Jose CERVERA, Pavel SALZ, Ester AZORÍN Report delivery date

7th July 2014

Photographs © Creative commons, courtesy of the authors (Miemo Penttinen,

Jim Champion and Willip Von Ree), who in no way endorse this work or its contents.

COUNTRY REPORT

FIELD WORK MISSION TO SPAIN

JANUARY 2014

This specific contract No 9, SI2.656808 “Field work specific contract for Lithuania, Romania,

Spain and United Kingdom”, has been implemented within the framework contract,

MARE/2009/08 “Assistance for the monitoring of the implementation of national

programmes for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector”,

funded by the DG Mare.

1

List of acronyms

AR Annual Report

BDCP Fishing Control Database (Base de datos de control pesquero)

DCF / DCR Data Collection Framework / Regulation

DG MARE Directorate General for Maritime Affaires and Fisheries

EWG Expert Working Group

ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

IEO Spanish Institute of Oceanography (Instituto Español de Oceanografía)

INE National Statistical Institute (Instituto Español de Estadística)

JRC Joint Research Centre

MAGRAMA Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente)

NC National Correspondent

NP National Programme

SBS Structural Business Survey

SGP General Secretariat of Fisheries (Secretaría General de Pesca)

ToR Terms of Reference

TR Technical Report

WGHMM Working Group on Hake, Monkfish and Megrim

2

Table of Content 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. GENERAL OVERVIEW, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4 3. SUBMISSION OF DATA TO WGHMM IN 2012 6 4. JRC DATA CALLS 10 5. INSTITITUTIONAL ISSUES 13 ANNEX 1. FUEL CONSUMPTION BY SEGMENT 14 ANNEX 2. SCREENSHOT OF DATA UPLOADED BY SPAIN FOR THE 2013 ECONOMIC DATA CALL 15 ANNEX 3. NUMBER OF ENTERPRISES BY SIZE, 2008-2012 16 ANNEX 4. METHODOLOGY FOR THE ESTIMATION OF DISTRIBUTION BY SPECIES. 17 ANNEX 5. SUBMISSION OF TRANSVERSAL DATA UNDER 2014 DATA CALLS FOR EFFORT AND ECONOMICS 18 ANNEX 6. SOURCE OF TRANSVERSAL DATA BY MS 21

3

1. INTRODUCTION

Acknowledgements

The team wants to acknowledge the fruitful collaboration and openness of the Ministry of Agriculture,

Food and Environment (MAGRAMA), the Spanish Institute of Oceanography (IEO), National Statistical

Institute (INE) and its staff for their personal contribution to the success of the field work mission. The DCF

team showed in all cases a professional engagement with the objectives of the mission.

Implementation of the mission (counterparts, calendar)

The mission was carried out during 29-30 January 2014. The agenda of the mission, shared with Mr Enrique

de Cárdenas (National Coordinator for the DCF) prior to the mission, was implemented as planned.

Participants from the Spanish Institutions involved in DCF:

1. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (MAGRAMA)

I. General Secretariat of Fisheries (SGP). Protection of Fisheries Resources Unit

o Mr Enrique DE CÁRDENAS , National Correspondent for the DCF, Deputy Director-General

o Mrs Pilar VARA DEL RÍO, Fisheries Adviser.

II. General Secretariat of Fisheries (SGP). Structural Policies Unit

o Mrs Natalia MORENO LAGUNA, Chief of Marketing Unit

III. General Secretariat of Fisheries (SGP). Control and Inspection Unit

o Mr Héctor VILLA GONZÁLEZ, Deputy Director-General Adjoint

o Mrs Ana LÓPEZ VELASCO, Head of Service Unit

IV. Statistical Unit

o Ms Paloma SEOANE, Deputy Director General, Statistics, MAGRAMA

o Mr Miguel Ángel CORDÓN, Head of Fisheries Statistical Unit

2. Spanish Institute of Oceanography (IEO)

o Mr Pablo ABAUNZA, Head of Fisheries Area

o Mrs Ángeles ARMESTO, Coordination Team for PNDB

Structure of the report

The Country Report is organised according to the requirements of the Terms of Reference (ToR) and

includes the following sections:

Section 2: General overview, summary and conclusions

Section 3: Submission of data to WGHMM in 2012

Section 4: JRC economic data calls

Section 5: Institutional issues

The Country Report is accompanied by 6 annexes.

4

2. GENERAL OVERVIEW, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The background of this second mission to Spain included a number of questions and concerns of the EC

regarding the Spanish response to several specific data calls. This regards in particular:

- Submission of data on catches to the WGHMM of ICES in May 2012.

- Lack of submission of transversal data to JRC’s call for the Annual Economic Report and the call for

effort regimes in 2012.

In addition the EC wished to be informed about consequences of apparent institutional reorganization

stated in the Annual Report 2012 and budgetary consequences of the austerity measures of the Spanish

government in relation to the national co-financing and implementation of the DCF programme.

The mission draws following conclusions:

1. Until 2011 WGHMM was using landings estimates prepared by IEO and AZTI. As of 2012, Secretaría

General de Pesca (SGP), which is responsible for DCF, has insisted on using only official landings

data, which it provides on the basis of logbooks. WGHMM noted a significant decrease in landings

between 2010 (scientific estimate) and 2011 (official data). In order to avoid break in time series,

WGHMM has made scientific estimates of total EU landings. The difference between the official

total landings (provided by all MS on the basis of logbooks) and the scientific estimate by WGHMM

has been classified as “unallocated catches”. These catches cannot be allocated to any MS or

métier. The method of estimation of the total catches is the responsibility of the WG and it is not

made public.

2. In relation to the landings data produced by the Member States (MS) under DCF it is important to

stress that:

a. DCF does not foresee sampling programmes for estimation of transversal data. DCF calls

for “exhaustive” data collection and therefore it relies on data compiled under the Control

Regulation1, which meets this requirement. Only if exhaustive data collection is not

possible MS may recur to sampling and have to describe their sampling programme. In

practice this occurs very rarely, as the Control Regulation provides exhaustive data, with a

possible exception of the fleet <10m.

b. Almost all MS state in the NPs and ARs that landings (and other transversal) data are

sourced from the data collected under the control regulation, i.e. logbooks usually cross

checked with sales notes.

c. Neither ICES nor IEO could provide references to (refereed) descriptions of methodologies

for scientific estimation of total landings per species, not to speak detailed

disaggregations required by appendix VIII of the DCF regulation. Consequently, it cannot

be determined whether IEO estimates would be “better” than the official SGP data.

1 The Control Regulation may require sampling of the production and effort of the fleet <10m. However, in practice this

fleet is monitored in most MS using sales notes and making assumptions about the relation between sales notes and effort.

5

3. As there are various open questions regarding approach to Spanish data in stock assessment, which go

beyond the ToR of the present assignment, it is recommended to analyse the stock assessment

procedure in greater detail.

4. The response to JRC 2012 economic call has been incomplete with respect to fuel use, classification

of fishing enterprises and submission of transversal data, for the reasons explained below:

a. Data on fuel use (in litres) is part of the data collection programme and consequently it is

collected on on-going basis under the economic survey. Data is available in the MAGRAMA

database and presented in annex 1. However, at the time of data submission this variable

was wrongly overlooked as it is classified under transversal variables. Therefore, it was

not submitted due to miscommunication and not due to non-availability.

b. Data on classification of fishing enterprises by size (number of vessels) was submitted for

the country as a whole, but not by segment, because it was not clear how multi-vessel

firms should be allocated to a specific segment if their vessels would belong to different

segments. It is noted that as of 2014 JRC will only call for the national totals and not for the

classification by segment, exactly because of this methodological problem.

c. Submission of transversal data on effort and landings (value and volume) for the

economic data calls was incomplete in 2012 and 2013 because this information could not

be generated from the control data. The mission was informed that Spain has agreed with

the Commission to implement an ‘action plan’, which will make the control data

accessible. It is expected that the problem will be resolved in 2015.

5. Evidence provided by the NC shows that Spain has fully complied with the JRC data calls on fleet

economics and effort in 2014.

6. The institutional changes do not seem to be relevant for the implementation of DCF, as IEO keeps

its scientific status. Cuts in national and EC co-financing are important, but an effort has been made

to maintain the biological sampling at the required level. The size of economic sample (fleet) has

been reduced2.

2 See mission report 2012.

6

3. SUBMISSION OF DATA TO WGHMM IN 2012

The EC was informed by the ICES Working Group on Hake, Monkfish and Megrim (WGHMM), about

modifications in the values submitted regarding the relevant species and in particular discrepancies

between “scientific” estimations (from IEO) and “official” (from the SGP) data on catches.

The draft report of WGHMM 2012 states that, in relation to data for the reference year 2011:

The start of the meeting was delayed slightly to allow scientists from IEO to receive an instruction, delivered via

their national institute, regarding the provision of data to the working group. At 09:30 on the first day of the

meeting the working group was advised that the estimates of Spanish landings submitted by IEO for 2011 could

not be used by the working group. Instead, official data for Spanish landings would be provided by the national

administration for fishery statistics (Secretaría General de Pesca - SGP). The instruction was that these official

data should be used in the assessments and that the scientific estimates of landings in 2011 previously provided

by IEO should be disregarded.

Data for Spanish landings were provided to the working group by SGP (via IEO) on Friday 11th May and are

shown in annex T of this report. No information was available on the method by which these data had been

compiled. The data were submitted at very short notice and were not made available following the usual

procedures for the provision of official statistics (i.e. via STATLANT).

The group evaluated these data and quickly concluded that they were unsuitable for use in the models used to

assess the stocks. In many cases the data were not disaggregated to an appropriate level to enable their

inclusion in the assessment models. The level of disaggregation necessary varies between stocks but in some

cases requires data at a quarterly level for the different fleet sectors operating in the fishery. In other instances

the data provided were not disaggregated by species (ie. for monkfish – L. piscatorius and L. budegassa and for

megrim L. whiffiagonis and L. boscii). These species are assessed separately but are managed as a combined

stock. Similarly, for stocks of Nephrops the data were not disaggregated to functional unit level. Some

concerns were raised regarding the validity of the data provided which in some instances indicated a marked

reduction in landings from previous years. It was not possible to attribute these reductions in landings to any

observed changes in the fishery such as a reduction in fishing effort, a marked decline in stock biomass or an

increase in discard levels.

The group concluded that the landings data for 2011 provided by SGP could not be used to update the

assessment models in 2012.

Two issues mentioned in the above excerpt are considered below: the apparent inconsistency between

scientific and official data, and the distribution of a genus by particular species.

Scientific vs “official” data on landings

“Official” data on capacity, effort and landings (transversal data) originate from the monitoring required by

the Control Regulation (logbooks, sales notes, fleet register, landings declarations, VMS). Almost all MS use

the Control Regulation to provide transversal data required under DCF. In Spain the collection and storage

of control data has been facing technical problems, so that the data is not available for the years 2009-2011.

As of 2012 Spain has provided all the requested data. An action plan has been agreed upon between the

Spain and the EC to correct this situation. It is expected that the system will be operational in 2015.

7

It seems that IEO (and AZTI) has been producing scientific estimations of landings and their composition.

The estimations of landings are based on sales notes and contacts with the industry3. Contrary to logbooks

data, supplied by SGP, the IEO estimates did not allow determination of the spatial distribution.

In general, the mission notes that:

- IEO could not provide any documentation of methodologies used for the estimation of landings;

- ICES WG reports do not refer to any documents in which such estimations would be described, not

to speak of refereed publications. The only statement in the ICES assessments refers to the sources

of the data, being sales notes and industry organizations;

- The DCF regulation does not require “scientific” collection of data (i.e. surveys) which would allow

estimation of transversal variables, defined in Appendix VIII. In fact, to make reliable estimations of

the listed variables would require a significantly higher sampling intensity.

- During the present project, missions were carried out to 10 MS, of which 8 rely on control data for

the compilation of the transversal variable. This is indicated in the National Plans and Annual

Reports. It was also explicitly confirmed by the National Coordinators from Belgium, Denmark,

Portugal and UK. Census control data is not available only in Italy and Greece. (see annex 6 for

overview of all MS).

- Any scientific estimation of landings, based on sampling, would be by definition stochastic, i.e. it

would provide a confidence interval within which the real value can be expected. Conclusions on

“poor reliability” of official data can be only drawn if the estimate and its standard deviation would

be provided. Such statistical information is not available.

At the Working Group level the official landings data provided by the MS are reviewed and if relevant the

total catch is re-estimated, which may lead to so called ‘unallocated catch’. Formally, unallocated catches

reflect the difference between the total official landings (sum of landings of all MS fishing the stock) and

the scientific estimation of the total catch, prepared by the ICES WG. The scientific “corrections” may

originate from estimations of discards or suspected unreported catch (e.g. based on data on effort, stock

and catch per unit of effort). The catches are unallocated in the sense that they cannot be allocated to any

MS or métier. How these estimations are done is at the discretion of each ICES WG4. The methodologies are

not published.

WGHMM (and WGWIDE) reports relate unallocated catches to the difference between official Spanish data

regarding 2011 and 2012 and the scientific estimation provided to the WGs by IEO and AZTI in previous

years5. However, it is not clear why it should be expected that Spanish catches significantly increased, along

with the increase of the stock, over and above the quota, while there are no statements about the landings

of other MS. In addition, the p.46-47 of the 2013 WGHMM report presents detailed data on catches of

Spanish fleet, while it does not present comparable information for other MS. As there are various open

questions regarding approach to Spanish data in stock assessment, which go beyond the ToR of the

present assignment, it is recommended to analyse the stock assessment procedure in greater detail.

3 WGHMM 2013 report, p. 359. This procedure regards Nephrops. ICES is not informed about the methodology used to estimate the landings volume. 4 Individual MS could make their own estimation of ‘unallocated’ catches and submit them to RDB FishFrame under the heading ‘unallocated catch’. However, ICES has indicated that unallocated catches were never reported to RDB FishFrame by any MS for any stock. 5 E.g. WGHMM report 2013, p.13.

8

Estimation of scientific biological indicators

The estimation of the composition (by age, sex and maturity, etc.) is based on the observations by the

“Information and Sampling Network” (Red de Información y Muestreo). IEO has outsourced this activity to

a private company. Every year, the selection of the company is made through a public tender. The tender is

accompanied by a description of the sampling in terms of locations and sample frequencies of catch by

fishery, gear, metier, fishing area and time period. It also includes the number of observations to be carried

out. The sampling is specified as a frequency of measurements by landing location per region

(Mediterranean, CECAF/Cádiz, CECAF/Tenerife, Mediterranean/Tuna, Bay of Biscay/Coruña, Canary

Islands/Tuna) as well as per programme (ICES). The results of the sampling (i.e. number of specimen

measured6, either at sea or on shore) in relation to the national plan are presented in the technical reports.

The experts at IEO and AZTI compile the data (age, sex, maturity, length and weight) from the Information

and Sampling Network by aggregation of results at port level. There is no statistical estimation model used

to produce data. This means that relative distribution by each characteristic is directly taken from the

sampling results.

The consultants have checked that the WGHMM Report 2013 includes Spanish measurements of:

- Lengths for monkfish by species (L.pisc., L.bude.);

- Lengths and ages for megrim by species (L.whiff, L.boscii);

- Lengths for hake;

- Lengths for nephrops except for functional area FU 23 – 24.

During the WGHMM meeting of 2012 the Spanish experts were not able to make estimates of the specific

species of monkfish and megrim. The catches of individual species of monkfish and megrim are estimated

by IEO in 2012 on the basis of the results of port and at sea surveys as described below. The distribution of

monkfish and megrim catches by species is based on the sample distribution found in market (carried out

by an external company IPD) and sea surveys taking into account métiers and seasons.

The methodology to estimate the distribution by species was provided in the form of bibliographical

references. In particular, Working Document to the ICES Working Group on the Assessment of Southern

Self Stocks of Hake, Monk and Megrim (WGHMM), Copenhagen, 5-11 May 2011. Annex B, WD27 and more

specifically: Annex B: Working Documents presented to WGHMM 2011. WD2: Sampling procedures for the

proportion estimates of Lophius piscatorius and Lophius budegassa in the Spanish landings. B y R. Gancedo,

R. Morlán, B. Patiño and A.C. Fariña (in Annex).

The methodology described in this paper about monkfish is applicable to the estimation of landings by

species of all species of ICES in which there is confusion between species of the same genus (as also

happens in the case of megrims). It consists in the following steps:

- Data collection: at this stage, commercial categories are not regularly separated in the Spanish

landings, or at least discrimination by species is variable from port to port, and are recorded

together as Lophius spp. The separation is mainly made during the final market stage due to

different appreciation and economic value in the fish market.

- The proportion per species is calculated for each trip/vessel in the sample.

6 Target number of measurements is specified in the National Plans. 7 http://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/WGHMM.aspx.

9

- Individual data are classified by length classes. Weight is estimated by applying model of the

length-weight relationship of the form W = a·Lb

- Sample estimates are extrapolated to population proportions by considering length distributions,

provided by AZTI for the ports in the Basque Country. To gross-up sample estimates, the

distributions are successively raised to monthly landings at the port and metier level and then to

monthly landings at the region level (i.e. extrapolating to the ports where samples were not taken

– this information is available from Control Data).

This general procedure has some specificities mentioned in the ICES paper (see annex 4), but the procedure

is quite standard in any stratified random sampling. The coverage of ports is very large in the North-West

regions.

Two caveats that could be mentioned regarding the estimation procedure: first, the procedure for

randomly selecting trips/vessels is not described; second, except for La Coruña and Ribeira, only one métier

was selected in each port (information from the 2010 sampling plan).

Data problems in 2013 WGHMM report

Although this report refers again to the official data submitted by SGP and estimation of “unallocated

catches”, the report does not mention any data problems related to Spain in the annex V “Stock Data

Problems Relevant to Data Collection”.

10

4. JRC DATA CALLS

Coverage reports of JRC of 2012 regarding the economic data call indicate that Spain has not submitted

several indicators:

a. Energy consumption (litres).

b. Composition of enterprises by number of vessels.

c. Fishing effort (except kW-days for 2012)

Economic data call - Energy consumption

The NP 2011-2013 (Revision 2013) states that energy consumption is compiled within the economic survey to

the fishing fleet8. Fuel use is indeed one of the variables included in the economic survey to the fishing fleet

carried out by the MAGRAMA’s Directorate of Statistics.

This information was provided by the Statistics Directorate to the SGP. The data on 2008-2011 was provided

to the mission (see Annex 1).

However, SGP apparently did not submit the data to JRC, as it is included under transversal variables (effort

template) and SGP wrongly assumed that all those variables would be forthcoming from the control data,

which could not be submitted. The Spanish NC was informed about the overall quality of the Spanish

submission by JRC in an email of 13.3.2013. The file which was sent to him specified all missing data9.

However, it was noted that the variable ‘Energy consumption’ is not mentioned in the TR 201210 neither

under transversal variables (table III-F-1) nor under economic variables (III-B-3). The text of TR 201211

mentions use of energy only under the environmental indicator nr.9, but not in the relation to economic

indicators, as required in appendix VI of Com. Decision 93/2010. This also shows the misinterpretation which

existed regarding this indicator. There is no other technical reason for the lack of this information.

Economic call - Composition of enterprises by number of vessels

Data on classification of fishing enterprises by size (number of vessels) was submitted for the country as a

whole (variable Fishent-tot), but not by segment, because it was not clear how multi-vessel firms should be

allocated to segments. It is noted that as of 2014 JRC will only call for the national totals and not for the

classification by segment, exactly because of this methodological problem. This information was also

provided to the mission for the year 2012 and was sent to JRC in data call time and correct format. (Annex

3).

Transversal variables – effort and economic data call

The following table shows that all data were submitted as requested by the JRC calls for fleet economic and

effort data in 2014. The problems which occurred in the preceding years have been resolved. JRC also

confirmed that errors shown in the screen shots in Annex 5 have been of technical nature and all have been

resolved. As of June 2014 the data quality of Spanish submission has not yet been evaluated by STECF.

8 PROGRAMA DE RECOPILACION Y GESTION DE DATOS DE ESPAÑA PERIODO 2011-2013 (Revisión Año 2013), 30.10.2012, p.20-21. 9 Information provided by JRC. 10 España, Informe Técnico 2012, Tablas 30 mayo 2013 11 Informe técnico del programa de recopilación, gestión y uso de datos del sector pesquero de España año 2012

11

Table 1. Overview of data gaps in submissions in 2013 and 2014

Missing data - call 2013

Submitted data -call 2013

Missing data - call 2014

Submitted data -call 2014

Effort regime data call

Landings 2010-2011 2003-2008 All data submitted on 4-6-2014

Discards 2003, 2010-2011 2004-2009

Age of vessel 2009-2011 2003-2008

Landings by rectangle 2003-2011

Nominal effort 2000-2001 and 2010-2011

2002-2009

Effective effort by rectangle

2010-2011 2003-2009

Economic data call

Effort by segment No data kW-days 2012 – FAO Level3_4

All data submitted on 4-6-2014 Value of landings /

species

No data

Volume of landings / species

2008-2011 2012

Sources:

- Effort data call – JRC, DCF Fishing Effort Regimes Data Call 2012 Coverage report, 2012, p.69-70

- Economic call - 2013 DCF Call for Economic Data on the EU Fishing Fleet, coverage report, p.86

- Effort and Economic call – 2014 – Information from NC, see annex 5

The NC and the representative of the Control Unit explained that the Spanish database on control data is

undergoing a major overhaul (‘action plan’), which was developed and agreed upon in cooperation with the

DG Mare. If the deadlines are met, it will be operational in 2015. This will further facilitate the delivery of

transversal data. As indicated in the above table, Spain delivered all data requested by JRC data calls in

2014. The consultant requested a copy of the ‘action plan’, but did not receive it, apparently because this is

a bilateral agreement between EC and Spain. While the ‘action plan’ will assure smooth provision of data in

the future, it is uncertain that it will be possible to reproduce historical data on effort (by métier, segment

and area) and landings (by segment, species and area), which is presently missing. It remains to be seen

whether it will be possible to incorporate logbooks, sale notes and other Control Regulation documents

from previous years in the new system. It is not clear to which extent all historical documents are digitalized

and if so compatible with the new system. The consultant wishes to stress that this is primarily an issue

concerning the implementation of the Control Regulation and not DCF.

It is recommended to closely monitor the implementation of the action plan until 2015. Setting concrete

milestones (if not already done) based on the submission of the missing data mentioned above would be

useful in ensuring that the information targets are met.

12

Other calls

Fish processing industry

The JRC Coverage Report on the Fish Processing Industry for 201312 mentions the lack of submission of

certain variables: male/female employees, imputed value of unpaid labour, depreciation of capital, debt and

total value of assets. It was already mentioned in the consultant’s report of April 201213 that data on the

processing industry are collected by the National Statistical Institute in the context of the SBS Regulation

(Com. Reg. 251/2009) which does not foresee collection of these indicators. Considering that fish processing

is just a small part of the SBS and SBS requirements have been defined under the Eurostat and related

statistics legislation, it does not seem possible for the NSI to include additional indicators in the survey. A

complementary survey to collect the specific DCF indicators has not been considered in order not increase

further the administrative burden to the industry. The methodology is adequately described by the National

Statistical Institute14.

It has been mentioned by the Spanish authorities that there is work in progress to try to solve this issue.

Various meetings have been held between NSI and the Statistical unit of MAGRAMA. The NC has indicated

that the Statistical unit is now estimating the employment by gender and the imputed value of unpaid

labour till 2012 and these indicators will be submitted with the 2014 data call on fish processing (data till

2012). As for the other variables, it is being studied if they can be collected under SBS or else from other

sources like commercial registers.

12 http://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=db6db11b-6115-4c6f-abdb-

86dfb6caf908&groupId=10213, page 63 13 Specific contract SI2.611388. 14 http://www.ine.es/daco/daco42/encindem/metoeiae.pdf

13

5. INSTITITUTIONAL ISSUES

Position of IEO under the new administration

According to the TR 2012, IEO falls under the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, while previously it

was part of Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. This is a consequence of the transfer of Secretaría de Estado

de Investigación, under which IEO resides. However, IEO maintains its formal status of ‘organismo público

de investigación (OPI)’. Consequently the apparent transfer from one ministry to another does not have

any consequences.

Data confidentiality

In various RCMs Spain has repeatedly expressed its concern regarding the confidentiality of data provided

inter alia to the RDB-FishFrame databases of RCGs (ex-RCMs)15: “Spain is clarifying its concerns related to

confidentiality, access, security and use of the data.” (p.52)

This is a consequence of the fact that submission of data on vessel power and tonnage is mandatory for the

RDBs, while it was optional for earlier submission to ICES. Spain considers the confidentiality guaranties

currently in force at RCMs and ICES WGs inadequate, as they do not go beyond the signed confidentiality

declaration by participating scientists.

The NC mentioned that in some cases it has been demonstrated that giving data on vessels size, it is

possible to identify individual vessels.

For biological data, Spain has no problems in transmitting biological parameters; however the SGP as well

as IEO recommended to keep an embargo of the public dissemination of data so the scientist can publish

their research results.

For economic and transversal data, the Spanish Institutions would agree to release individual data for

specific research projects with the condition that data are not stored in data bases and deleted at the end

of the study.

It seems necessary to review in detail the confidentiality practices of Eurostat (or other statistical

institutions holding personal data) and translate them properly to data handling practices under DCF, in

particular to RCMs.

Budget Issues

IEO has been seriously affected by budget cuts, both at the National and EC level. In particular there was a

decrease of 8.5% of the financing provided by DCF due to the underspending of the budget for the previous

year (2012). This underspending was principally due to the decrease in the national budget for personnel

costs and subsequent salary cuts. Despite these budget cuts and considering the importance of maintaining

the sampling size, the IEO has kept similar sample sizes for operations by using its internal budget. Only a

reorganization and a slight decrease in the number of on shore samplings has been observed.

The sample size of the economic survey to the fishing fleet has been reduced from 920 vessels in 2008-9 to

422 vessels in 2011, as stated in the subsequent TRs.

15 E.g. Report of the Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the North Atlantic (RCM NA) 2012, p.52

14

ANNEX 1. FUEL CONSUMPTION BY SEGMENT

Total litres YEAR

FISHING_TECH VESSEL_LENGTH 2008 2009 2010 2011

DFN VL0010 232,846 125,632 67,850

VL1012 1,050,452 146,797 82,427

VL1218 2,317,540 4,021,917 634,500 1,877,700

VL1824 25,274,644 2,099,440 2,018,333 2,502,000

VL2440 37,061 2,122,023 1,100,105

DFN Total 28,912,543 8,515,809 3,752,938 4,529,977

DTS VL0010 8,258,982

VL0612 832,000 862,650 489,667 516,946

VL1012 26,714,913

VL1218 131,555,461 18,803,681 24,465,525 18,216,687

VL1824 86,860,479 65,710,471 62,836,500 58,101,036

VL2440 92,411,029 270,048,593 196,817,932 297,747,118

VL40XX 30,509,138 80,096,058 91,912,366 105,915,103

DTS Total 377,142,003 435,521,454 376,521,990 480,496,890

HOK VL0010 19,815,607 676,542 597,167 160,105

VL0612 4,248,889 2,849,610 2,840,867 1,763,538

VL1012 3,360,686 1,299,006 766,001 914,650

VL1218 20,865,909 6,768,257 4,569,575 6,474,990

VL1824 12,907,333 11,037,980 6,540,710 9,751,299

VL2440 2,801,750 60,204,827 63,248,530 66,256,405

VL40XX 29,904,590 21,682,319 29,189,000 32,910,449

HOK Total 93,904,764 104,518,540 107,751,849 118,231,436

MGP VL1824 2,711,925

MGP Total 2,711,925

PGP VL0612 73,775

VL1218 534,638

VL2440 19,835,860 23,753,310

PGP Total 19,835,860 24,361,723

PMP VL0006 6,556,505 0 62,225

VL0010 13,859,011 18,915,523 15,958,803

VL0612 6,234,494 6,116,309 7,597,082

VL1012 14,383,395 2,190,808 5,499,055 3,060,035

VL1218 4,455,012 14,481,564 7,885,050 17,790,820

VL1824 16,445,259

VL2440 6,627,755 16,849,956 1,521,500 2,460,716

VL40XX 1,037,156

PMP Total 42,948,577 60,172,338 39,937,437 46,929,681

PS VL0006 3,133,333

VL0010 249,023 183,883 39,787

VL0612 648,200 463,260 87,150 219,267

VL1012 384,480 509,425 447,539

VL1218 7,149,155 10,454,591 5,823,806 10,010,481

VL1824 93,945,683 10,396,841 8,231,414 16,954,150

VL2440 27,153,701 28,299,126 46,821,680 15,480,026

VL40XX 86,953,192 109,745,847 120,059,465

PS Total 132,030,073 137,200,514 171,403,205 163,210,714

Grand Total 674,937,960 745,928,654 719,203,280 840,472,345

Source: Statistics Directorate, MAGRAMA

15

ANNEX 2. SCREENSHOT OF DATA UPLOADED BY SPAIN FOR THE 2013

ECONOMIC DATA CALL

Source: SGP

16

ANNEX 3. NUMBER OF ENTERPRISES BY SIZE, 2008-2012

Number of enterprises

Number of vessels - total

Of which inactive vessels

2008

1 vessel 11.248 11.248 2.995

2-5 vessels 841 1.828 317

6+ vessels 4 39

2009

1 vessel 9.902 9.902 1.633

2-5 vessels 710 1.561 18

6+ vessels 4 38

2010

1 vessel 9.659 9.659 761

2-5 vessels 686 1.498 93

6+ vessels 6 52

2011

1 vessel 9.438 9.438 900

2-5 vessels 652 1.403 107

6+ vessels 5 51

2012

1 vessel 9.146 9.146 1.349

2-5 vessels 625 1.350 247

6+ vessels 5 48 21

17

ANNEX 4. METHODOLOGY FOR THE ESTIMATION OF DISTRIBUTION BY

SPECIES.

Working Document to the ICES Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Stocks of Hake, Monk

and Megrim (WGHMM), Copenhagen, 5-11 May 2011

Sampling procedures for the proportion estimates of Lophius piscatorius and Lophius budegassa

in the Spanish landings

R. Gancedo1, R. Morlán2, B. Patiño3, A.C. Fariña2

1IEO, Centro Oceanográfico de Santander, Promontorio de San Martín s/n, 39004 Santander, Spain

2IEO, Centro Oceanográfico de A Coruña, Pº Mº Alcalde Francisco Vázquez Nº 10, 15001 A Coruña, Spain

3IEO, Centro Oceanográfico de Vigo, Avda. de Beiramar 37, 36202 Vigo, Spain

18

ANNEX 5. SUBMISSION OF TRANSVERSAL DATA UNDER 2014 DATA CALLS

FOR EFFORT AND ECONOMICS

Economic data call

19

Effort data call

The screen shots below indicate that data was uploaded with errors. However, the NC stated in his

comments that all causes of these ‘error’ were explained to the chair of the WG, who recognised that the

provided data was correct.

20

21

ANNEX 6. SOURCE OF TRANSVERSAL DATA BY MS

As shown in table 1, transversal data submitted by MS under the various DCF data calls, is mostly based on

census, sourced from information compiled for the purposes of the Control Regulation (logbooks, fleet

register, etc.). This implies that the submitted DCF data is fully consistent with the ‘official data’.

In addition it should be noted that many (if not most) MS, the national correspondent is a staff member of

the ministry which is responsible for fisheries management, including DCF and control. The ministry ensures

that no major discrepancies between DCF and control data exist (e.g. France).

Table 1. Approach to collection of transversal data

MS Approach to data collection

BE A (2011)

BG A (2011)

CY A (2011)

DE A, B for vessels <=8m

DK A (2011)

ES A (2011)

EE A

FI A

FR A >10m. C<10m, value and prices C >=10m (2011)

GBR A

GR A (capacity), B all other variables

IE A

IT B

LV A (2011)

LT A

MT A, B for vessels <= 10m

ND A

PL A

PT A (2011), B = energy consumption

RO A

SI A

SE A Source: DCF Annual reports 2012 (or 2011 if stated) A - Census; B - Probability Sample Survey; C - Non-Probability Sample Survey Census implies using the full set of logbooks, sales notes, landings declarations, VMS and Fleet register.

22

Distinction between scientific and official data

As stated above data on capacity, effort and landings (by species and areas, i.e. stocks) originates from

‘official sources’ (logbooks, etc.).

Scientific component of the DCF data are stock and métier related parameters regarding: age, weight, sex,

length, fecundity and discards. These measurements allow estimations of indicators length@age,

maturity@age, maturity@length, sex-ratio@age, sex-ratio@lenght and weight@age. This data are input

for the age-class (or length-class) structured biological models (VPA, virtual population analysis).

ICES guidelines for data submission to RDB FishFrame confirm that landings and effort data are based on

official (logbook) sources, while separate information can be added for misreporting (see box below).

Information on misreporting has never been provided by any MS.

Source: Jansen, T. (Ed). 2009. Definition of Standard Data-Exchange Format for Sampling, Landings, and Effort Data from Commercial Fisheries. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 296. 43 pp.