recommended that the EC should seek a practical solution based on technical arguments and RFMOs recommendations versus administrative matters, maybe by finding an agreement between scientists of the different RCMs. This problem was raised several times during this meeting but no immediate solution was found taking into consideration previous decision of the RCM Med&BS. It was also suggested that this solution should apply to all highly migratory species; otherwise, scientists related with data collection on a particular tuna species could be involved in several RCMs (and within the same RFMO) with different views and proposals leading to overlap and a less efficient system. Since one of the tasks of Liaison Meeting (LM) is “Make sure that the Regional Co-ordination Meetings (RCMs) move into the same direction”34, the group consider that assistance from the LM should be necessary to have clearer views on this issue.
Allocation of fishing grounds.Table 8 was extracted from the national reports of DCF and discussed. Highlighted areas were those reviewed for the long distance fisheries. The need was identified to standardise the nomenclature for geographical regions and metiers used in these tables and it was agreed that for the fishing ground codes, two columns would be put beside each other, one with the GFCM codes and the other with ICCAT or other RFMOs codes to avoid confusion. It was also agreed to leave “new REGION REC” to identify correctly the region concerned. Concern was raised whether in this way information was being lost; however this loss of information was counteracted for by “new FG REC”. CoordinationAn agreement of cooperation between France (IRD) and Spain (IEO/AZTI) under DCF for tropical tuna fleets in 2011-2013 period is shown in Annex IV. TOR 4: Identification of metiers.The group feels that the metiers´ identification should be as much close to ICCAT and other RFMOs definitions as already reported routinely by member states. The ICCAT sampling areas and/or the target species selected by specific gears could help for these “metiers” definition in some cases, especially when different fishing practices are identified for the same fishing gear. Some examples were included in the table (see Table 8.). However, some participants indicated that such codification requires a previous review at national level and a proposal was not possible during this meeting. The group suggested that member states should review the table produced during the meeting and make a proposal about how to identify and codify their metiers for the next meeting.
Table 8: Table used as base case for the definitions of Regions (old and new adopted) and possible metiers to be studied and proposed at national level. 
(*) landings per “metier” were not included in this table because countries have provided figures in different units. The group noted that this column should be verified during next meeting (metric tons round weight are required in all cases). Estimated landings for whole highly migratory species were estimated around 570 thousand tons per year in the different RFMOs related with these species. Directory: documents -> 10213 documents -> Concept stage documents -> The great global switch-off documents -> Nonprofit grant application documents -> The Truth about the Rwandan Genocide documents -> Annual InStructional unit plan documents -> Chaos equipment included 10213 -> Sea Fisheries Unit, Clonakilty, Co. Cork, Ireland Fisheries Ecosystems Advisory Services, The Marine Institute, Rinville, Oranmore, Galway, Ireland 10213 -> Sea fisheries institute in gdynia in, poland department of fisheries ministry of agriculture and rural development Download 1.29 Mb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||||||