Council Regulation (EC) No. 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 Commission Regulation (EC) No. 665/2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE COLLECTION OF BASIC FISHERIES DATA YEAR 2010 FRANCE Version 3 – 14 June 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. General framework ................................................................................................................. 2

II. Organisation of the National Programme.............................................................................. 3

II.A. Organisation and national coordination......................................................................... 3

II.A.1 National Correspondent ................................................................................. 3 II.A.2 Partner institutes............................................................................................. 3 II.A.3 National coordination..................................................................................... 4

II.B. Regional and International Coordination....................................................................... 5

II.B.1. Attendance at international meetings...................................................................... 5 II B.2 Follow-up on regional and international recommendations .................................... 5

III. Module of evaluation of the fishing sector........................................................................... 6

III.A. General description of the fisheries sector ................................................................... 6

III.B. Economic variables....................................................................................................... 7

III.B.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ........................................ 7 III.B.2 Data quality: results and deviation from the National Programme ........................ 7 III.B.3 Follow-up on regional and international recommendations ................................... 8 III.B.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls................................................................................... 8

III.C. Biology – metier-related variables ............................................................................... 9

General considerations applicable to the North Sea & Eastern Arctic, North Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea regions ..................................................................................................... 9

North Sea (IIIa, IV and VIId) & Eastern Arctic (I and II) ................................................... 10

NS- III.C.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ............................... 10 NS- III.C.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal ................................. 10 NS- III.C.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations .......................... 10 NS- III.C.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls ......................................................................... 11

North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO) .................................................................. 11

NA- III.C.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal .............................. 11 NA- III.C.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal ................................ 12 NA- III.C.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations.......................... 12 NA- III.C.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls......................................................................... 13

Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea........................................................................................ 13

MED- III.C.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ........................... 13 MED- III.C.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal ............................. 13 MED- III.C.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations ...................... 13 MED- III.C.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls...................................................................... 14

Indian Ocean (IOTC) ........................................................................................................... 14

IO- III.C.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ................................ 14 IO- III.C.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal.................................. 14 IO- III.C.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations ........................... 15

IO- III.C.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls .......................................................................... 15 Eastern Central Atlantic (ICCAT)........................................................................................ 15

ECA-III.C.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ............................. 15 ECA-III.C.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP.............................................. 15 ECA-III.C.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations ........................ 15 ECA-III.C.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls ....................................................................... 15

Western Central Atlantic (WECAF) .................................................................................... 16

WCA- III.C.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal........................... 16 WCA- III.C.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal............................. 16 WCA- III.C.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations ...................... 16 WCA- III.C.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls ..................................................................... 16

III.D. Recreational fisheries ................................................................................................. 17

North Sea (ICES areas IIIa, IV and VIId) & Eastern Arctic (ICES areas I and II) ......... 17 North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO) .............................................................. 17 Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea.................................................................................... 17 Inland waters, recreational fisheries on eel (Anguilla anguilla) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) .................................................................................................................... 21

III.E. Biology – Stock variables ........................................................................................... 27

North Sea (IIIa, IV and VIId) & Eastern Arctic (I and II) ................................................... 27

NS- III.E.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ............................... 27 NS- III.E.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal ................................. 28 NS- III.E.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations .......................... 28 NS- III.E.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls.......................................................................... 28

North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO) .................................................................. 28

NA- III.E.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal............................... 28 NA- III.E.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal ................................ 29 NA- III.E.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations.......................... 29 NA- III.E.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls ......................................................................... 29

Mediterranean Sea & Black Sea........................................................................................... 29

MED- III.E.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ........................... 29 MED- III.E.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal ............................. 29 MED- III.E.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations....................... 30 MED- III.E.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls...................................................................... 30

Indian Ocean (IOTC) ........................................................................................................... 30

IO- III.E.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ................................ 30 IO- III.E.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal .................................. 31 IO- III.E.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations ........................... 31 IO- III.E.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls. ......................................................................... 31

Eastern Central Atlantic (ICCAT)........................................................................................ 31

ECA-III.E.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ............................. 31 ECA-III.E.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal ............................... 32 ECA-II.E.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations.......................... 32 ECA-III.E.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls........................................................................ 32

Western Central Atlantic (WECAF) .................................................................................... 32

WCA- III.E.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ........................... 32 WCA- III.E.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal ............................. 32 WCA- II.E.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations........................ 32 WCA- III.E.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls ..................................................................... 32

Inland waters (eel and salmon)............................................................................................. 32

III.F. Transversal variables................................................................................................... 39

III.F.1 Capacity ....................................................................................................... 39 III.F.2 Effort ............................................................................................................ 39 III.F.3 Landings....................................................................................................... 42 III.F.4 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations ......................... 44

III.G. Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 45

III.G.1 Achievements: Results and deviation from the programme ................................ 45 III.G.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from the programme.................................... 52 III.G.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations ................................. 53 III.G.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls................................................................................. 53

IV. Module of evaluation of the economic situation of the aquaculture and processing industry sectors......................................................................................................................... 54

IV.A. Collection of economic data on aquaculture .............................................................. 54

IV.A.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ...................................... 54 IV.A.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal ........................................ 54 IV.A.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations ................................. 54 IV.A.4 Actions to remedy shortfall .................................................................................. 54

IV.B. Collection of processing sector data........................................................................... 55

IV.B.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal ...................................... 55 IV.B.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal ........................................ 55 IV.B.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations ................................. 58 IV.B.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls................................................................................. 58

V. Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem ........... 59

V.1. Indicator 1 – Conservation status of fish species Indicator 2 – Proportion of large fish Indicator 3 – Mean maximum length of fishes Indicator 4 – Size at maturation of exploited fish species ........................................................................................................... 59

V.2. Indicator 5 – Distribution of fishing activities Indicator 6 – Aggregation of fishing activities Indicator 7 – Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears....................... 59

V.3. Indicator 8 – Discarding rates of commercially exploited species............................... 61

V.4. Indicator 9 – Fuel efficiency of fish capture ................................................................ 61

VI. Module for management and use of data ........................................................................... 62

DCF Information System managed by the Directorate of Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture (DMFA)................................................................................................................................ 63

VII. Follow-up of STECF recommendations........................................................................... 66

VIII. List of acronyms and abbreviations................................................................................. 71

IX. Comments, suggestions and reflections ............................................................................. 72

X. References ........................................................................................................................... 73

XI. Annexes.............................................................................................................................. 74

I. General framework

The French national programme for the collection of basic fisheries data for the years 2009-2010 was defined under the terms of Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection and management of the data required for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy, and is supported by the implementing Commission Regulation (EC) 665/2008 of 14 July 2008 and Commission technical decision EC/949/2008 of 6 November 2008.

Reform of the regulation on data collection (the commonly used acronym for which is DCF, standing for Data Collection Framework” in 2008 led to highly significant changes in programming, the main instances of which are listed below:

- implementation of an information system for the collection of fisheries and aquaculture data at the national level in order to meet the requirements of the regulation in terms of access to databases, the securing of the latter and system automation for timely response to data calls,

- utilisation of a ranking system for the determination of the metiers to be sampled,

- integration of amphihaline species and economic data on aquaculture,

- integration of ecosystem indicators to be provided by processing of data collected under relevant DCF modules and which form part of the data collected under this regulation.

The programme carried out by France for the year 2010 thus corresponds to the second year of implementation of new Council Regulation (EC) no. 199/2008. The multi-annual National Programme (NP) 2009-2010 was accepted by DG Mare for the two years.

3

II. Organisation of the National Programme

II.A. Organisation and national coordination

II.A.1 National Correspondent

Valérie Dehaudt, Scientific Affairs Mission Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Directorate of Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture 3, Place de Fontenoy, 75007 Paris Tel.: +33 (0) 1 49 55 49 90 Fax: +33 (0) 1 49 55 82 00 Email: dcf.dpma@agriculture.gouv.fr National Correspondent: valerie.dehaudt@agriculture.gouv.fr Deputy to the National Coordinator: marie-benedicte.peyrat@agriculture.gouv.fr and pierre.verdier@agriculture.gouv.fr

II.A.2 Partner institutes

IFREMER Nantes Centre Rue de l'Île d'Yeu, BP 21105 44311 Nantes Cedex 5 Tel.: (33)02.40.37.42.39 (extension) 40.00 (switchboard) 4213 (fax) Email: christian.dintheer@ifremer.fr www.ifremer.fr

IFREMER is a contributor in the four regions in which France conducts fisheries activities, i.e. the North Sea and Eastern Arctic, North Atlantic, Mediterranean and ‘Other Regions’.

IFREMER contributes to the collection of data for the modules relating to economic data (execution of activity surveys), the collection of biological data (sampling at markets, at sea, during scientific campaigns), transversal data and ecosystem data (indicators deriving from campaigns, discard indicator, VMS, etc.) IRD UMR 212 – Exploited Marine Ecosystem Centre de Recherche Halieutique Méditerranéenne et Tropicale Centre for Mediterranean and Tropical Fisheries Research Avenue Jean Monnet - BP 171, 34 203 Sète Cedex FRANCE Switchboard: +33 (0) 4 99 57 32 00 Office: +33 (0) 4 99 57 32 54 Fax: +33 (0) 4 99 57 32 95 Email: Pierre.Chavance@ird.fr www.ird.fr, www.umr-eme.org, www.ot.ird.fr The IRD is a contributor in the other regions with regard to tropical tuna fisheries. The IRD contributes by gathering data for the collection of biological data (sampling of landings and transhipments, sea observers). The “Observatoire Thonier” in charge of this contribution to DCF is IS0 9001 certified since the January 12th 2009 for 3 years. LEMNA Institut d’Économie et de Management de Nantes – LAE (IEMN-LAE) Nantes Institute for Economics and Management

4

Chemin de la Censive du tertre, BP 52231, 44322 Nantes Cedex 3. Tel.: 02 40 14 17 38 Fax: 02 40 14 17 40 Yves.perraudeau@univ-nantes.fr, arnaud.souffez@univ-nantes.fr

LEMNA contributes through the collection of economic data for the North Sea and Atlantic, the Mediterranean and Other Regions (Réunion, French Guiana, etc.).

LEMNA is also responsible for the management of data collection in aquaculture.

FranceAgriMer Isabelle Le Moing and Alain Maillard Marchés Études et Prospective Markets, Studies and Foresight Analysis FranceAgriMer TSA 20002, 12, Rue Rol Tanguy, 93555 Montreuil Sous Bois. Switchboard: 01.73.30.37.00 Tel.: 01.73.30.37.16 Monique Meizels, Chef de projet Mail: isabelle.lemoing@franceagrimer.fr www.franceagrimer.fr

FranceAgriMer contributes to the collection of data on the processing industries.

ONEMA Office national de l’eau et des milieux aquatiques French national agency for water and aquatic environments "Le Nadar" Hall C, 5, Square Félix Nadar, 94300 Vincennes. Tel.: +33 (0) 1 45 14 36 00 caroline.penil@onema.fr and francois.gatel@onema.fr www.onema.fr

ONEMA contributes through the collection of data on inland waters.

FNPF Fédération nationale pour la pêche en France et la protection des milieux aquatiques National federation for fishing in France and the protection of aquatic habitats 17, Rue Bergère – 75009 PARIS – Tel. 01 48 24 96 00 – Fax 01 48 01 00 65 E-mail: fnpf@federationpeche.fr Claude Roustan: FNPF President Jérôme Guillouet: technical manager

FNPF works with ONEMA on the collection of data on inland waters.

II.A.3 National coordination

This year the DPMA has organised two coordination meetings:

5

- one took place in Toulouse on the 2nd and 3rd of February

- the other one took place in Nantes on the 9th and 10th of September

All partners attended the meetings. It was very useful to coordinate all the actions and to talk together about all the DCF issues in order to find the best solutions. The national correspondent wrote every time a report with the main subjects of the debates.

The national correspondent has suggested to the Commission to organise a meeting for all the national correspondents from the Member states in order to discuss about the difficulties of the DCF data collection.

II.B. Regional and International Coordination

II.B.1. Attendance at international meetings

Most of the planned meetings have been attended by French representation in 2010. French experts participated in some other eligible but not planned meetings according their availability. France attended the DCF coordination meetings for the North Sea and Eastern Arctic, North Atlantic (chair), Mediterranean and Black Sea regions and the new Long Distance Fisheries one. The meeting attendance is listed in table II.B.1.

DCF surveys are coordinated internationally by ICES planning groups or DCF ad’hoc groups for Mediterranean MEDITS and MEDIAS. The survey planning groups, which were relevant to France, were in 2010 attended by representatives from France, including for potential eligible surveys like Channel Ground Fish Survey (WGIBTS) and HORAGO survey in Bay of Biscay (WGBEAM).

France has made agreement on collection of biological sampling of landings, such as the Netherlands (pelagic trawling for small pelagics) and Ireland (demersal trawling). France applied also the multilateral agreement defined by RCM-Med&BS and PGMed on large pelagics sampling in the Mediterranean. Sole age-length keys are also coordinated under RCM-NS&EA umbrella and shared between France, UK and Belgium. These bi- or multilateral coordinations continued in 2010.

In the context of tropical tuna fisheries there is a close cooperation between IRD and IEO scientific staffs and this is reflected every year, since 2000, in a joint meeting of both institutes scientists, the venue for which alternates between France and Spain. In 2010, this meeting was held in France (5-9 April 2010). Such meetings provide an opportunity to address the European tropical tuna fleet as a whole, to review the main focal points for cooperation to be sustained and/or developed between the two institutes, in line with ICCAT and IOTC recommendations, as well as to define and prepare common European actions under the aegis of these two organisations. Sampling activities are conducted jointly using identical procedures and the data processing for both fleets use all the samples obtained. A bilateral agreement between IRD and IEO has been signed at the beginning of 2011.

Table II.B.1 does not summarize complete 2010 attendance of France to various other meetings, organized under RFMOs or EU umbrellas. Especially for STECF and its subgroups (SGRN, SGECA, SGMOS, SGMED…) where French experts contribute as independent ones. Ifremer and IRD experts also participated, supported financially by DPMA, more numerous in DCF eligible ICES WG and to various international meetings of ICCAT (Statistics, Ecosystem, Tropical Species and SCRS), of IOTC (WPEB, WPTT, WPDCS, Scientific Comittee) or of WECAFC and NAFO.

II B.2 Follow-up on regional and international recommendations

General recommendations made by RCM NS&EA, RCM NA, RCM Med&BS and RCM LDF and actions taken by France are listed in the relevant technical modules. Some are already applied : 2008 and 2009 recommendations on revisions marks to use to facilitate text modifications, 2008 and 2009 ones on metier naming and coding, 2008 metiers description, etc.

6

III. Module of evaluation of the fishing sector

III.A. General description of the fisheries sector

From the fisheries sectror description available in the NP proposal 2009-2010, there is no change reported in 2010 for the following areas :

• Areas I&II

• North Sea (IV) and Eastern Channel (VIId)

• Western Channel (VIIe)

• Irish Sea (VIIa)

• Celtic Sea (VIIfgh)

• West of Ireland (VIIbcjk)

• West of Scotland (VIa)

• Faeroe Islands (Vb) • Bay of Biscay (VIIIabde)

• WECAFC area -French Antilles and French Guiana

• NAFO area - Saint-Pierre et Miquelon

• Central East and West Atlantic (tunas fisheries)

• Indian Ocean - La Reunion Island

• Indian Ocean (tunas fisheries)

Noticeable changes occurring in 2010 and potentially affecting the sampling plans are :

• Mediterranean sea : a large decrease of catches of sardine (from 6000 to less than 1000 tons) made it difficult to reach the sampling objectives for this stock.

7

III.B. Economic variables

III.B.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

- Collection

The economic variables were collected in 2010 in accordance with the projected sampling plan.

The segmentation has been defined on the basis of the reference population at the end of 2009. The reference population per segments has been updated in the table III B1.

For the Atlantic-North Sea-Baltic and Mediterranean supra-regions, it was possible to collect these variables for all fleet segments except a few ones including a very small number of vessels. But those segments have then been clustered in order to produce indicators for the complete supra-regions (see table III B2).

Collection of economic data continued in some segments of the “Others” supra-region. Specifically: In 2010, LEMNA used RICEP [Réseau d’Informations et de Conseil en Économie des Pêches / Fisheries economic information and advisory network] and consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers Enterprises to collect economic data in French overseas départements (DOM), and more particularly to Réunion fishing vessels (12-24 metre longliners) and French Guiana (shrimp fisheries, data collected by consultants PWC Enterprises). For its part, PricewaterhouseCoopers approached one of the main owners of shrimping vessels based in Cayenne in French Guiana, and succeeded in collecting the data economic relating to the program 2010.

PWC also supplied complete data for the tropical seiner segment.

Production of the indicators Difficulties were still encountered for the production of certain variables, these being most notably:

Capital costs and Capital replacement values : the proposed PIM methodology in the capital valuation report of study No FISH/2005/03 has still to be validated (the Capital replacement values are only available for the vessels > 40m). Financial position. These difficulties related thus firstly to problems of definition and secondly to difficulties in collecting the data required for the calculation of the variables concerned.

III.B.2 Data quality: results and deviation from the National Programme

Actions have been carried out in order to assess and improve the quality of data. - Representativeness of the sample Comparisons have been made between the sample and the reference population on the average value and the distribution of the variables length and power in all segments, in order to detect possible bias. - Comparison with another source Variable value of landings: this variable has been estimated as well from the processing of data from logbooks and sales notes. Comparisons have been made between the results obtained from the economic sample and these sources. This has allowed to make a few corrections of data calculated from the samples. - Methodological work

8

The partners engaged in a major programme for in-depth consideration of the definitions of certain indicators required by the regulation. Most notably, assessment of fisheries capital value (historical capital value and replacement value) requires work to draw up a methodology appropriate to the sector. Similarly, annual depreciation (capital costs) and fisheries employment also requires considerable work.

The efforts were continued in 2010 to define a reliable method of quantifying these indicators. They will need to be extended into 2011.

Common work has been made also to cluster segments. Clustering has been made in some cases by grouping small segments (in terms of number of vessels) with “neighbour” segments, generally of the same gear (see table III B2).

III.B.3 Follow-up on regional and international recommendations

Nothing to report.

III.B.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

During the year 2010, the national working group, joining together the Ministry and the partners of the data acquisition, worked with the installation of a common methodology for the evaluation of the capital value and the associated depreciation. The results of this work could be applied for the program 2011.

The work consisted also in focus on the harmonisation of the methods for determination of employment, and determination of segment clustering.

The national working group will continue these methodological improvements during the 2011 programme.

Actions will be carried out also to improve the representativeness of samples in segments where the sample rate is still too low. Data collection should be extended to other fleet segments of the supra-region “others”.

9

III.C. Biology – metier-related variables

General considerations applicable to the North Sea & Eastern Arctic, North Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea regions

The codifications and conventions used for reporting are those provided by the 5th Liaison Meeting (Anonymous, 2009) and reviewed by the 6th Liaison meeting (Anomymous, 2010). The metiers to be sampled were selected using the ranking system described by Commission Decision EC/948/2008, section III B.B.1.3.(1)(b).

The sampling strategies for estimation of catch and discard volumes, plus their size and age structures for the metiers identified in Table III.C.1, are detailed in Table III.C.3. Table III.C.2 provides a comprehensive overview of the groupings and divisions applied to the metiers in 2010.

As for the 2009 programme, France continued on the path of high sampling effort in the collection of information based on observation at sea in order to fulfil its DCF obligations more effectively. This went further than required by the provisions of the DCF and included obligations under other regulations (812/2004, 2347/2002) for which protocols for the collection of information on board fishing vessels have been harmonised1. Where the DCF requires observation of metiers already identified under other regulations (midwater trawling, set nets), only a small number of trips corresponding to the minimum required by the DCF were proposed for co-financing by the latter. Naturally, all the trips observed by France will be made available to the scientific expert groups. For example, in Table III.C.5, the information on sizes generally includes all available trips irrespective of whether or not they were DCF-financed.

All efforts made in 2009 to improve data acquisition and quality, manage data flows to enhance data validation and archiving, and to make the information available for a range of uses were continued in 2010. In particular, a new tool (Allegro) for populating the information together with quality control rules and archiving in the Ifremer database Harmonie, was made available in mid-2010.

The increase in the volume of observations required a tool to be provided for monitoring the sampling plan in order to compare in real time what has been planned with what has been completed and to provide a warning if there is a serious shortfall or to allow adjustments to be made. In 2010, the Web application WAO (Web Applicatif Obsmer) was fully operational. This software allows the Obsmer sampling plan to be followed in detail all year long. A web connexion access has been given to all personnel contributing to observations on board professional vessels (Obsmer) from February 2010 for effective use from April 2010.

As provided in NP2009-2010, training sessions for observers at sea have been conducted (not under DCF funding). An extremely demanding procedure has been put in place to validate the information collected by subcontractors. This phase, which is considered to be crucial, has required more manpower than initially planned but it is expected that the Allegro tools currently under development for assisting data entry will allow the data capture and quality control burden to be lightened, starting with the operators themselves.

On shore, France has continued the 2009 modified sampling protocols in order to carry out concurrent sampling. Due to the difficulty of following scrupulously the plan for sampling at sea, it was judged that there were risks in putting in place a fully complementary sampling programme between observations at sea and on shore. A number of the metiers considered important for certain species/stocks were thus sampled both at sea and on shore. The use of COST tools in dedicated workshops (discard estimation, length/age structure estimation) allowed a choice to be made between the two data sources or even in some cases to combine them.

1 http://www.ifremer.fr/sih/affichagePageStatique.do?page=collecte_donnees/observations_mer/documentation/documentation_obsmer.htm

10

The combination of concurrent sampling on shore and at sea generated a large quantity of measurement data for numerous species/stocks (cf. Tables III.C.5 and III.C.6). The use of COST tools when raising data allowed both data sources to be exploited when that was possible or necessary for the preparation of the 2011 working groups.

North Sea (IIIa, IV and VIId) & Eastern Arctic (I and II)

NS- III.C.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

Sampling on shore:

Sampling at market followed the concurrent sampling procedure, with the exception of Boulogne-Sur-Mer where the market access conditions do not permit a time-intensive procedure of this kind. In Boulogne, sampling was therefore carried out by commercial category. The trawlers have not been sampled with the planned intensity – 28 trips vs 42, although the data collection was largely covered by the onboard observers. In total, 55 of the 74 market samples were achieved, giving a completion rate of 74% (slightly higher than in 2009).

Sea sampling:

Application of the “concurrent sampling” protocol involves sampling the discarded and retained fractions of the catch when a fishing operation has been selected for analysis. All G1, G2 and G3 species are included in this sampling. The level of observation compared with the projections for 2010 calls for the following comments:

• 24 trammel net trips (GTR_DEF_100-219_0_0) are considered to have been sampled according to the DCF, but many more (82) are available for scientific analysis, these having been financed under other projects.

• The various bottom trawl metiers were largely monitored (108 trips for 44 planned), compensating the low on-shore sampling.

• The beam trawl metier (TBB_DEF_80-99_0_0) was not sufficiently sampled but it should be pointed out that RCM NS&EA 2009 noted that the more substantial sampling achieved by Belgium in the same areas could if necessary be used by France.

In total, 158 trips were sampled at sea for 68 planned, corresponding to more than doubling the initial target.

NS- III.C.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

It was possible to estimate precision levels for the main species and metiers at a dedicated workshop using COST tools. Other studies have been done (but are not detailed in this report) on the 2010 sampling achievements with a view to the preparation of 2011 sampling programme, and these show that 30 to 50 trips per metier are necessary to obtain a CV of 20% for the species of interest for each metier. These results were presented at WKMERGE (January 2010) and the various RCMs since France does not wish to continue sea sampling at levels of intensity that do not permit satisfactory scientific use of the data collected. These points, which were included in the National Programme 2011-2013, were discussed at RCMs in 2010.

At WKFLAT 2010, an attempt to estimate plaice discards was made by grouping the data from the three countries with coastlines on the Eastern Channel (France, Belgium and UK). This exercise was not conclusive due to the insufficient number of samples in the historical series. A further attempt will be made in 2011 based on modelling to see whether an improvement in the quality of raised data can be obtained.

NS- III.C.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

RCM recommendation Action taken

11

RCM NS&EA recommends France and Belgium to submit discard data of North Sea cod and whiting to WGNSSK.

Done

RCM NS&EA recommends MS to provide an overview of their inland sampling of the recreational fishery on eel.

RCM NS&EA recommends MS to use the average landing figures over the years 2007-2008 as the basis for ranking métiers within the NP 2011-2013

Done

OTM_SPF_32-69_0_0 & PTM_SPF_32-69_0_0: The RCM NS&EA recommends that France and The Netherlands should formalise a bilateral agreement for sampling the landings, as the majority of French catches is taken by Dutch crews operating on French flag vessels and landing in The Netherlands.

Done in the NP proposal 2011-2013

NS DRB_MOL_0_0_0: The RCM NS&EA recommends France to implement a similar programme as the UK in order to compare the results, and recommends France and UK to elaborate a working document summarising the outcomes of previous sampling programmes on discard rates by dredgers.

9 trips were observed at sea in 2010 following this recommendation

NS- III.C.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

The software WAO-OBSVENTES was developed for real-time monitoring of shore sampling, emulating what exists for at-sea sampling. The tool is available for the 2011 sampling programme. The French sampling is largely based now on at-sea sampling more than on-shore sampling and this will continue as it is proved to be much more effective to collect information at sea. The RCM NS&EA in 2010 has called for on-shore sampling of metiers not sampled at-sea, and this is what is programmed in the years 2011 to 2013.

North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO)

NA- III.C.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

Shore sampling:

Sampling at market followed the concurrent sampling procedure in virtually all markets. Samples dedicated to certain stocks were added in order to continue at a similar level of intensity as in previous years in the case of stocks for which there was a risk of fewer measurement data with the new protocol instituted by the new DCF.

Concerning the execution of the planned actions for 2010, the following comments can be made:

• Metiers GNS_DEF_>=220_0_0 (all areas), GTR_DEF_100-119_0_0 (VIIe) and OTM_SPF_32-54_0_0 (VIII) received no samples in 2010, but the total number of trips sampled was covered by on-board sampling.

• Metier LLS_DEF_0_0_0 in area VI received no samples in 2010. It is worth noting that the most recent estimate of the fishing effort of this metier stands at 41 trips in 2010, which is a very low figure in the context of planning field sampling and accessing catches or contributions to catches.

• Metier GTR_DEF_100-119_0_0 (VIIe) did not receive the numbers of samples planned in the programme, but the total number of trips sampled was covered by on-board sampling.

• Metier PTM_SPF_32-54_0_0 (VIII) did not receive the numbers of samples planned in the programme, and the total number of trips sampled was not entirely covered by on-board sampling. This metier was affected by the anchovy closure in Bay of Biscay since several

12

years and the opening of fishing in 2010 was yet hypothetical at the beginning of the year. Implementing again sampling requires some months to run in.

• All the other scheduled metiers were sampled in accordance with the programme, or in excess of what was planned in the National Programme 2010.

• In total, 556 market sampling operations were conducted for 422 planned. It is worth noting that among the extra operations many were directed at sampling specific stocks (sole VIIIab notably).

Sea sampling:

Concurrent sampling involves sampling the discarded and retained fractions when a fisheries operation has been selected for sampling. All G1, G2 and G3 species are included. The following comments can be made for the actions conducted in 2009:

• Metier OTB/OTT_CRU_70-99_0_0 (VIIbck) received no samples in 2010. It should be noted that this metier was hardly present in 2010 (12 trips), making it quasi impossible to find boarding opportunities.

• All the other scheduled metiers were sampled in accordance with the programme, or in excess of what was planned in the National Programme 2010.

• In total, more than 300 trips were sampled at sea for 173 planned, to which it is necessary to add all the trips financed under other regulations (deep fisheries, marine mammal observations). Numbers of samples for deep fisheries, the pelagic trawl metiers and net metiers are therefore more numerous than those detailed in the DCF. It should be remembered that all data collected by France will be open to access for scientific analysis.

NA- III.C.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

It was possible to make estimates of precision for the main species and metiers at a dedicated workshop using COST tools. Other studies have been done (but are not detailed in this report) on the 2010 sampling achievements with a view to the preparation of 2011 sampling programme, and these show that 30 to 50 trips per metier are necessary to obtain a CV of 20% for the species of interest for each metier. These results were presented at WKMERGE (January 2010) and the various RCMs since France does not wish to continue sea sampling at levels of intensity that do not permit satisfactory scientific use of the data collected. These points, which were included in the National Programme 2011-2013, were discussed at RCMs in 2010.

The software WAO-OBSVENTES was developed for real-time monitoring of shore sampling, emulating what exists for at-sea sampling. The tool is available for the 2011 sampling programme. The French sampling is largely based now on at-sea sampling more than on-shore sampling and this will continue as it is proved to be much more effective to collect information at sea. The RCM NS&EA in 2010 has called for on-shore sampling of metiers not sampled at-sea, and this is what is programmed in the years 2011 to 2013.

NA- III.C.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

RCM recommendation Action taken

RCM NA urges onboard observers to sample maturity of blue ling.

This recommendation was included in tasks and protocols to carry out on board vessels targeting blue ling.

To ensure that all Member States’ National Programmes for 2011-13 take account of the outcomes from WKMERGE, RCM NA 2009 recommends that all MS contribute to the

Done

13

workshop and ensure that their participants are able to carry out the required preparatory work.

UK and France to investigate discarding rates of Group 1 and Group 2 species within the etier DRB_MOL_0_0_0 in Western Channel.

2 trips were sampled at sea in 2010. The results will be brought to RCM NA 2011.

NA- III.C.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

A quality-focused approach is being developed by Ifremer in order to monitor more effectively the execution of biological sampling plans. The protocols are now available on line at http://www.ifremer.fr/sih and numerous tools are in their implementation phase (data entry assistance by means of the Allegro tool, assistance in estimation and analysing the efficiency of sampling plans (an application of the COST tool)). See also the general considerations on sea observations at the beginning of section III.C.

Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea

MED- III.C.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

Shore sampling:

Sampling is carried out at market in accordance with the usual procedures, and on landing for vessels under 12 metres (cf. “Transversal Variables” for more details on the sampling of landings). The samples were taken proportionally to the actual trips, and this may explain slight differences between the planned and the realised sampling.

Sea sampling:

In GSA 7, only nine demersal trawl trips were sampled in the beginning of the year, to which should be some trips sampled under other regulations and which will be made available for scientific analysis. For the other quarters, observers could not embark on board all continental Mediterranean professional vessels because of administrative problems concerning safety reasons (no more ad’hoc certificates delivered to vessel owners).

Taking in account SGRN-10-02 and DG Mare comments on French AR 2009, France highlights that the monitoring of netters targeting spiny lobster (Palinurus elephas) in Corsica (GSA 8) was pursued in 2010 as since the 80s, but under regional and not DCF funding. 120 trips of the most important metier off the island were sampled by observers at sea and data will be available to GFCM and EU working groups as needed.

MED- III.C.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

It was possible to estimate precision for main species and metiers at a dedicated workshop and using COST tools. Every year, the sampling plan is revised to reflect the most actual fisheries behaviour.

MED- III.C.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

RCM recommendation Action taken

The RCM-Med&BS recommends that all MS should follow strictly the naming conventions for reporting the sampling and statistics information. The SGRN Guidelines for NP proposals should be revised in order to ensure unambiguous coding of the metiers and fishing grounds and to stress the importance to adhere to these rules.

Done

In the NP proposals, a short description of all metiers selected Not all metiers were described in

14

by the 90% ranking procedure should be provided. Such a table would enable RCM to identify whether a métier with the same name covers the same or different fisheries in different NP. Moreover, the RCM-Med&BS recommends MS to investigate on the mesh size or gear sizes ranges actually used in their fisheries, especially for nets and hooks, and to provide information during the next PGMed meeting, for a possible agreement of size ranges at level 6.

2010. It is planned to complement all missing metiers in 2011.

The RCM-Med&BS recommends Member States to provide landings and effort data according to the fishing grounds at the GSA level instead of the landing places.

Done

The RCM-Med&BS recommends Member States involved in metier “Purse seine for large pelagics” (especially for bluefin tuna) to establish agreements concerning the biological sampling of caged fish and to provide them in their NP.

France included the multi-lateral agreement in its NP 2011-2013.

MED- III.C.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

A quality-focused approach is being developed by Ifremer in order to monitor more effectively the execution of biological sampling plans. The protocols are now available on line at http://www.ifremer.fr/sih and numerous tools are in their implementation phase (data entry assistance by means of the Allegro tool, assistance in estimation and analysing the efficiency of sampling plans (an application of the COST tool). See also the general considerations on sea observations at the beginning of section III.C.

On other hand, sampling in Corsica (GSA8) will be included officially in the French NP 2011-2013 and would profit from DCF financial support. The three regional main metiers (netters, offshore trawlers and large pelagics longliners) will be observed at sea, by implementing the national Obsmer protocol.

Indian Ocean (IOTC)

IO- III.C.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

Purse seine on shore sampling:

The purse seine fishery in the Indian Ocean has decreased its effort because of piracy risks in this ocean. Five fishing vessels returned to the Atlantic Ocean in 2009. The total number of trips was 112 compared to the 180 for the reference period. The sampling coverage reached 82 % of trips.

Purse seine observer programme:

The observer program in the Indian Ocean had to be stopped for security reasons in mid 2009. In 2010, soldiers were embarked onboard insuring security but room for observers was no more available. For this reason the seeked trip coverage (11 trips) was not reached (1 trip).

Longline sea observations:

Piracy occurring mainly north of Madagascar, the observer program on longliner was not affected and reached the seeked coverage of 10 trips achieving coverage of 5 %.

IO- III.C.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

It was not possible in 2010 to estimate CV for length sampling. Data transfer from IRD databases to COST format was tested successfully at the end of the year and COST tools will be used in 2011 to estimate CV associated with length composition (see chapter VI).

15

IO- III.C.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

IOTC recommends a minimum 5 % coverage that has not been possible to reach in 2010 for purse seiners (see above).

IO- III.C.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

Seiner Observer Programme:

The observer program on purse seiners has been started again in 2011 based on two initiatives:

• a new agreement with TAAF administration in charge of monitoring fisheries in The Eparses Islands permits embarking TAAF observers in order to collect data using IRD data collection protocol

• the introduction of 3 new and large vessels in the fishery through SAPMER operator allows embarking observers on these vessels.

Eastern Central Atlantic (ICCAT)

ECA-III.C.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

Purse seine land sampling:

The purse seine fishery in the Atlantic Ocean has increased its effort because of the arrival of five fishing vessels returned from the Indian Ocean in 2009. The total number of trips was 70 compared to the 55 for the reference period. The coverage reached 96 % of trips.

The statistical system for monitoring “trash fish” landed in the port of Abidjan is continuing without any particular problem. The setting up of a weighbridge has made a significant improvement in the quality of weighing, weight having been previously estimated by eye. Disturbance occurred during the end of the year due to political instability and slowed down vessel landing activities in Abidjan. All the data collected since 1982 under the present framework have been computerised in 2009 and have been presented in 2010 to ICCAT meeting (SCRS-2010-140). A scientific paper has been also presented at the ICES symposium on Fishery Dependent Information (Ireland, August 2010).

Purse seine observer programme:

The observer program on purse seiners in the Atlantic Ocean performed well. The achieved trips coverage slightly exceeded the 10 % required suggested by ICCAT. The effort transfer from Indian Ocean to Atlantic Ocean was agreed by the 2010 RCM LDF meeting. Data collected by the observer program (2008 and 2009) were presented to Ecosystem sub committee of ICCAT in 2010.

Pole and Line sampling

The pole and line fishery in the Atlantic Ocean has decreased its effort. The total number of trips was 11 in 2010 compared to the 32 for the reference period. All trips were sampled.

ECA-III.C.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP

It was not possible in 2010 to estimate CV for length sampling. Data transfer from IRD databases to COST format was tested successfully at the end of the year and COST tools will be used in 2011 to estimate CV associated with length composition (see chapter VI).

ECA-III.C.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

The 10 % effort coverage for observer program promoted by ICCAT has been reached

ECA-III.C.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

Nothing to report.

16

Western Central Atlantic (WECAF)

WCA- III.C.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

In this region, the shrimps Penaeus subtilis and P. brasiliensis and the southern red snapper Lutjanus purpureus have been routinely sampled for more than 30 years. Length structures are provided regularly to FAO working groups. It should also be noted that the other Lutjanus species landed by Venezuelan liners are also sampled for size.

In connection with French Guiana SIH and additional Obsdeb sampling for the collection of transversal variables, landings of main commercial species targeted by coastal fisheries are also regularly sampled for length. This issue is considered as first interest at the level of the Guiana-Brazil shelf and the data collected are made available to WECAFC working groups.

WCA- III.C.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

Nothing to report.

WCA- III.C.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

Nothing to report.

WCA- III.C.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

Nothing to report.

17

III.D. Recreational fisheries

Commission Decision 949/2008 provides for the estimation by weight of the volumes of recreational catches for certain species of significance in the regions concerned as listed in Appendix IV. The species relevant to France are: cod and eel in the North Sea and Eastern Channel (IV, VIId), seabass, salmon and eel in the North Atlantic (in actual fact Western Channel and Bay of Biscay – VIIe, VIIIab) plus bluefin tuna and eel in the Mediterranean.

III.D - All maritime regions (North Sea, North Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea)

North Sea (ICES areas IIIa, IV and VIId) & Eastern Arctic (ICES areas I and II)

North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO)

Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea

Preliminary comment: France did not carry out any study on eel in marine waters, considering RCMs recommendations (RCM NS&EA 2009, RCM NA 2009 and RCM Med&BS 2010) recognising that such recreational fisheries are insignificant in EU marine waters.

III.D.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the Eastern Channel and North Sea

The numbers of fishermen were estimated in the 2006-2008 national survey. According to professional opinion polls institutes (one of which partnered the study), these figures remain valid for three to four years. They have therefore been reused for updating catch figures for 2009. Individual data (yield, species, percentage of fishermen on board and in port, etc.) have been updated based on new on-site surveys.

It should be remembered that recreational fishing for cod, whose distribution in the Eastern Channel can be seen as an offshoot of the resident stock in the North Sea, is carried out over a limited portion of the coastline from the Seine estuary to the Belgian border, and especially between Boulogne and Dunkirk (cf. Ifremer pilot study 2007). The 2009 update therefore involved a repeat of the interviewing of recreational fishermen at the locations identified in 2007.

Summary of the 2009 results:

Regarding the 2009 update (cf. French AR 2009), 171 interviews on sites were carried out 2009 in the main harbours visited by recreational fishermen over five weekends in November and December. 84% of all anglers declared that they had made at least one catch, but only 4% were fishing for cod. The yield per fishing trip with a cod catch was 84% of all anglers declared that they had made at least one catch, but only 4% were fishing for cod. The yield per fishing trip with a cod catch was 2.7 kg when fishing from a boat and 1.6 kg when fishing from the shore: The average annual yield per fisherman was respectively 8.4 kg (boat fishing) and 6.5 kg (shore fishing), all trips taken into account (with or without catch of cod). Raised to the regional fishermen population, the annual recreational cod catch was estimated around 57 tonnes taking as a basis the fishing population as estimated in 2005 and 42.5 tonnes on the basis of the fishing population as estimated in 2006. However, the confidence intervals are very wide: 261% for boat fishing and 197% for shore fishing.

The catch estimates, in the region of 50 tonnes of cod per year, were lower than in the past. In 2007, catches were estimated at between 50 and 150 tonnes. But they confirmed that recreational cod fishing is not only highly localised along the French coastline in the Nord-Pas de Calais strait (at the border between VIId and IVC), but also that it is of marginal importance in comparison with the regional professional catch and the recreational fisheries developed in other North sea countries. Costs to evaluate cod catch were also fairly substantial given the fact that recreational anglers targeting cod are

18

few in number and difficult to find on sites or through phone surveys. Therefore France asked for a derogation for 2010, but DGMare did not grant it.

Evaluation of catch of cod by recreational fishermen in 2010:

A new study has been displayed in December 2010 and January 2011. It considered a telephone survey targeting the cod recreational fishermen over 15 years-old in the Eastern Channel and North Sea. 5024 households living in 7 coastal French departments (from West to North-East respectively Manche, Calvados, Eure, Seine Maritime, Somme, Pas-de-Calais and Nord) were interviewed.

In these departments, a mean of 0.9% of the household presents at least one cod recreational fisherman and 0.6% of the inhabitants is a cod recreational fisherman. Thus, it has been estimated that the population of potential cod recreational fishermen in the region is around 34 to 35000 individuals.

They principally use the fishing rod (78%) followed by the trolling line (17%), longline (4%) and nets (1%). Recreational fishermen use a mean of 1.4 different fishing gears for targeting cod. There is no obvious preference for the use of baits or not, since 45% of fishermen use a living bait while 49% use a lure. 25% of the cod fishermen have a boat for fishing, representing 8600 fishermen for this coastal area.

The mean number of fishing trips per year is of 13.2, representing a total of 451,071 fishing trips for all these coastal departments.

There is a seasonality of the cod recreational fishing: the winter period is characterised by a limited number of practices, while the fishing practice begins in April, with the highest activity in July, regularly decreasing after that. Few others species are caught during trips targeting cod, namely seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), mackerel (Scomber scombrus) and pollack (Pollachius pollachius). It has been estimated that around 16% of catches are released to the sea.

As a conclusion, 36% of the cod fishermen are occasional, displaying less than 4 fishing trips per year; 37% are regular, with between 4 and 15 fishing trips per year and 26% are highly regular fishers, displaying at least 15 fishing trips per year.

Cod catches are also variable: 40% of the fishermen declare less than 5 cod caught during a year, and 33% consider that they catch more than 16 cods per year.

Despite all this new information collected in 2010, the difficulty for estimating the total annual recreational catch of cod by recreational fisheries remains always the same since 2006-2007: how to estimate with enough precision the number of fishermen really targeting cod and how to raise the data collected ? Combining the various data sources is difficult because of uncertainties on their quality and relevance, knowing that :

- on the population of fishermen declaring by phone interview to target cod (34000 fishermen), only 40% of them have really fished in the areas where cod is available to recreational fishermen,

- the fishing seasonality for cod is strong and best yields got in winter, when most recreational fishermen are inactive,

- the yield per trip a significantly different between boat-trips and shore-trips,

- the mean weights of cod caught by fishermen operating from a boat or by those fishing from the shore are very different, respectiviley 1.3 kg and 0.3 kg (pilot study 2007),

- phone surveys require to simplify answers by well understanding proposals, without asking each time all the useful data at the relevant scales (when exactly, where exactly, with what type of gear, from a boat or not, targeting which species exactly, for which results in terms of species-weight-size-number, etc…).

In fact cod in VIId/IVc illustrated again in 2010 the difficulty to raise weak numbers of samples to a reduced and not well-defined population or to a smaller part of the region covered. Combining all data collected does not give enough information for focusing on small geographical strata and to allow to

19

provide estimates with statistically based procedures. By using all information collected since 2006 at trip and fisherman levels, a very rough estimate of the catch of cod by French recreational fisheries in VIId and IVC coastal areas should be between 63 and 126 tons per year, without any estimate of the precision level. This bracket in volume remains nevertheless consistent with previous estimates provided in 2007 and 2009 annual reports.

European Seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in the English Channel and the Atlantic

Method:

The national study of recreational fisheries conducted over the period 2006 to 2008 (a combination of telephone and on field surveys in different seasons of the year) has shown that seabass is the leading species of fish targeted by recreational anglers, essentially on the English Channel-Atlantic coasts. In order to refine the evaluation of recreational catches of seabass, the method adopted from 2009 is to combine a telephone survey with fishing log-books, focusing on coastal regions. This approach is in line with the recommendations of the WKSMRF workshop (Nantes, 2009). The telephone survey was carried out with seabass anglers in French administrative departments on the Channel and Atlantic coasts. Fishing log-books were completed by volunteers recruited during the telephone survey. A telephone survey enables the numbers of recreational anglers and their fishing methods to be estimated. The logs enable much more detailed information to be gathered on catches (species, number of fish, length, weight). Combining the two sets of data obtained in this way should thus allow the results to be raised at the population or region levels and catch estimates obtained as required by the DCF at the desired spatial scales.

The telephone survey was carried out in two waves (June 2009 and November 2009). Collection of log-books was then effective during one whole year, until the end of 2010.

Telephone survey results:

The 2009 phone survey provided an estimate of the number of fishermen targeting seabass off English Channel and Atlantic coasts, setting their number at 230,000 (378,500 for the whole French mainland). The main fishing modes are boat fishing (46%) and shore fishing (43%), spearfishing being declared in 11% of cases. The most frequent gear references are to the fishing rods (63%), trolling lines (20%), nets (7%), speargun (4%) and longlines (2%). The attractant most often used was the lure (51%), followed by live bait (36%). 11% of anglers use neither lure nor bait.

45% of all recreational fishermen own a boat that is used for fishing, giving an approximate total of 103,000 boat owners in the covered coastal regions. It was observed that fishing is mainly practised in the department/district of residence.

On average, anglers make 24 fishing trips a year (20% make 1 to 3 trips, 45% 4 to 15 trips and 35% more than 16 trips). The fishing effort is seasonal marked with a distinct spread of trips over the months December to February and a peak in the number of trips in August.

Interviewed by telephone, 45% of fishermen stated that they make less than five catches of seabass a year. An average of 23% of catches is returned to the sea.

Log-books results:

A total of 15 090 households living along the French coasts of English Channel and Atlantic was randomly sampled in June and November 2009. Among these ones, 256 fishers were volunteers to be part of a panel. They had to fulfil a fishing diary during a year. These diaries were checked every 3 months during the 1-year survey.

A total of 1190 fishing trips were recorded, thanks to 190 fishers giving at least 1 fishing logbook during the survey. 68 fishers belonging to the panel did not fulfilled any logbook despite their volunteer action.

Concerning fishing effort, results provided by the panel are:

20

- three coastal departments were particularly active through recreational fishing activities: Finistère, Morbihan and Manche.

- the seabass recreational fishing season is high between May and September, while this activity is continue during the whole year.

- in July, 52% of the recreational fishermen go fishing at least one time. This value decreases regularly in August (45%), September (39%)…until February (1%). However, August was the month when fishermen most go fishing, with a mean of 1.9 fishing trip this month per fisherman. During the cold season, meaning October to April, each fisherman goes fishing less than 1 time per month.

- the average number of fishing trips per month per recreational fisherman is 0.81, leading to a total of 2 177 378 fishing trips made over the year by their whole population. The mean duration of a trip was evaluated at about 3.3 hours.

- around half of the panel fishermen go fishing by boat, since 47% of them fish from the shore, while 53% fished from a boat.

- various fishing gears are used. Rods with lure represent 40% of used gears, followed by rods with living bait (23%). Nets and spearfishing are less used, while nets represent 8% of the used gears and harpoon 4%. Flyfishing is rarely used and represents around 0.2% of the fishing gears targeting seabass.

Concerning catches, results provided by the panel are:

- 40% of the fishing trips are characterised by the catch of at least one seabass. However, in half cases, a caught sea bass is released to the sea. Finally, the proportion of fishing trips leading to the catch and sampling of at least one seabass was of 30%.

- all over the year, a mean of 1.2 seabass is caught per fishing trip and 0.6 is effectively kept and landed. However, the highest value of the year is registered in January, with 1.7 seabass per fishing trip. This also corresponds to the lowest value of kept fishes, with a mean of 0.3 kept fish per fishing trip per fisherman.

- big ranges of weights and lengths are registered in catches. The greatest proportion of seabass catches concerned individuals of about 500 g to 1 kg, representing 35% of the caught individuals. This proportion decreases while the mean weight of the fish increases, and largest fish, heavier than 2 kg, represent only 8% of the catches. The kept seabass display an equivalent pattern. Only 10% of small seabass (under 500 g) are kept while around 30% of fishes weighting between 500 g and 1.5 kg are landed by fishermen.

- the mean weight of caught seabass is estimated at 943 g and the mean length at 37.6 cm (minimum landing size is 36 cm). The mean weight of a kept seabass is 1.25 kg and its length is 46.3 cm.

- smallest fishes are caught in the greatest proportion. 28% of the catches are composed of fish of less than 30 cm. However, only 4% of such small fishes are kept by fishermen. The greatest proportion of fish kept by fishermen are those measuring between 36 to 42 cm (28%).

Finally, an extrapolation at the national level was made thanks to data provided by phone surveys and the fishermen panel, considering also the numbers of fishermen in whole France stratified by their fishing behaviour. The recreational catch of seabass is estimated at around 2375 tons for fishermen operating along the English Channel an Atlantic coasts, plus 1220 tons for the rest of France. Thus, a volume of 3595 tons of seabass is considered to be caught by all French recreational fishermen, of which around 2360 tons are landed, the other part (very often fish alive) being released at sea.

Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in the Mediterranean

Method:

21

All recreational fishermen in France have to report officially their bluefin tuna catches to the DPMA (Directorate for Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture) since 2009. The preliminary results presented concern the 2010 recreational fishing activity in the Mediterranean Sea.

2010 catch estimate:

In 2010 in France, a total of 616 recreational fishermen have reported bluefin tuna catches.

The mean length of caught tunas is of 137.2 cm. The smallest one measured 115 cm and the longest one 247 cm. The mean weight of a caught bluefin tuna was of 44.17 kg. The smallest one was of 20 kg and the biggest one of 203 kg.

Based on the declarative data, the estimate of the total production of bluefin tuna caught by recreational fishermen in GSAs 7 and 8 is about 27 tons in 2010. This catch level is consistent with those evaluated for last years. It shows however a slight increase in the volume caught, surely due to the efficiency of the official monitoring system implemented in 2009 allowing to included in the census more individual fishermen and not only those participating in sport-fishing associations.

III.D.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

The validated combination of a (telephone-based) approach based on socio-demographic criteria applied to the monitored households or fishermen populations with assistance from a specialist opinion polls institute (BVA) for cross-correlation of interviews and log-books provided by the panel of active fishermen guarantee the statistical quality of the extrapolations carried out subsequently. This cooperation between Ifremer and BVA has already proven its worth in the 2006-2008 national survey, while at the same time showing that there are avenues for further improvement and research with regard to the raising of data from small samples.

III.D.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

The 2009 WKSMRF workshop recommendations on the sampling methods applicable to recreational fisheries were applied, particularly for the redefinition of the methodological approach used for estimating seabass catches in the Atlantic region.

France did not carry out any study on eel in marine waters, considering RCMs recommendations (RCM NS&EA 2009, RCM NA 2009 and RCM Med&BS 2010) recognising that such recreational fisherie are insignificant in EU marine waters and then referring to the irrelevance of sampling marine recreational eel fisheries which are not really a real targeted practice.

III.D.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

The work on seabass has lead to a full set of results at the end of the 2010 programme, as planned for the 2009-2010 period. The same strategy will be pursued during the 2011-2013 NP.

The issue of the scientific interest of annual monitoring of recreational fishermen targeting cod in the Pas-de-Calais micro-region is once again debatable given the limited volumes of the catches and the cost of the surveys (an expense of €0.80 per kg of cod). Therefore France proposed in its 2011-2013 NP an update only every three years for cod in eastern English Channel. This proposal was accepted by DG Mare and the next evaluation of the cod catch by recreational fishermen is planned in 2012.

The new monitoring system implemented at national level for bluefin tuna gives assurance to make the required data on recreational catches available.

III.D - Inland Waters

Inland waters, recreational fisheries on eel (Anguilla anguilla) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)

III.D.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

22

Monitoring of salmon angling catches was conducted on the basis of a collaborative effort between ONEMA (Office National de l’Eau et des Milieux Aquatiques/French Agency for water and aquatic environments) and the FNPF (Fédération Nationale pour la Pêche en France/National Federation for fishing in France).

Regular monitoring is provided throughout the fishing season by centralising in a national database the catch declarations made by anglers in areas subject to TAC provisions (Total Allowable Catch). These declarations specify catch length, weight, date and place for individual fish accompanied by a fish scale sample for age determination.

Table IW-III.D.1: FNPF achievements for 2010 – Salmon

Planned operation Completion Comments

Fishing effort Total Provided by the number of migratory fish CPMA [Cotisation pour les milieux aquatiques / Subscription for aquatic habitats] subscriptions paid per département. Estimated by logbook of angler returned to ONEMA’s catch interpretation centre.

Production of kits to accompany salmon catch declaration documents

Total

Distribution of kits accompanying salmon catch declaration documents

Total 31 local Federations supplied + ONEMA’s catch interpretation centre. Each local Federation has distributed these kits to the relevant depositaries.

ONEMA-FNPF collaboration on catch data returns

Total Management of post-prepaid returns. Circulation of interim results back to local Federations.

Feedback of information to anglers

On-going Analysis of 2009 data is on-going and this does not permit finalisation of the communication of information to anglers. This operation is necessary to ensure that declarations continue to be made over the long term.

Compensation of depositaries

On-going Those depositaries that have returned data on catches have been identified and the numbers of catches reported by them have been calculated. This information is used to determine allocation of compensation. Payment will be made in the very near future through the local anglers’ federations.

Alongside this, a field survey by ONEMA staff provides an estimate of the bias due to undeclared catches of individual fish (cf. Table IW-III.D.2).

23

Table IW-III.D.2 : Overview of the salmon fishing season 2010

Angling catches CATCHES TAC

declared (N) estimated (N) target (N) Take-up (%) RIVERS MSW Total MSW 1SW Total MSW Total

eggs 103 MSW Global

CANCHE 0 0 0 General estimate 5 - - - -

AUTHIE Total for Artois-Picardy BRESLE 1 1 2 - - - 2 - - - ARQUES 3 7 10 - - - 2 - - - TOUQUES 2 3 5 2 3 5 2 - 100% 50% VIRE 0 4 4 0 5 5 2 22 0% 62% SAIRE 0 16 16 1 22 23 3 39 33% 175% SIENNE 10 15 25 26 50 76 34 480 76% 75% SEE – SELUNE 33 294 327 46 500 546 105 1474 44% 120% COUESNON 10 16 26 20 15 35 12 255 167% 84% Total for Normandy 59 356 415 95 595 690 162 2271 68% 128% LEFF 2 13 15 4 13 17 9 190 44% 37% TRIEUX 8 34 42 12 34 46 31 699 39% 28% JAUDY+GUINDY 1 14 15 1 14 15 19 432 5% 11% LEGUER 14 51 65 42 51 93 41 921 102% 55% DOURON 4 16 20 4 16 20 18 397 22% 20% QUEFFLEUTH 2 4 6 2 4 6 6 141 33% 20% PENZE 5 32 37 5 32 37 16 303 31% 43% ABER-ILDUT 0 9 9 0 9 9 7 150 - 16% ABER-WRACH 0 9 9 0 9 9 6 141 - 17% ELORN 23 39 62 28 39 67 28 617 100% 57% MIGNONNE+CAMFROUT+FAOU 5 2 7 5 2 7 13 279 38% 17% AULNE 14 29 43 14 29 43 44 987 32% 20% Total for North Brittany 78 252 330 117 252 369 238 5262 49% 32% GOYEN 1 104 105 8 104 112 13 285 62% 124% ODET+STEIR+JET 4 19 23 9 19 28 64 1415 14% 9% AVEN 10 17 27 10 17 27 26 499 38% 27% ELLE+ISOLE+LAITA 17 214 231 17 214 231 91 2026 19% 36% SCORFF 3 57 60 3 57 60 33 736 9% 25% BLAVET 11 75 86 12 77 89 40 884 30% 36% Total for South Brittany 46 486 532 59 488 547 267 5848 22% 32% Total for Western Region 183 1094 1277 271 1335 1606 667 13383 43% 48% GAVE OLORON 57 16 73 68 18 86 GAVE MAULEON 8 0 8 8 1 9 NIVE 1 3 4 2 3 5 Total Aquitaine 66 19 85 78 22 100

Total National 249 1113 1362 364 1472 1841

Net catches in ADOUR-GAVES River

Net fishing 43 24 67 Estuary

Net fishing 405 170 575 Sea

24

amateur nc nc nc professional 350 150 500

Total 43 24 67 755 320 1075 TOTAL GLOBAL 292 1137 1429 1104 1677 2786

25

Table IW-III.D.3: Fishing log results for the 2010 season

2010 Season Atlantic Salmon Sea Trout Number of hours 7954.0 1574.0 Number of anglers 60 20 Number of catches 108 69 Catch per angler 1.80 3.45 Max. fishing effort per angler (hrs/angler) 504 269 Number > 300 hours 7 0 Max. catch per angler 9 15 Number of anglers w/o catches 25 7 Number of trips 1893 608 Number of trips per angler 32 30 Average trip duration 4.2 3 Mean effort per angler 133 79 % anglers exceeding 300 hours 12% 0% Max. number of fish per trip 2 4 % anglers without catches 42% 35%

CPUE* SALMON ONLY

Month Nb catches Nb hours Hours/catchJanuary 0 0.0 February 0 0.0 March 6 1 140.0 190 April 5 1501.0 300 May 5 1 470.5 294 June 10 1 094.5 109 July 20 1 094.0 55 August 31 737.5 24 September 22 665.0 30 October 9 251.5 28 November 0 0.0 December 0 0.0

108 7954 74

*Catch Per Unit Effort Eel

The eel management plan adopted at the end of 2008 plus the overlap between catch monitoring measures have compromised the credibility of operations for declarations to be made by fishermen. The efforts made by government and the various partners involved in the collection of data have not permitted sampling of eel catches in rivers by anglers on the basis of either declarations or fishing logs.

III.D.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

26

For salmon, a field survey by ONEMA staff provides a estimate of the bias due to undeclared catches of individual fish.

III.D.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

Nothing to report.

III.D.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

Eel

Given the difficulties encounted in 2010 and in order to fulfil its regulatory obligations, France is planning from 2011 on to implement a consistent and operationally effective programme for the estimation of catches that will follow on from catch recording and declaration obligations for anglers under a forthcoming regulatory status for the measures adopted under the eel management plan.

In order to counter this situation, which will continue into 2011, catch estimates will be based on surveys implemented in conditions to be defined in the near future (cf.NP2010 final version).

27

III.E. Biology – Stock variables

General considerations applicable to all areas (excluding migratory species)

Collection of data such as individual weight, sex and maturity often requires more comprehensive access to the fish than their dimensions at market alone. Given this fact, the quantity of data for these variables is often more limited than for the numbers of fish that have been aged. Additionally, the necessity of following working group recommendations, obtaining information on maturity during the spawning peak for the species for example, will limit even more the availability of genuinely relevant data.

Data quality has been estimated on the basis of (i) methods for checking data at input into the central database, (ii) exploratory analyses and (iii) estimates and calculation of data precision levels implemented in national workshops for the preparation of data for the working groups. The tools employed were those developed by COST.2

Since the beginning of 2009, the French National Programme has included in its data collection programmes the species in group 3 (G3) as defined in 2008 by RCM-NS&EA, RCM-NA and RCM-Med&BS. The type G3 taxonomic groupings were judged to be too broad in some cases (for example, species gathered under the heading “squid”). France therefore preferred to adopt a more fine-grained description than that proposed by the RCMs.

Table III_E_1 was produced on the basis of EUROSTAT data and an R script was developed to generate it automatically. Since EUROSTAT data provide official (validated) information for all countries, the script was provided to a small number of Member States and made available to any user requesting it.

The levels of precision obtained for the biological variables have not yet been analysed. The COST tools enable these estimates to be made. They will be done gradually as when scheduled milestones come up.

Most age reading is now done by the otolith centre in Boulogne-Sur-Mer. This grouping on a single site of age determination activities based on calcified structures not only enables a very real skill set in sclerochronology to be consolidated in Boulogne (which is reflected in its hosting of several DCF workshops on age determination issues), but in addition the implementation of a quality programme3 combining double reading, referencing of each reading and the archiving of data and images.

North Sea (IIIa, IV and VIId) & Eastern Arctic (I and II)

NS- III.E.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

Age reading:

The entire 2010 programme was completed with the exception of saithe, for which the intensity of age determination fell short of what was planned. This is due to very few landings in 2010, which hampered the sampling programme.

Maturity:

The programme was completed with the exception of pollack (Pollachius virens) which is gutted before landing. A solution is currently being examined in order to get round this problem. The lower intensity of activity than that announced in the National Programme is due to adherence to international procedures requiring collection of this information only during the spawning peak.

2 COST: Common Open Source Tool. Project financed by the European Commission under service contract

FISH/2006/15 Lot 2. 3

http://www.ifremer.fr/sih/affichagePageStatique.do?page=/produits/Synthese_francaises_des_procedures_d_estimation_d_age_V1..pdf

28

Individual weight:

This variable is collected systematically during sampling for age-length keys (e.g. hake, sole, plaice, mullet, sea bream) by means of purchases of fish lots at landings or at sea during the Obsmer observations or research surveys. Where surveys are the only sources for these data, the numbers collected may turn out to be lower than the estimates announced in the programme since these depend on actual catches.

Sex ratios:

The 2010 programme was completed overall with the some exceptions. Where surveys are the only sources for these data, the numbers of fish collected may turn out to be lower than the estimates announced in the programme since these depend on actual catches.

NS- III.E.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

Analysis of levels of precision has started for the biological variables. This will help the teams in optimising the number of individuals to collect.

NS- III.E.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

RCM recommendation Action taken

The RCM NS&EA recommends MS to refer to the table in Annex 5 of this report for elaborating maturity sampling programmes, when drafting their National Programme proposals 2011-2013

Done

The RCM NS&EA recommends to carry out two case studies for deriving regional estimation of stock based variables for cod in IIIa and sole in VIId.

This has not been possible, since the basic data were never provided. This militates for a Regional Database.

NS- III.E.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

A quality-focused approach is being developed by Ifremer in order to monitor more effectively the execution of biological sampling plans. The protocols are now available on line at http://www.ifremer.fr/sih and numerous tools are in their implementation phase (data entry assistance by means of the Allegro tool, assistance in estimation and analysing the efficiency of sampling plans (an application of the COST tool)).

North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO)

NA- III.E.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

Age reading:

The programme was completed overall with some exceptions due to actual catches when the data was collected during a survey. This is mainly the case for the new high value species (turbot, brill, John Dory). Moreover, otoliths are not usable to estimate John Dory’s age (WGNEW 2010 report), thus, age determination of this species is very difficult. It should be noted that, as agreed in the relevant ICES working groups, 1860 otoliths of hake (Merluccius merluccius) and 1352 otoliths of monkfish (Lophius piscatorius & budegassa) were sampled, prepared and archived without ageing. In general, the main stocks being the object of an analytical assessment are correctly sampled.

Maturity:

29

The programme was completed overall with the exception of red gurnard (Aspitrigla cuculus), and Phycis (Phycis blennoides). The fact that activity was below the level announced in the programme is due to adherence to international procedures requiring collection of this information only during the spawning peak.

Individual weight:

This variable is collected at sea during the scientific surveys. Where the scientific survey is the source for this parameter, the numbers of individuals sampled may be lower than those planned in the programme.

Sex-ratio:

The programme was completed overall with the exception of red gurnard (Aspitrigla cuculus), Phycis (Phycis blennoides), plaice (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), lemon sole (Microstomus kitt).

NA- III.E.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

Analysis of levels of precision has started for the biological variables. This will help the teams in optimising the number of individual to collect.

NA- III.E.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

RCM recommendation Action taken

The RCM NA recommends MS to refer to the table in Annex X of this report for elaborating maturity sampling programmes, when drafting their National Programme proposals 2011-2013

Done

The RCM NA recommends that blue whiting should be used as a test case for international raising and further analysis in the COST-package.

The analysis was never carried out because the data has not been provided. This militates for a Regional Database.

NA- III.E.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

A quality-focused approach is being developed by Ifremer in order to monitor more effectively the execution of biological sampling plans. The protocols are now available on line at http://www.ifremer.fr/sih and numerous tools are in their implementation phase (data entry assistance by means of the Allegro tool, assistance in estimation and analysing the efficiency of sampling plans (an application of the COST tool)).

Mediterranean Sea & Black Sea

MED- III.E.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

The whole programme was completed as planned. It should be noted that, as agreed in the RCM-Med&BS, 160 otoliths of hake (Merluccius merluccius) were sampled, prepared and archived without ageing.

MED- III.E.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

Analysis of levels of precision has started for the biological variables. This will help the teams in optimising the number of individuals to collect.

30

MED- III.E.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

RCM recommendation Action taken

The RCM-Med&BS recommends Member States to conduct the regional ageing sampling scheme proposed for bluefin tuna in 2010 following the PGMed conclusions. If possible MS can start collecting samples since 2009 if they have included this task in their NP.

France included the RCM multi-lateral agreement in its NP 2011-2013.

According to RCM and PGMED, sampling for biological parameters will take place at least in 2013.

Considering that the tools generated by the COST project could improve noticeably the quality of DCR data collection schemes, the RCM-Med&BS recommends that a hands-on workshop on implementing the COST tools tools should be planned for early 2010, and recommends the inclusion of this workshop in the DCR frame in the next PGMed in March 2009 to be held as soon as possible in 2010.

The workshop was held in Nantes in April 2010.

MED- III.E.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

A quality-focused approach is being developed by Ifremer in order to monitor more effectively the execution of biological sampling plans. The protocols are now available on line at http://www.ifremer.fr/sih and numerous tools are in their implementation phase (data entry assistance by means of the Allegro tool, assistance in estimation and analysing the efficiency of sampling plans (an application of the COST tool)).

Indian Ocean (IOTC)

IO- III.E.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

Biology:

The programme was stepped up in 2010 for yellowfin tuna. Cannery sampling achieved a very satisfactory level of coverage (124%) of targets for weight, sex and sexual maturity. Conversely, bigeye tuna (caught mainly by longline fishing) generally continues to be difficult to sample due to the small numbers of large individuals available in seiner catches and the fact that they do not seem to be processed in canneries during the normal working hours of the sampling personnel. Generally speaking, the very irregular occurrence of the processing of large fish in canneries means that this activity is problematic in the context of routine operations and requires close monitoring of cannery activities.

Following IOTC recommendations, sampling of albacore was begun but this – the fish not being processed in factories – is difficult to perform despite the goodwill and effort of crews.

Growth studies

Under the programme for the tagging of tuna species in the Indian Ocean a number of otoliths from skipjack (1), yellowfin (29) and bigeye tuna (11) were collected in order to cross-correlate the results of age determination using both methods. Results are in the stage of processing.

31

Histological study of maturity

A technical study has been conducted to set up a protocol for maturity estimation from histological analysis of ovary. The study was supported by 1/ - samples gathered during the boarding of a scientist on a longliner in the Indian Ocean and 2/ - samples collected in the tuna cannery in Abidjan (Ivory Coast). The two sources allowed us to compare samples collected in different conditions (iced fish or fish frozen with brine respectively). A limited number of sampled were collected and analyzed due to constraints to set up the laboratory and the development of the protocol. Bigeye samples remained very difficult to obtain (see below). The bulk of the work consists in producing series of histological slides to compare various factors on maturity estimation. The results of this study will be presented at ICCAT and IOTC meetings in 2011.

Tableau 1. Number of individuals by species with ovary samples for maturity study

Listao Albacore Patudo Swordfish Total

Réunion 2009 0 2 0 22 24

Abidjan 2010 21 0 0 0 21

Total 21 2 0 22 45

Tableau 2. Number of histological slides by species

Listao Albacore Patudo Swordfish Total

Réunion 2009 0 85 0 955 1040

Abidjan 2010 585 0 0 0 585

Total 585 85 0 955 1625

IO- III.E.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

Nothing to report.

IO- III.E.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

Nothing to report.

IO- III.E.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls.

Biology:

An agreement between fishing operators and IRD has been signed at the end of 2010 in order to facilitate the purchase of tuna (bigeye mainly) onboard fishing vessels when unloading. This facility will improve our numbers of observations.

Eastern Central Atlantic (ICCAT)

ECA-III.E.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

Biology:

Although political problems at the end of the year, the biological sampling program at the cannery for 2010 for yellowfin and skipjack tuna reached its objectives for weight, sex and sexual maturity. Conversely, bigeye tuna sampling is improving but remains difficult due to the small numbers of large individuals available in seiner catches and the fact that they do not seem to be processed in canneries

32

during the normal working hours of the sampling personnel. Opportunity to buy fish onboard vessels is sought.

Histological study of maturity:

See Indian Ocean

ECA-III.E.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

Nothing to report.

ECA-II.E.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

Nothing to report.

ECA-III.E.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

An agreement between fishing operators and IRD has been signed at the end of 2010 in order to facilitate the purchase of tuna (bigeye mainly) onboard fishing vessels when unloading. This facility will improve our numbers of observations.

Western Central Atlantic (WECAF)

WCA- III.E.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

In French Guiana, Penaeus subtilis and P. brasiliensis shrimps are systematically sexed prior to measurement and their stage of maturity recorded. Red snappers are not aged.

WCA- III.E.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

Nothing to report.

WCA- II.E.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

Nothing to report.

WCA- III.E.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

Nothing to report.

Inland waters (eel and salmon)

IW- III.E.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

Salmon:

When declaring their catches, amateur and professional fishermen provide information on the length, weight, date and place for the individuals they have caught, accompanied by a scale sample. Interpretation of the scale samples thus provided along with the declarations makes it possible to improve our knowledge of salmon populations by determining the age and life characteristics of each individual.

Monitoring of salmon angling catches was conducted on the basis of a collaborative effort between ONEMA [Office National de l’Eau et des Milieux Aquatiques / French national agency for water and aquatic environments] and the FNPF [Fédération Nationale pour la Pêche en France / National federation for fishing in France].

Regular monitoring is provided throughout the fishing season by centralising in a national database the catch declarations made by anglers in areas subject to TAC provisions (Total Allowable Catch). These declarations specify catch length, weight, date and place for individual fish accompanied by a fish scale sample for age determination.

33

Table IW-III.D.1: FNPF achievements for 2010 – Salmon

Planned operation Completion Comments

Fishing effort Completed Provided by the number of migratory fish CPMA [Cotisation pour les milieux aquatiques / Subscription for aquatic habitats] subscriptions paid per departments.

Production of kits to accompany salmon catch declaration documents

Completed

Distribution of kits accompanying salmon catch declaration documents

Completed 24 local Federations supplied + ONEMA’s catch interpretation centre. Each local Federation has distributed these kits to the relevant depositaries.

ONEMA-FNPF collaboration on catch data returns

Completed Management of post-prepaid returns. Circulation of interim results back to local Federations.

Feedback of information to anglers

On-going Analysis of 2010 data is on-going and this does not permit finalisation of the communication of information to anglers. This operation is necessary to ensure that declarations continue to be made over the long term.

Compensation of depositaries

Completed Those depositaries that have returned data on catches have been identified and the numbers of catches reported by them have been calculated. This information is used to determine allocation of compensation. Payment has been made through the anglers departments/districts federations.

Every angler who wants to fish salmon or sea trout must pay a migratory fishes tax. These taxes are managed by FNPF and angler’s local federations. For 2010, survey of sold migratory fishes taxes allows an assessment of fishing effort by department. This effort includes anglers who are likely to catch salmon or sea trout.

Table.......: Migratory fishes taxes sold in France per department in 2010.

Fédérations taxes Fédérations taxes Fédérations taxes

01 AIN 32 GERS - 63 PUY DE DOME -

02 AISNE 33 GIRONDE - 64 PYRENEES ATLANTIQUES 713

03 ALLIER - 34 HERAULT - 65 HTES PYRENEES 24

04 ALPES DE HTES PROVENCE -

35 ILLE & VILAINE 111

66 PYRENEES ORIENTALES -

05 HAUTES ALPES - 36 INDRE - 67 BAS RHIN - 06 ALPES MARITIMES -

37 INDRE & LOIRE - 68 HT RHIN -

07 ARDECHE - 38 ISERE - 69 RHONE - 08 ARDENNES - 39 JURA - 70 HTE SAONE -

09 ARIEGE - 40 LANDES 24 71 SAONE & LOIRE -

10 AUBE - 41 LOIR & CHER - 72 SARTHE -

11 AUDE - 42 LOIRE - 73 SAVOIE - 12 AVEYRON - 43 HTE LOIRE - 74 HTE SAVOIE -

13 BOUCHES DU RHONE

-

44 LOIRE ATLANTIQUE

16

75 PARIS HTS DE SEINE, SEINE ST DENIS, VAL DE MARNE 1

14 CALVADOS 596 45 LOIRET - 76 SEINE MARITIME 345

15 CANTAL - 46 LOT - 77 SEINE & -

34

MARNE

16 CHARENTE - 47 LOT & GARONNE - 78 YVELINES -

17 CHARENTE-MARITIME - 48 LOZERE -

79 DEUX SEVRES -

18 CHER - 49 MAINE & LOIRE - 80 SOMME 81

19 CORREZE - 50 MANCHE 507 81 TARN -

20 CORSE - 51 MARNE - 82 TARN & GARONNE -

21 COTE D’OR - 52 HTE MARNE - 83 VAR - 22 COTES D’ARMOR 297 53 MAYENNE - 84 VAUCLUSE -

23 CREUSE - 54 MEURTHE & MOSELLE - 85 VENDEE -

24 DORDOGNE - 55 MEUSE - 86 VIENNE - 25 DOUBS - 56 MORBIHAN 364 87 HTE VIENNE - 26 DROME - 57 MOSELLE - 88 VOSGES - 27 EURE 16 58 NIEVRE - 89 YONNE -

28 EURE & LOIRE - 59 NORD - 90 TERRITOIRE DE BELFORT -

29 FINISTERE 789 60 OISE - 91 ESSONNE - 30 GARD - 61 ORNE 31 95 VAL D’OISE -

31 HTE GARONNE 7 62 PAS-DE-CALAIS 297 97 LA REUNION -

TOTAL 4 219

Table IW-III.E.1: Results from catch declarations and scale readings

Number of fishes with determined

age

Average Length

Average Weight Total Age

River 1SW MSW

Total Catches

1SW MSW 1SW MSW Undetermined 2 3 4 5

BRESLE 1 1 2 700 740 3300 3500 1 1

ARQUES 7 3 10 633 743 2007 4033 7 3

TOUQUES 3 2 5 610 770 1567 4150 3 2

VIRE 4 0 4 615 1563 4

SAIRE 15 0 16 611 1921 1 15

SIENNE 15 10 25 614 784 1785 4629 1 15 6 3

SEE 145 11 157 624 756 2007 3995 3 116 33 3 1

SELUNE 140 22 170 630 768 2148 4609 2 125 29 5 1

COUESNON 16 10 26 628 704 1976 3240 1 13 12

LEFF 12 2 15 604 683 1849 2350 1 7 5 1

TRIEUX 34 8 42 635 786 2001 4306 1 29 9 2 1

JAUDY+GUINDY 14 1 15 633 730 2179 3300 13 1 1

LEGUER 51 13 65 607 762 1859 4190 2 39 17 6

DOURON 16 4 20 643 721 2318 3320 1 10 9

QUEFFLEUTH 3 2 6 597 715 1803 3140 1 3 1

PENZE 32 5 37 609 730 1958 3648 26 9 1 1

ABER-ILDUT 9 0 9 616 1936 1936 8 1

ABER-WRACH 9 0 9 601 1786 1786 7 2

ELORN 37 24 62 578 714 1967 3770 1 34 18 7 1

MIGNONNE+CAMFROUT+FAOU 2 5 7 600 750 2100 3632 1 3 3

AULNE 28 14 43 629 736 2183 3381 8 19 15

GOYEN 103 2 105 603 740 1424 3700 5 53 43 3 1

ODET-STEIR-JET 19 4 23 608 693 3209 2 13 5 3

Rec

reat

ionn

al c

atch

es

AVEN 17 10 27 622 762 1981 4093 1 11 11 4

35

ELLE+ISOLE+LAITA 207 19 231 630 736 2135 3930 2 128 90 6

SCORFF 57 3 60 624 767 2141 4054 1 48 11

BLAVET 73 11 86 622 718 2088 3955 4 54 24 2

GAVE OLORON 16 55 73 650 802 2617 4778 2 14 45 8 2

GAVE MAULEON 0 8 8 769 4028 7 1 NIVE 3 1 4 650 700 2327 2910 2 1 1

ADOUR 14 22 37 652 786 2469 4714 1 11 20 2 2 Professionnal catches GAVES REUNIS 0 8 8 821 5314 8

Eel:

In 2010, four professional fishers were sampled to provide 185 yellow eels in Adour and Garonne-Dordogne Basin.

These eels were measured (weight and length), we have collected the otoliths and have sent to CEMAGREF (Cestas, France) to estimate the age.

Table IW- III.E.2 : number of eels by department ID and river Department ID River Number of eels

24 Dordogne 36 33 Isle 29 40 Adour 85 47 Garonne 32

Table IW-III.E.3: Age of eels analyzed ID age ID Age ID age ID age

P1 9 P48 9 P94 10 P140 11 P2 6 P49 8 P95 9 P141 10 P3 8 P50 10 P96 10 P142 13 P4 11 P51 10 P97 9 P143 14 P5 10 P52 12 P98 11 P144 10 P6 15 P53 9 P99 12 P145 11 P7 14 P54 10 P100 11 P146 8 P8 15 P55 9 P101 10 P147 8 P9 P56 10 P102 15 P148 10 P10 9 P57 13 P103 11 P149 13 P11 17 P58 10 P104 P150 8 P12 8 P59 9 P105 10 P151 11 P13 12 P60 7 P106 11 P152 14 P14 9 P61 7 P107 13 P153 12 P15 11 P62 7 P108 9 P154 15 P16 10 P63 9 P109 9 P155 6 P17 12 P64 10 P110 9 P156 9 P18 13 P65 9 P111 10 P157 6 P19 13 P66 10 P112 10 P158 11 P20 12 P67 9 P113 11 P159 5 P21 15 P68 10 P114 8 P160 5 P22 9 P69 9 P115 9 P161 6 P23 15 P70 11 P116 10 P162 11 P24 10 P71 11 P117 6 P163 12 P25 11 P72 10 P118 10 P164 7 P26 8 P73 10 P119 15 P165 6 P27 13 P74 12 P120 20 P166 6 P28 13 P75 13 P121 12 P167 9

36

P29 13 P76 11 P122 15 P168 8 P30 12 P77 9 P123 10 P169 7 P31 10 P78 11 P124 10 P170 7 P32 13 P79 10 P125 12 P171 9 P33 10 P80 14 P126 14 P172 7 P34 10 P81 9 P127 13 P173 12 P35 12 P82 18 P128 17 P174 8 P36 10 P83 10 P129 13 P175 7 P37 8 P84 10 P130 8 P176 6 P38 13 P85 9 P131 14 P177 10 P39 10 P86 10 P132 8 P178 6 P40 8 P87 11 P133 11 P179 7 P41 7 P88 18 P134 15 P180 9 P42 9 P89 10 P135 16 P181 6 P43 10 P90 12 P136 13 P182 8 P44 12 P91 12 P137 12 P183 7 P45 8 P92 10 P138 10 P184 8 P46 12 P93 12 P139 14 P185 9 P47 15

Concretely, measurements already indicate a fall in the number of fishermen, to which can be added a decline in the numbers of declarations.

Fishing runs using gear and official banning orders on grounds of presence of PCBs

Supprimé : <sp><sp>

37

Numbers of professional fishermen filing declarations

Year Status All

species Eel

fishermen Yellow

eels Silver eels

Glass eels

2008 PROFESSIONAL 582 171 57 10 132 2009 PROFESSIONAL 351 129 33 9 115 2010 PROFESSIONAL 110 106 1 106

The relative stability of the number of fishermen declaring glass eels is linked to the application of a quota and the absence of PCB impact at this stage.

Management unit (cf. map below)

Status / Stage

Declared weights 2010

Adour Pro_Yellow eel 550.52Adour Pro_Glass eel 584.16Adour Rec_Yellow eel 568.75Brittany Pro No river eel fisheries Brittany Rec_Yellow eel 74.64Garonne-Dordogne-Charente-Seudre-Leyre Pro_Yellow eel 697.30Garonne-Dordogne-Charente-Seudre-Leyre Pro_Glass eel 19.71Garonne-Dordogne-Charente-Seudre-Leyre Rec_Yellow eel 152.80Loire- Vendée coast – Sèvre at Niort Pro_Silver eel 7,360.60Loire- Vendée coast – Sèvre at Niort Pro_Yellow eel 21,644.57Loire- Vendée coast –Sèvre at Niort Pro_Glass eel 3,120.50Loire- Vendée coast –Sèvre at Niort Rec_Yellow eel 8,536.28Rhine-Meuse Pro Major ban impact Rhine-Meuse Rec_Yellow eel 79.30Rhône-Mediterranean-Corsica Pro Major ban impact Rhône-Mediterranean-Corsica Rec_Yellow eel 33.10Seine-Normandy Pro_Yellow eel 214.00

IW- III.E.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

The great experience of ONEMA for salmon guaranteed quality data, for eels, analyzing the results of otolith reading is in progress.

Aspect SNPE statement, the data base reflect the statements, the extent of bias is being evaluated (field survey by ONEMA staff).

38

IW-III.E.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

Nothing to report.

IW- III.E.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

Eel:

Given the difficulties encountered in 2010 and in order to fulfil its regulatory obligations, France is planning from 2011 on to implement a consistent and operationally effective programme for the estimation of catches that will follow on from catch recording and declaration obligations for anglers under a forthcoming regulatory status for the measures adopted under the eel management plan.

In order to counter this situation, which will continue into 2010, catch estimates will be based on surveys implemented in conditions to be defined in the near future (cf. NP 2010 final version).

39

III.F. Transversal variables

III.F.1 Capacity

III.F.1.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

The collection of activity calendars for 2009 has progressed in accordance with the proposal contained in NP2009-2010 and this has enabled 2009 capacity data to be returned at the end of 2010 for all DCF regions (North Sea and Eastern Arctic, North Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea, Other Regions). In addition, the activity calendars for 2010 are currently being obtained and in accordance with the proposal contained in NP2011-2013 capacity data for 2010 should be available by the end of 2011 at the same scales.

It should be noted that in accordance with the NP2009-2010 proposal 2009 capacity data at level B1 (metier) could be estimated only for level 5 metiers.

III.F.1.1.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

Survey activity was conducted exhaustively (annual census) for all French vessels in the European fleet register.

It should be noted that the survey in “North Sea and Eastern Artic, North Atlantic” has been modified in 2010 considering the use of new software adapted to new references more in accordance with the international standard classifications (FAO species and gear classification have been used in particular). After a time of adaptation to the new tool, this new survey has proved its efficiency and usefulness to better reply to requests. It will be extended to the other regions in the subsequent years.

III.F.1.1.3 Actions to remedy shortfalls

Reflection is still on-going to provide from the beginning of year N+1 an initial estimate of capacity data for year N, in particular by implementing a mechanism for cross-correlation with information from declarations that would provide the initial elements needed by the scientific working groups and to meet calls for data. The results of the European project "Development of tools for logbook and VMS data analysis" (MARE/2008/10 Lot 2 (Contract n° SI2.531395)) will be implemented during the course of 2011.

The data concerned would be revised subsequently once the activity survey is finalised.

III.F.2 Effort

III.F.2.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

Effort data are collected continuously using fishing vessel declarations (logbooks, fishing logs). The problem that arises relates to the completeness of this information due to (i) the time lag between trip completion and input, verification and validation of the information in a centralised database, and (ii) vessels that do not provide 100% information on their fishing activities. The ex-post collection of activity calendars enables this issue to be quantified and to arrive at more rigorous estimates of actual levels of fishing effort.

In addition, a research project was currently under way in 2010 (ref. Demanèche et al.) to improve the quality of the data available on effort based on cross-correlation of the different data sources available (data from vessel logbooks, fishing logs, sales and VMS). First results of this research project have been proposed to scientific experts at the beginning of 2011. It proved its efficiency to complete the information available sources by sources and to better comprehend the reality of the fisheries. But it remains some drawbacks and some hypothesis of the approach has to be checked again to propose algorithm that can provide better estimates. Moreover, in order to better help the expert groups, it is critical that the algorithm addresses the historical statistics data (early 2010, only 2009 and 2010 data could be worked with the algorithm), and this is another domain planned to be improved in 2011.

40

Furthermore, for DCF regions Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea & Other Regions declared data are insufficient to fulfil regulatory obligations for the provision of data on fishing effort. In this context, it has been suggested that further landing surveys be conducted to estimate these data (ref. ICES CM 2008/K:14 ; Demanèche et al. FDI Conference). Such surveys were conducted in two supra-regions in 2010 in line with the proposal contained in NP2009-2010.

In addition, since January 2009 France began to implement a new IT chain for the capture and processing of data from declarations and sales and this led to a degree of discontinuity in data availability.

And lastly, where effort variables are concerned, it is still difficult at the present time to assign fishing effort to a given metier for a given month if the vessel is active in more than one metier during that month. The only exhaustive source of information allowing assignment of a vessel to a given metier for a given month is, once again, the activity calendar. However, strictly speaking, an activity calendar provides neither effort data nor data on landings associated with species, hence the obligation to work with another source for those variables.

Research programmes (ref. DGMARE/2008/10 Lot2, Demanèche et al.) were on-going in 2010 in order to assign each trip*vessel to a metier, an effort and landings per species based on the cross-correlation of a plurality data sources. First results have been produced in the beginning of 2011 but are still under investigation.

This has meant that effort data for 2009 in the Atlantic (North Sea and Eastern Arctic, North Atlantic) could be calculated but not at the precision of metier level 6 as asked by DCF. The “Number of vessels” variable4 could however be calculated at levels of metier level 5 in accordance with the NP2009-2010 proposal on the basis of the data in the activity calendar and the fleet register. Effort data have been produced at fleet levels for the variables of the economic data call and at “gear” levels (see the data call concerned for details) for the fishing effort management data call.

With regard to 2009 effort data for the Mediterranean Sea and Other Regions, since declared data were not sufficient the effort data had to be estimated on the basis of additional surveys at landings (ref. ICES CM 2008/K:14). The recent implementation of collection of these additional effort data by means of surveys has led to date only to statistical estimates of levels of ad-hoc fleet. Studies are still on-going in order to assess the level of precision it is possible to achieve on the basis of such surveys for DCF fleets (level C3) and, ultimately, for DCF metiers (level B1). First estimates by metier have been produced in French Antilles by adding data source “fuel data” in Guadeloupe and “phone survey” in Martinique to the usual data source. The results obtained were promising. Such data are in calculation for Mediterranean Sea.

Lastly, and in accordance with the proposal contained in the programme, a pilot study was conducted to determine the feasibility of estimating the new effort variables required by the DCF 2009-2010 regulation:

• Number of voyages (trips),

• Number of rigs,

• Number of fishing operations,

• Number of nets/total length,

• Number of hooks, Number of lines,

• Number of pots, traps,

• Soaking time.

4 It should be noted that in accordance with the proposal contained in NP2009-2010 the parameter

“Number of vessels” for 2009 at level B1 (metier) could be estimated only for metiers at level 5.

41

The preliminary results of this study were presented in the report annexed to the precedent 2009 DCF Annual Report (ref. Oceanic Developpement / Ifremer). The main conclusions were:

Where sufficient data is available from declarations, an estimate based on the latter seems to be possible for the following:

• Number of voyages (trips),

• Number of nets/total length,

• Number of hooks, Number of lines,

• Number of pots, traps.

For the regions where declared data do not suffice, it is necessary to use data from additional surveys (specific effort survey and landing survey5) in order to arrive at estimates.

A recent study has proved the difficulty to calculate estimates for the gear dimension variables (number of nets/total length, number of hooks, number of lines, number of pots, traps) due to the implementation of a new IT chain which led to a less quality-controlled field to inform these data. This has been considered and actions will be taken to improve the quality of the data available in order to respond to the requests in line with the proposal contained in NP2011-2013.

III.F.2.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

It should be noted that the data collection process was interrupted in Guadeloupe for part of the year in 2009 and again in the beginning of 2011. Multi-annual programme are considered to avoid such interruptions. First estimates of landings and effort data for Guadeloupe have been calculated for the 2008 year.

Landing surveys began also only in mid-2009 in the Mediterranean but are now based on multi-annual programme to avoid inter-contract interruption. The Mediterranean surveys does not cover Corsica but first investigation on declarative data available for Corsica has proved that incomplete but sufficient data was available to estimate landings and effort per metier. The exact procedure to extrapolate them to the full population has to be discussed during the next year, and will be annexed to the 2011 Annual report.

III.F.2.3 Actions to remedy shortfalls

The research project for the cross-correlation of data sources (ref. Demanèche et al.) is aimed at improving data quality and completeness through cross-correlation of the whole range of available sources (data from vessel logbooks, fishing logs, sales and VMS). This should make it possible to provide effort data of better quality than the raw information from vessel logbooks/fishing logs. First results of this research project have been proposed to scientific experts in the beginning of 2011. It proved its efficiency to complete the information available sources by sources and to better comprehend the reality of the fisheries. But it remains some drawbacks and some hypothesis of the approach has to be checked again to propose algorithm that can provide better estimates.

In addition, a European research programme was under way in 2010 (ref. DGMARE/2008/10 Lot 2) to associate each trip*vessel pairing with a DCF metier. The conclusions of this project have been submitted in February 2011 and will be investigated next year to their implementation. It should improve those associations. However, in the meantime it is planned to apply to the data derived from cross-correlation of declaration data methods for the allocation of metiers to trips based on the ordination of trip species, a method recommended by the RCMs and the Liaison Meeting (cf. Anon. 2008).

Moreover, progress is being made on the processing of landing survey data and on estimation of the level of precision achievable using those data for the estimation of effort variables. Results obtained in

5 A prerequisite for the use of such surveys is to arrive at a good estimate of the “number of trips” variable and

studies are in progress to optimise estimation of this effort variable.

42

Guadeloupe and Martinique are promising and will be soon extended to other region commencing by the Mediterranean Sea. Nevertheless, further development is still necessary for full compliance with the various regulatory requirements using such landing surveys.

And lastly, reflection is on-going to provide from the beginning of year N+1 an initial estimate of capacity data for year N that would provide the initial elements needed by the scientific working groups and to meet calls for data, which will be possible when implementing the conclusions of the European project Development of tools for logbook and VMS data analysis (MARE/2008/10 Lot 2).

III.F.3 Landings

III.F.3.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

Landings data are collected continuously using fishing vessel declarations (logbooks, fishing logs). The problem that arises relates to the completeness of this information due to (i) the time lag between trip completion and input, verification and validation of the information in a centralised database, and (ii) vessels that do not provide 100% information on their fishing activities. The ex-post collection of activity calendars enables this issue to be quantified and to arrive at more rigorous estimates of actual levels of fishing effort.

In addition, a research project was currently under way in 2010 (ref. Demanèche et al.) to improve the quality of the data available on landings based on cross-correlation of the different data sources available (data from vessel logbooks, fishing logs, sales and VMS). First results of this research project have been proposed to scientific experts in the beginning of 2011. It proved his efficiency to complete the information available sources by sources and to better comprehend the reality of the fisheries. But it remains some drawbacks and some hypothesis of the approach has to be checked again to propose algorithm that can provide better estimates.

Furthermore, for DCF regions Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea & Other Regions declared data are insufficient to fulfil regulatory obligations for the provision of landings data. In this context, it has been suggested that further landing surveys be conducted to estimate these data (ref. ICES CM 2008/K:14 ; Demanèche et al. FDI Conference). Such surveys were conducted in two supra-regions in 2010 in line with the proposal contained in NP2009-2010.

In addition, since January 2009 France began to implement a new IT chain for the capture and processing of data from declarations and sales and this led to a degree of discontinuity in data availability.

And lastly, where landings variables are concerned, it is still difficult at the present time to assign a landing to a given metier for a given month where the vessel is active in more than one metier during that month. The only exhaustive source of information allowing assignment of a vessel to a given metier for a given month is, once again, the activity calendar. However, strictly speaking, an activity calendar provides neither effort data nor data on landings associated with species, hence the obligation to work with another source for those variables.

Research programmes (ref. DGMARE/2008/10 Lot2, Demanèche et al.) were on-going in 2010 in order to assign each trip*vessel to a metier, an effort and landings per species based on the cross-correlation of a plurality data sources. First results have been produced in the beginning of 2011 but are still under investigation.

This has meant that landings data for 2009 in the Atlantic (North Sea and Eastern Arctic, North Atlantic) could be calculated but not at the precision of metier level 6 as asked by DCF. Landings data have been produced at fleet levels for the variables of the economic data call and at “gear” levels (see the data call concerned for details) for the fishing effort management data call.

With regard to 2009 landings data for the Mediterranean Sea and Other Regions, since declared data were not sufficient the effort data had to be estimated on the basis of additional surveys at landing (ref. ICES CM 2008/K:14). The recent implementation of collection of these additional effort data by means of surveys has led to date only to statistical estimates of levels of ad-hoc fleet. Studies are still on-going in order to assess the level of precision it is possible to achieve on the basis of such surveys

43

for DCF fleets (level C3) and, ultimately, for DCF metiers (level B1). First estimates by metier have been produced in French Antilles by adding other data source “fuel data” in Guadeloupe and “phone survey” in Martinique tot he usual data source. The results obtained were promising. Such data are in calculation for the Mediterranean Sea.

III.F.3.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

It should be noted that the collection process was interrupted in Guadeloupe for part of the year in 2009 and again in the beginning of 2011. Multi-annual programmes are considered to avoid such of interruptions. First estimates of landings and effort data for Guadeloupe have been calculated for the 2008 year.

Landing surveys began also only in mid-2009 in the Mediterranean but are now based on multi-annual programme to avoid future inter-contract interruption. The survey does not cover Corsica but first investigation on declarative data available for Corsica has proved that incomplete but sufficient data was available to estimates landings and effort per metier. The exact procedure to extrapolate them to the full population has to be discussed during the next year, and will be annexed to the 2011 Annual Report.

III.F.3.3 Actions to remedy shortfalls

The research project for the cross-correlation of data sources (ref. Demanèche et al.) is aimed at improving data quality and completeness through cross-correlation of the whole range of available sources (data from vessel logbooks, fishing logs, sales and VMS). This should make it possible to provide landings data of better quality than the raw information from vessel logbooks/fishing logs. First results of this research project have been proposed to scientific experts in the beginning of 2011. It proves its efficiency to complete the information available sources by sources and to better comprehend the reality of the fisheries. But it remains drawbacks and some hypothesis of the approach has to be checked again to propose algorithm that can provide better estimates.

In addition, a European research programme was under way in 2010 (ref. DGMARE/2008/10 Lot 2) to associate each trip*vessel pairing with a DCF metier. The conclusions of this project have been submitted in February 2011 and will be investigated next year for their implementation. It should improve those associations. However, in the meantime it is planned to apply to the data derived from cross-correlation of declaration data methods for the allocation of metiers to trips based on the ordination of trip species, a method recommended by the RCMs and the Liaison Meeting (cf. Anon. 2008).

Moreover, progress is being made on the processing of landing survey data and on estimation of the level of precision achievable using those data for the estimation of effort variables. Results obtained in Guadeloupe and Martinique are promising and will be soon extend to other region and commencing by the Mediterranean Sea. Nevertheless, further development is still necessary for full compliance with the various regulatory requirements using such landing surveys.

And lastly, reflection is on-going to provide from the beginning of year N+1 an initial estimate of capacity data for year N that would provide the initial elements needed by the scientific working groups and to meet calls for data which will be possible when implementing the conclusions of the European project Development of tools for logbook and VMS data analysis (MARE/2008/10 Lot 2).

References:

• Anon. 2008. Report of the 4th Liaison Meeting between the Chairs of the RCMs, the chair of ICES PGCCDBS, the chair of PGMED, the ICES representative, the Chair of SGRN and the European Commission Brussels, 20-22 February 2008. 3 pp.

• ICES CM 2008 / K:14. A new approach to estimate catches and fishing effort of small scale fisheries by sampling fishing trips on-site. Sébastien Demaneche, Claude Merrien, Joël Vigneau, Olivier Guyader, Patrick Berthou, Patrick Lespagnol, Emilie Leblond, Fabienne Daures. http://www.ices.dk/products/CMdocs/CM-2008/K/K1408.pdf

44

• Sébastien Demaneche, Claude Merrien, Marie Bruneau, Patrick Lespagnol, Lionel Reynal, Olivier Guyader, Joël Vigneau. .Small-scale fisheries on-site survey. A new approach to estimate catches and fishing effort of small scale fisheries by sampling fishing trips on-site. Poster. Fishery Dependent Information Conference, august 23-26 2010, Galway Ireland. http://www.marine.ie/fisherydependentdata/

• Demaneche et al. 2010. Projet SACROIS Ifremer/DPMA. Final Report period 2008-2010.

• Oceanic Developpement/Ifremer, 2010. Élaboration d’une méthodologie de calcul des variables d’effort dans le cadre du programme national de collecte des données 2009-2010 pour l’amélioration du suivi de l’activité des navires de pêche professionnelle [Establishment of a methodology for the calculation of effort variables under the 2009-2010 national data collection programme for the improvement of monitoring of activity by professional fishing vessels], Interim Report.

• DGMARE/2008/10 Lot2 – Development of tools for logbook and VMS data analysis, Final Report, February 2011.

III.F.4 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

2009 RCMs and 5th Liaison meeting reports highlighted some recommendations on transversal variables, particularly about the possible optional collection of certain effort paramaters of second importance regarding metiers not sorted by the ranking systems. There was no really recommendation directly addressed to MS to be included in their 2010 NP as long as SGRN and STECF did not yet advised on this issue.

45

III.G. Surveys

Five surveys were planned in the 2010 French programme. These correspond to historical series of surveys carried out by Ifremer in the Eastern Channel – North Sea regions (VIId, IV), in the Atlantic (VII and VIII sub-areas) and in the Mediterranean (GSAs 7 and 8). Their implementation and the results in 2010 are summarised in the different sections of this module.

Specific case of the blue whiting survey (BWS): concerning this DCF eligible survey, the RCM-NA laid down rules for the definition of national contributions to the cost of the annual cruise carried out in March-April by Ireland and/or the Netherlands. This international agreement concerns Member States contributing more than 5% to EU catch and is revised every year by the RCM. France (a single vessel processing blue whiting for surimi and whose catches have been the subject of an efficient sampling protocol for several years) is no longer among the significant countries with respect to the defined catch threshold. RCM-NA 2008 therefore dispensed France from contributing to the financing of the BWS and this survey was therefore not included in the NP 2009-2010. It should however be pointed out that the self-sampling data continue to be collected at sea and gathered at each return of the single French factory-vessel. The data are validated, archived and analysed by Ifremer. The results of this processing are transmitted to the ICES working group WGWIDE every year.

III.G.1 Achievements: Results and deviation from the programme

North Sea (ICES areas IIIa, IV and VIId) & Eastern Arctic (ICES areas I and II)

III.G.1.1. International Bottom Trawl Survey, first quarter – IBTS

The surveys conducted by France as part of the International Bottom Trawl Survey are primarily aimed at the annual estimates of abundance indices (global and recruitment ones) for the main demersal and commercial fish species exploited in the North Sea. Data collected are not only used by the international working groups for stock assessments but also provide inputs for numerous research programmes on biology and distribution of relevant species and on trends of North Sea populations. The first surveys were organised in the 1960s. France has participated in this ICES-coordinated international programme since 1976 in conjunction with the six other countries with coastlines on the North Sea.

IBTS surveys are subject to rigorous protocols defined at international level under the coordination of the ICES working group WGIBTS: sampling stations are located in precisely defined rectangular cells (30 minutes latitude by one degree of longitude) and covered by two different research vessels, fishing gear is standardised, catch analysis follows strict rules in terms of parameters to be collected (catch composition, numbers of individuals and weight by species, length compositions for all fish and commercial shellfish, biological parameters such as sex ratios and maturity…). Age-length keys are built for the main species of fish, which are whiting, cod, haddock, Norway pout, herring, sprat and plaice. Each fishing operation is systematically associated with hydrological stations and all acoustic data are recorded on three frequencies and stored to be analysed on shore.

In order to quantify the larval abundance indices (group 0 for herring and sprat), night sampling with a MIK (Methot-Isaac-Kidd) net is also carried out following a standard protocol. Since 2006, continuous sampling of plankton is also performed by means of a CUFES pump installed on R/V Thalassa. Zooplankton sampling with a Bongo net is also made systematic at each hydrological station. It should be indicated that a sampling plan for monitoring phytoplankton was initiated in 2008, thus demonstrating the multidisciplinary character of the IBTS survey and the effort to ensure optimum use of the observation platform provided by R/V Thalassa. Likewise, at the request of WGIBTS and Herring Assessment WG (HAWG), some hauls are carried out in the Eastern Channel, in order to assess the herring resource in particular since 2009.

The 2010 IBTS cruise took place between 13 January and 19 February 2010, giving 31 days DCF availability in the study area including the eastern part of the English Channel. The scientific programme can be considered as fully achieved : at all, 92 demesersal hauls (115% compared with the

46

number planned), 110 hydrological stations, 128 MIK and 198 Bongo stations for zooplankton and fish larvae, 216 samples collected for phytoplankton analysis (Nisskin bootles), 1348 CUFES samples (Continuous Underwater Fish Eggs Sampler) for mapping spawning grounds and habitats. Considering the zoo- and phytoplankton, herring and sprat larvae are identified, counted and measured on board, but all other samples are analysed on land after the survey. In addition of pelagic hauls on herring schools, acoustic transects were also performed to estimate the herring resource in VIId. Endly, observers were on board the Thalassa for marine mammals and sea birds. All these results give evidence that the French contribution to IBTS programme is become really an integrated and complete survey which will enable to provide inputs for the ecosystem approach defined by the new DCF regulation 199/2008 and also data for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) issues.

Drawing the comparison between achieved works and planned objectives is summarised in Table III.G.1. The Map III.G.1.1 shows the area covered (Eastern English Channel and southern part of the North Sea) along with the positioning of the stations.

The data characterising the stations and the analysis of the catches are recorded daily on board the vessel. Reading of calcified structures (4192 otoliths collected) to establish age-length keys is done on land after the survey.

Map III.G.1.1 – The 2010 IBTS French survey – Positions of daytime GOV bottom trawl hauls (left)

and MIK net sampling of larvae at night (right)

Final validation of the data takes place on land prior to archiving in the Ifremer’s central Harmonie database. The information is also transmitted in the required formats to ICES in order to update the IBTS/DATRAS database and to make it available not only to all the countries participating in this international programme by providing yearly data on demersal resources but also to the scientific community on the basis of ICES-defined access rules.

North Atlantic (ICES areas V-XIV and NAFO)

III.G.1.2. Western IBTS Fourth Quarter - EVHOE

The Western IBTS 4th quarter survey, of which the EVHOE (EValuation des ressources Halieutiques de l'Ouest Européen - Assessment of Fisheries Resources in Western Europe) cruise represents the French contribution, is aimed at observing the changes occurring over time in fish and invertebrate populations in the Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay, by providing abundance indices on most of the demersal species. Bottom trawl prospection is conducted each year between the end of October and

47

the middle of December in standardised conditions (sampling scheme, fishing gear, catch analysis protocol) and in compliance with the IBTS surveys protocols (see above). The time series built up for abundance indices are used for annual stock assessments by the regional ICES groups concerned. Most notably, they allow the level of annual recruitment of the various species of commercial interest to be measured.

The data collected also provide a better understanding of the spatial occupation strategies of the sampled species over their life cycle. In the longer term, the existence of historical data series will permit analysis of the impact of fisheries on populations combination (species composition, length and age structure, adaptive strategies used by certain species). The EVHOE surveys also allow other studies to be done such as the monitoring of contamination by parasites and analysis of the dietary regimes of the main commercial species. This tightly focused work can provide input for the ecosystem approach defined by the new DCF regulation 199/2008 and to the observation programmes to be set up under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).

' ''

'

'''''

''

'

'''

''

'''' '

'''

'''

'

'''

'

'' '

''

'''

''

''''''' ''

' ' '

'''

'''

'' '''

' '

''''

''

''''

'''

''

' ''

''

''

''''

'

'

'' '

''

'' '

' '

'

'

' '

'''''

' '

''

'''

'

'

' '

'' ' '

' '

'

'' '

''

'

'

'

'

''

''

''

' '

'

Cn

Cc

Cs

Gn

GsBay of Biscay

CelticSea

Ireland UK England

France

Spain

12°W

12°W

10°W

10°W

8°W

8°W

6°W

6°W

4°W

4°W

2°W

2°W

0°E

0°E

44°N 44°N

46°N 46°N

48°N 48°N

50°N 50°N

52°N 52°N

Campagne EVHOEStratification et positions des stations

Depth stratification

15 - 30 m

31 - 80 m

81 - 120 m

121 - 160 m

161 - 200 m

201 - 400 m

401 - 600 m

Map III.G.1.2 – Map showing strata sampled and positions of reference stations for the W-IBTS-Q4 – EVHOE survey

EVHOE surveyStratification and station positioning

Supprimé : <sp>

'

'

'

''

'

'

'

' '

''

CelticSea

12°W

12°W

44°N

46°N

48°N

50°N

52°N

Stratific

Depth stratification

15 - 30 m

31 - 80 m

81 - 120 m

121 - 160 m

161 - 200 m

201 - 400 m

401 - 600 m

48

The W-IBTS-Q4 - EVHOE 2010 cruise took place between 18 October and 2 December 2010 on board R/V Thalassa. Over that period, 44 days were devoted to DCF fisheries objectives. The scientific programme was completed more or less completely (139 bottom trawl hauls and hydrological stations out of the 155 planned, 6 deep-water pelagic trawl hauls) due to poor weather conditions often encountered in sub-area VII at the end of the year. Table III.G.1 and Map III.G.1.2 summarise the details of this work and the hauls locations.

Worth noting is the increasing use of R/V Thalassa as a platform for EVHOE: as in the case of IBTS and PELGAS, the effort to define a more integrated type of survey has led to a stepping up of prospecting on the continental slope (deep-water resources), the use of the multibeam echo-sounder ME70 for mapping benthic communities (acquisition of data on acoustic transects during the night and systematically during each trawling operation) and plankton sampling. These operations, while not part of DCF 2009-2010, nevertheless point to future developments in the objectives of the French W-IBTSQ4 contribution in the context of a more comprehensive application of the ecosystem approach for fisheries, and which have been included explicitly in the multi-annual national programme for 2011-2013.

The data collected are recorded in real time on board using the IT resources of R/V Thalassa. Only the reading of the calcified structures (otoliths, illlicia) sampled for determination of age-length keys for the main commercial species and data processing to produce the abundance indices used by the assessments working groups are carried out on land after the cruise.

EVHOE data are archived in the Ifremer’s central Harmonie database after their final validation on land. The information is also transmitted in the required formats to ICES in order to update the IBTS/DATRAS database and to make it available not only to all the countries participating in this international programme by providing yearly data on demersal resources but also to the scientific community on the basis of ICES-defined access rules.

III.G.1.3. Sardine, anchovy, horse mackerel acoustic survey - PELGAS

The PELGAS survey (petits PELagiques GAScogne - Small pelagic fish in the Bay of Biscay) constitutes the French contribution to acoustic coverage of the distribution of the small pelagic fish resource between Gibraltar and the Celtic Sea within the framework of the DCR regulation under the heading “Sardine, anchovy, horse mackerel acoustic survey” (SAHMACS). Three coordinated national cruises carried out from south to north by Portuguese, Spanish and French scientists are carried out using the same technical and IT resources. ICES WGACEGG is in charge of this international coordination. The purpose of this international survey is also to make progress in understanding the functioning of the pelagic fisheries ecosystem in the Bay of Biscay and to provide the relevant abundance indices for the assessment of small pelagic stocks (anchovy, sardine, mackerel and horse mackerel) by ICES.

PELGAS uses continuous data acquisition tools over an array of 22 transects perpendicular to the coastline (acoustic detection on five frequencies, CUFES-based sampling of fish eggs every three nautical miles, surface hydrology, meteorology) and on-station operations (trawling, plankton sampling, bathysounder profiles). Using the different resources available on R/V Thalassa, it is possible to map the distribution of eggs and adult anchovies and sardines during spawning and arrive at a hydro-biological characterisation of the spawning habitats.

PELGAS 2010 cruise took place between 25April and 5 June 2010. Thirty-one days were dedicated to the objectives set out in the DCF, last days being used for more scientific studies on relationships between anchovy behaviour and environmental conditions. It was possible to prospect along all transects and, due to good weather conditions, some transects were even got at the opening of western English Channel to better identify the geographical distribution of sardine. It can therefore be considered that the objectives of the survey were fully achieved. Around 6900 nautical miles were sampled acoustically during the cruise and 68 pelagic trawl hauls were carried out in order to characterise the species composition of certain of the detections observed (cf. Table III.G.1, Map III.G.1.3).

49

Acoustic transects Catch composition by species

Pelagic trawling Night stations

Hydro-plankton stations

Map III.G.1.3 – Locations of SAHMACS-PELGAS 2010 transects and stations.

It is noteworthy that where Atlantic anchovy and the increasing scarcity of this resource are concerned, as has been the case since 2007, R/V Thalassa was accompanied during the first part of the mission by a pair of professional midwater trawlers whose task was to widen the detection area by operating four nautical miles to the north of the transects being prospected by the research vessel. The contribution of the professional fishing vessels allowed an increase in the density of coverage of the acoustic prospection and fishing in response to detections as backing for the operations conducted by R/V Thalassa. 51 complementary pelagic hauls were done by this pair of trawlers and sampled by the scientists on board.

As in other years, advantage was taken of PELGAS 2010 to update knowledge of the biological variables (length/weight relationships, age-length keys – otoliths collected for 928 anchovies and 1017 sardines, sexual maturity and fecundity, nutritional condition, and so on) of the main commercial species (anchovy, sardine, mackerel, horse mackerel and sprat). With a view to optimisation of the use of the platform provided by R/V Thalassa, observers were also placed on board in order to monitor the abundance of marine mammals and sea birds.

Acquisition and processing of echo-integration data were done in real time using the sounders of R/V Thalassa (five frequencies available and regular use now of the multibeam fish echo-sounder Simrad ME70) and “MOVIES+” software. To be noted that the multibeam echo-sounder provides real progress in terms of quality of the detections and on the behaviour of small pelagics schools. The raw data are stored in HAC format for all frequencies and processed in part on board. The biological samples collected are analysed partly at sea or on return to the laboratory (age-length keys, length/weight relationships, genetic testing and fecundity). All the acoustic data and abundance estimates (currently stored using the specific software Baracouda) will be transferred in the Ifremer’s central Harmonie database once the acoustic data archiving procedures currently under development have been validated. Stations characteristics, catch compositions of the hauls and biological data are already stored in this database.

The results of PELGAS 2010 were impatiently awaited in the context of the management of the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay. All the information collected was promptly processed to be communicated to the specific working groups at the end of the first half of the year (STECF, WGANSA, WGWIDE, and WGACEGG)

50

Mediterranean sea and Black sea

III.G.1.4. Mediterranean international bottom trawl survey – MEDITS-FR

The purpose of the MEDITS-FR survey (French component of MEDITS) is to assess the demersal resources in the trawlable areas at depths of between 10m and 800m off the coast of Corsica (GSA 8) and in the Gulf of Lion (GSA 7). The MEDiterranean International bottom Trawl Survey (MEDITS) programme was launched in 1993 at the instigation of the European Commission; it involves participants from all Mediterranean and Black Sea Member States, plus Croatia and Albania depending of the years.

The bottom trawl hauls, whose positions are repeated as far as is feasible from year to year, last between thirty minutes and one hour according to the depth and are coupled with regular measurements of the bottom water temperature. All catches of fish, crustaceans and cephalopods are sorted, counted and weighed, according to the MEDITS standardised protocols. Certain species of commercial importance are subjected to length sampling, and to determining of sex and maturity stages. Otoliths are collected for age reading for hake, red mullets (2 species), seabass, and gilthead seabream.

The MEDITS-FR 2010 cruise took place between 20 May and 23 June 2010 on board R/V L'Europe. The scientific programme was only 84% completed (80 trawls out of 95 stations to be sampled). This gap can be explained by military reasons, which banned trawling during the cruise 2010 in the central part of the Gulf of Lion from the continental shelf to the slope. When access to this zone was open again, heavy weather conditions did not made possible to work offshore and the cruise must even be stopped 4 days before its normal end. 31 days out of 35 were finally devoted to DCF in 2010.. Table III.G.1 summarises the details of work done, and Map III.G.1.4 indicates the positions of the hauls, showing also the area not sampled. It should be emphasised that the level to which MEDITS can be completed as planned is dependent on the weather conditions encountered. This is so because R/V L'Europe is a vessel of middling size (29.6m) on which it is difficult to do useful work in heavy weather.

Map III.G.1.4 – Locations of 2010 bottom trawl hauls in the French component of MEDITS (Gulf of Lion – left; Eastern Corsica – right).

51

The data thus collected are archived after validation in the Ifremer’s central Harmonie database. They are processed to provide feedback to professional bodies on stocks abundance and made available to GCFM and STECF working groups (SGMED for example), as needed. Use is also made of them at international level in the MEDITS working group. This latter group regularly produces estimators for fisheries abundance and population trends in standardised forms agreed between participating countries. Analysis of the data also allows their quality to be explored. It is also noteworthy that since the application of the new DCF regulation several requests for access to the data have been made by international research programmes.

III.G.1.5. Pan-Mediterranean pelagic survey - MEDIAS - PELMED

The PELMED surveys, whose began in 1993, are aimed at assessing small pelagic resources in the Gulf of Lion using the echo-integration method combined with trawling for identification of the detections observed. Until 2007, each annual cruise involved systematic prospection during daylight (6 a.m. to 10 p.m.) from Port-Vendres to Marseille along nine transects perpendicular to the coast and spaced at intervals of 12 nautical miles across the whole width of the continental shelf. Acoustic acquisition covered 366 nautical miles and hauls catches were analysed exhaustively (numbers and weights per species, length sampling, sampling for age-length keys for sardine, anchovy and hake, and updating of biological variables). Adopting an ecosystem approach, observations and counts were also made of cetaceans and birds encountered on the survey transects. The protocol is therefore highly comparable with that of the PELGAS survey conducted in the Bay of Biscay.

The context of the surveys aiming to small pelagic resources assessment changed in 2008. The European Commission asked indeed Member States to coordinate their prospection efforts relating to these resources, which hitherto have been applied to suit national objectives and were not always part of DCR actions (RCM Mediterranean, Malta, 2006). RCM- Med&BS gave strong support for the implementation of this coordinated Pan-Mediterranean acoustic survey. In 2008 the MEDIAS (MEDiterranean Acoustic Survey) group defined a common protocol for the execution of the five acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean. The creation of the MEDIAS survey was made official by its inclusion in Appendix IX of Commission Decision EC/949/2008.

In accordance with the decisions of the project group, in 2008 France, through the MEDIAS-PELMED cruise, prospected the area between the south of the Ebro river mouth and Marseille (25 transects). In 2009, to implement MEDIAS coordination and Franco-Spanish cooperation, the southernmost part of the zone was to be covered by IEO and PELMED 2009 extending from Barcelona (transect 14) to Marseille (transect 29). The protocol thus provides for complete coverage of the distribution area of the northern anchovy stock of Catalonia and the Gulf of Lion.

The MEDIAS-PELMED 2010 cruise took place between 24 June and 28 July 2010 (35 days). The area covered was the same as in 2009, from Barcelona to Marseille. The 16 transects were prospected (2000 nautical miles with acoustic data and regular sub-surface temperature collection) and 37 hauls were carried out in response to detections (32 midwater and 7 bottom trawls at sounder depths of less than 40m, associated with hydrological station). A few number of hauls were necessary in the Spanish area, detections being not so many and easily classified in terms of species composition. More frequent and complex detections found in the Gulf of Lion required more identification hauls. The details of this work are summarised in Table III.G.1. Map III.G.1.5 provides a view of the zone covered and the abundance levels of the main species found in the trawl hauls. On other part 400 anchovies, 400 sardines and 40 hakes were collected for age reading. The objectives planned for MEDIAS-PELMED 2010 are considered as fully achieved.

All the acoustic data (collected on five frequencies) are stored using Movies+ software. The Olex navigation system allows prospection along the transects to be monitored and the various types of echo to be noted. Given the size of R/V L'Europe and the limited scientific team on board, a large part of the acoustic data is processed after the end of the cruise. It is also the case for the age readings and precise biological analyses.

The archiving of the acoustic data and abundance estimates is similar to that for Atlantic PELGAS, using the Baracouda tool. All fishing operations data are stored in the Ifremer’s central Harmonie

52

database. Data are processed to provide feedback to professional bodies on stocks abundance and made available to GCFM and STECF working groups (SGMED for example). Use is also made of them at international level in the MEDIAS working group, and more particularly for the ACOUSMED project aiming to work out and implement at short term the common MEDIAS reference database.

Map III.G.1.5 – Transects and species composition of hauls carried out during the MEDIAS-PELMED 2010 cruise (green-anchovy, dark blue-sardine, black-sprat).

III.G.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from the programme

No deviation greater than 10% was recorded between the planned work and the work actually done (cf. Table III.G.1), except for MEDITS where heavy weather conditions and military bans did not make possible to sample the border between continental shelf and slope in the central southern part of the Gulf of Lion.

As written in section III.G.1.4, “the level to which MEDITS can be completed as planned is dependent on the weather conditions encountered. This is so because R/V L'Europe is a vessel of middling size (29.6m) on which it is difficult to do useful work in heavy weather.” It could be the same for MEDIAS-PELMED, also carried out on board the same vessel.

Concerning military bans, this can be construed as force majeure cases.

Regarding data quality, a software was developed (by Ifremer outside the DCF funding) in 2010 for checking the data consistency. For any French survey whose data are stored in the central Harmonie database, datasets are extracted under a common format and the routine Coser offers many options to explore the quality and the integrity of the data and to validate them by comparison with permitted ranges, then produces report on all inconstancies found. The same datasets, once consolidated, can be use as inputs to the software R-Sufi for calculating indicators on populations and their trends and for

53

providing in particular ecosystem indicators 1 to 4 of Appendix XIII of Decision 949/2008. First versions of R-Sufi were developed under the Ifremer’s and MEDITS working group umbrellas and implemented successfully at the regional level with all the MEDITS data..

III.G.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

As far as possible, the standardised protocols attached to each series of campaigns will continue to be followed, all the more so because they have in most cases been approved at international level by the relevant coordination groups (WGIBTS, WGACEGG, WGMEDITS and WGMEDIAS).

III.G.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

Nothing to report.

54

IV. Module of evaluation of the economic situation of the aquaculture and processing industry sectors

IV.A. Collection of economic data on aquaculture

IV.A.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

The annual production survey was repeated in 2010. Data were collected from October 2010 to February 2011. A first processing of the data was made to produce intermediate results in January 2011. The processing of the whole collected data gave final results in April 2011.

Analysis of the data from this exhaustive survey permit finalisation of enterprise segmentation, evaluation of production and employment of each segment, definition of the sampling plan for collection of economic data.

A working group was set up within the framework of a partnership with LEMNA, an economy laboratory from Nantes University. A subgroup for shellfish farming was formed involving also two enterprise accounts management centres which collect accounting records from more than 50% of the concerned firms. Another subgroup for fish farming was formed later with CIPA, an interprofessional committee for aquaculture, with regional representatives which will collect economic data from fish farms included in the sample.

Each subgroup clarified the segmentation as defined in table IV.A.1, defined more precisely the content of each economic variable that will be collected from detailed accounting records. The subgroups set up also the stratification inside each segment to ensure that samples will reflect the structure of the population.

Basis of statification are enterprise size (estimated by employment amount) and farming patterns: main destination of sold fish (other farms, river restocking, recreational fishing, human consumption), main farming stage for shellfish (juvenile, young adult sold to other farms, last adult stage before selling for human consumption, all stages).

IV.A.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

The intermediate results were calculated when the overall rate of response was 49%. As this rate was low, data from replies of previous year were added to reach a rate of 63% before this preminilary analysis.

The final analysis was done on data with an overall rate of response 62%. Adjustments for non-response were made by Hot Deck imputation in order to produce national results.

The volume and value variables for sales, the employment variables have been collected as part of the exhaustive production survey on year 2009.

Collection of the other economic variables did not commence in 2010. Segmentation from the production survey on year 2008 was available but the working subgroups had first to define the content of economic variables and set up the stratification strategy before sampling could be done.

IV.A.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

Nothing to report.

IV.A.4 Actions to remedy shortfall

In 2010, methods were defined and partners were found to perform the economic data collection and their analysis. In 2011, contracts will be signed between DPMA and LMNA to formalize our

55

partnership. The two enterprise accounts management centres and CIPA will proceed to economic data collection.

IV.B. Collection of processing sector data

IV.B.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

The collection of data on the fisheries and aquaculture products (FAP) processing sector followed the timetable laid down in the 2009 programme.

Sampling and data sources

The first stage of the survey allowed an updating of the file listing the enterprises with a FAP processing activity in 2009 in France and its overseas deparments (DOM), using and crossing different data sources in order to identify the largest number of companies involved in the sector.

According to the definition of the scope in the current DCF Regulation, the relevant population list was updated and enlarged taking into account all companies potentially involved in FAP processing, as a main or secondary activity and whatever they are registered under NACE code 1020 or under other activity codes ( NAF 1085Z, 4638A…).

The following data sources were cross-correlated:

• FranceAgriMer database on FAP processing companies used for the 2009 survey (346 companies) ;

• FranceAgriMer 2009 database on fish merchants (mareyeurs) practising primary processing activities, such as cutting, filleting, packaging… (44 companies);

• A list of enterprises registered by the French national statistics office, INSEE (SIRENE company register), under the main code 1020Z “Processing and preserving of fish, crustaceans and molluscs” (370 companies);

• A list of enterprises with sanitary approval for the handling of fisheries products as issued by the General Food Directorate (DGAL). 1840 sites (plants) were registered (one company may handle several sanitary approvals, for different sites and/or different type of activities related to simple handling, primary processing or secondary processing)

• A list of enterprises appearing in DIANE and ALTARES database of accounting and financial results, under NAF codes 1020Z, 1085Z and 4638A.

The basic file listing the enterprises covered by the survey in 2010, for 2009 data, was obtained by correlating the aforementioned lists. Direct survey procedures then allowed each enterprise to be kept in the relevant population, or not.

The second stage was the actual execution of the survey, by the way of sending a questionnaire to each company of the list. Available financial accounts 2009 of the companies were also collected in the aim of cross-checking and complementing the answers of the processing companies.

At the end of the survey, 311 companies processing fisheries and aquaculture products as their main activity (Champ 1) are registered, and 114 for which it is as a secondary activity (Champ 0).

The outcome of the description of the relevant population can be found in Tables IV.B.1 and IV B 2.

The 2010 data collection programme was conducted as planned.

IV.B.2 Data quality: Results and deviation from NP proposal

Definition of variables

56

The 2009 technical report underlined that the lack of clear definition for most of the variables hampered conducing effective survey and was responsible for the weak achievement rates obtained.

Clarifications obtained during the ISPRA workshop radically changed the context. It has been possible this year to precisely link the economic variables to be collected according to the DCF with the economic variables related to accounting standards applicable in France

The questionnaire was consequently modified and focused on 17 basic and clear variables available in the annual statements of income and balance sheets of processing companies (table 1) and a correspondence with the official national accounting classification codes was established (following table).

Table 1 : Correspondence between the variables of the questionnaire and the classification

codes of French income of statement and balance sheet (Cerfa)

Variables French accounting Codes (Cerfa)

1 Turnover FL 2 Subsidies FO 3 Total of income FR 4 Wages and salaries of staff FY + FZ 5 Wages of temporary workers YU (annexes) 6 Imputed value of unpaid labour (1) Family labour 7 Purchase of fish and other raw materials FU 8 Other purchases and external costs FW 9 - of which energy costs (2) Accounting codes (classes 602 & 606)

10 Depreciation allowance GA 11 Total of operating costs GF 12 Financial costs GV

INC

OM

E ST

ATE

MEN

T

13 Extraordinary costs HI 14 Fixed assets 2009 BK (net) 2009 15 Fixed assets - 2008 BK (net) 2008 16 Debts EC

BA

LAN

CE

SHEE

T

17 Total value of assets EE

(1) Unpaid labour of manager and family members (2) In value or as a % of other purchases and external operating costs

These 17 variables of the questionnaire allow calculating all the requested variables of the DCF, using the following correspondence table.

Variables of the DCF Variables of the questionnaire Turnover Variable 1 Turnover in FAP processing Variable 1 X % en PPA transformés Subsidies Variable 2 Other income =Variable 3 - Variable 1 - Variable 2 Wages and salaries of staff =Variable 4 + Variable 5 Imputed value of unpaid labour Variable 6 Energy costs Variable 9 (or % of variable 8) Purchase of fish and other raw materials Variable 7 Other operating costs =Variable 11 - Variable 7- Variable9 Depreciation of capital =Variable 14 - Variable 15 Financial costs Variable 12 Extraordinary costs Variable 13

57

Total value of assets Variable 17 Net investments =Variable 14 - Variable 15 + Variable 10 Debts Variable 16

Estimation of missing data

As planned in the national programme 2009, knowledge of activity of processing enterprises was improved by breaking down into more detail the nomenclature currently used by INSEE (1020Z), which means by identifying production segments.

Stratification was defined for enterprises of Champ 1, based on the technology and the range of processed products, in order to estimate the missing values in each stratum and to develop disaggregated analysis, highlighting the disparity of economic performances within the sector.

The 331 companies were dispatched in 10 typological groups as follows.

Main activity groups Number of companies

Number of employees

Turnover (1000 €)

Turnover in FAP

Processing Preparation (primary processing) 71 2 386 699 950 674 994 Smoked salmon 49 3 994 799 403 610 437 Preserves and semi-preserves 37 2 494 717 872 702 703 Shrimp processing 12 592 335 777 329 044 Delicatessen and traiteur products 29 2 605 963 950 713 686 Prepared meals 38 2 533 647 672 432 190 Salting and smoking 15 689 112 205 109 420 By-products (meal, oil) 3 134 33 777 32 838 Soups 6 97 14 175 11 142 Other and non investigated 51 67 9 756 9 597 Total 311 15 590 4 334 536 3 626 051

The chosen method assigns the stratum average to the missing figure.

In the case of each variable, the rule laid down was to estimate only those variables for which the rate of response was 70% or above (which is the case for the whole variable set in 2010).

Criteria for the definition of Champ 1 and Champ 0

The breakdown of the population between Champ 1 (main activity) and Champ 2 (secondary activity) was done using following criteria:

A) The 311 enterprises of Champ 1 encompass:

• all enterprises registered under the NACE code 1020 (273 companies);

• and 68 enterprises registered under other NACE (1085, 1089, 4639…) realizing more than 50% of their turnover in FPA processing.

B) The 114 enterprises of Champ 0, registered under different NACE (excluding 1020Z) realize less than 50% of their turnover in FPA processing.

Results and representativeness

The entire population of referenced enterprises was surveyed (census methodology).

The rate of response achieved was 88% for Champ 1 (main activity) and 58% for companies of Champ 0 (secondary activity).

58

For the parameters of the variables listed in Appendix XII of Commission Decision no. 949/2008, the rates of response for the variables of Champ 1 were in the range 93% to 100% and 82% for Champ 0 (see details in the guidelines in Table IV B1 and IV B2).

IV.B.3 Follow-up of regional and international recommendations

Nothing to report.

IV.B.4 Actions to remedy shortfalls

Both the survey response rate and the overall quality of data were significantly improved in the 2010 campaign, as a result of the clarification of the definition of the variables obtained during the Ispra workshop.

The stratification methodology applied in 2010, beyond its utility for assessing missing data, opens new perspectives for a differentiated and more relevant analysis of economic performance of the processing sector, which is far to be homogeneous. encompasses traditional technologies and products (canned fish, salted and smoked products…) and very innovative segments (delicatessen, sushis, prepared meals…), multinational groups and small sized craft companies, which have radically different economic rationale and performances.

Concerning the knowledge of the nature and origins of raw materials purchased by processing companies, it should be improved by crossing external trade data (COMEXT) and PRODCOM data sources, at least for some clearly identified products, such as smoked salmon, canned tuna or canned sardines.

59

V. Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem

All details on technical issues on this module are summarized in Table V.1.

V.1. Indicator 1 – Conservation status of fish species Indicator 2 – Proportion of large fish Indicator 3 – Mean maximum length of fishes Indicator 4 – Size at maturation of exploited fish species

V.1.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

The four ecosystem indicators can be calculated using the data routinely collected in research surveys, as indicated in Table III.G.1. The methods of reference for building these indicators do however remain to be defined. An approach by region would seem to be appropriate. While awaiting such a definition, the information is meticulously archived in dedicated national databases (e.g. Harmonie) and automatic processing procedures were developed by Ifremer for providing ecosystem indicators routinely by using tools Coser (assessment of the quality of datasets extracted from Harmonie under a common format) and R-Sufi (calculation of ad’hoc estimators under various options) (see also section III.G.2). These tools have been tested for DCF and non DCF surveys and gave entire satisfaction. France is now able to produce the 4 DCF ecosystem routinely.

V1.2 Actions to remedy shortfalls

An effort has been requested of scientists taking part in surveys to ensure the quality of identification of the species caught, especially in the case of the smallest species. A 5cm threshold has thus been set for the adult age for the sampling of fish and invertebrate species. Guarantee for a systematically complete analysis of the catch regarding the surveys protocols and their reference lists of species is also required.

V.2. Indicator 5 – Distribution of fishing activities Indicator 6 – Aggregation of fishing activities Indicator 7 – Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears

V.2.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

VMS data for tuna fisheries have been available since 2002, currently at a time average interval of one hour.

For European seas, France and mainly Ifremer, is currently developing a method for calculation of indicators 5 to 7, detailed below.

The VMS positions of French vessels are updated approximately every hour on average. Ifremer is developing a processing algorithm that makes use of raw VMS information. For any given vessel, this algorithm is based on the following parameters at each position:

• distance to the nearest port,

• average speed relative to the previous position in order to define whether the vessel is fishing or not,

• the spatial cell in which the vessel is located.

The first two parameters are used to verify for each position (applying a decision rule) whether the vessel is beginning or ending a trip. This initial processing makes it possible to define all the trips made by a vessel (beginning and end dates, ports of departure and arrival, numbers of days at sea). The second parameter is also used to estimate whether the vessel is fishing or making way, depending

60

on the relevant metier. And finally, the third parameter leads to a characterisation of the distribution of the fishing effort for different types of spatial cell.

Using this algorithm, a vessel’s activity can be characterised in detail and several levels of aggregation defined for the spatialisation of that activity. In Harmonie (Ifremer’s storage database for fisheries data) two tables have been created to hold VMS-sourced activity data: the first contains all the characteristics of the VMS trips and the second the spatial distribution of its activity for each day of a given trip. Data processing is carried out at the beginning of each month for the preceding month’s activity. On completion of this processing, the tables are loaded into Harmonie automatically. In addition, this routine provides the data required to build maps showing how the effort is spatially distributed.

All of the work and developments carried out during 2010 using VMS data have enabled the majority of the requested indicators to be generated.

Each month, routine processing of the VMS data is conducted, generating all the trips by a vessel plus the associated sequences.

Currently, three spatial scales are proposed: one is a statistical rectangle and the others a matrix of square cells each 10 and 3 minutes latitude by 10 and 3 minutes longitude.

The algorithm involves processing the data in the chronological sequence of the vessel’s positions over a period. Distance to the nearest port for each position and the average speed at that point relative to the preceding position are the key parameters for the algorithm. A succession of decision rules helps to define the trips and sequences.

On completion of this processing, the data are automatically loaded into the two Harmonie database tables as described above.

An interface developed in Java allows the spatialised effort data to be extracted rapidly in accordance with various aggregation criteria. The criterion for aggregation over one or more periods may correspond to a list of vessels defining a fleet, a metier or a fishery or, conversely, to an area of interest such as an MPA or a Natura 2000 zone. The allocation of a vessel to a fleet or a metier is not only determined annually using the fishing activity calendar, but also by month and by day at sea (link with the daily logbook).

Various options allow indicators 5 to 7 be generated at the three proposed spatial resolutions, these being the distribution and aggregation of fisheries activity and areas of lesser impact due to mobile bottom fishing gears. The structure of the data tables allows maps to be produced quickly to show the spatial patterns of effort. We also have run your software in order to produce data using a more precise grid of 1 minute latitude by 1 minute longitude at E are developing

Standardised outputs regarding aggregated VMS data are now offered to end-users:

• within the French DPMA Web portal, a presentation of VMS data (by country, gear, fleet, length class) offering a description within a 10’ by 10’ grid of three parameters : number of vessels, number of hours of fishing, first estimate of the landings value extracted (using the total value of each vessel by month distributed in each grid cell according with the distribution of the monthly fishing effort by cell).

• screening fishing activities within a polygon : a specific tool has been developed in order to define the fishing vessels population involved in a particular area at smaller scale (MPA, Natura 2000,…), estimate the fishing effort of these vessels and the degree of dependency they have for the area.

Concerning tropical tuna fisheries, the planned study on distribution of tropical purse seine metier level 6 started only at the very end of 2010 (December) because of difficulty to find the right engineer to do it. The study started looking at VMS database structure and examined alternate protocols of compilation of the indicator. The study will be continued in 2011 in order to be able to report in a regular manner on this indicator.

61

V.2.2 Actions to remedy shortfalls

For the European area, development of automated map production can be considered as available at various scales. Future development work will be influenced by the conclusions of the European project on the processing of VMS data and reconciliation with the information declared in logbooks (a project undertaken within the framework of the studies financed for the support of DCF and to which Ifremer scientists are contributing). One of the goals of this project is also to define the most relevant spatial scale for the representation of fishing effort distribution. Preference seems to be for a 3’*3’ scale with a single coding. France is therefore already able to provide fishing effort data mapping at this scale.

V.3. Indicator 8 – Discarding rates of commercially exploited species

V.3.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

The data required for the calculation of this indicator are collected under module A2 (metiers related variables). The quality of the data is however highly dependent on regional or even local contexts (facilities for embarking on professional fishing vessels or reluctance of the industry for trips observation, non-random coverage of the vessels concerned, etc.). Concerning tropical tunas, the planned study on discarding rates of tropical purse seine tuna fishery (metier level 6) started only at the very end of 2010 (December) because of difficulty to find the rigth engineer to do it. The study started looking at observer and logbooks database structures and examined alternate protocols of compilation of the indicator. The study will be continued in 2011 in order to be able to report in a regular manner on this indicator.

V.3.2 Actions to remedy shortfalls

For European seas, initial extrapolations show that indicator quality is highly dependent on the intensity of sampling of the metiers, the practices used by the vessels sampled and the quality of on-board analysis of catches. Further room for progress needs to be sought and France’s chosen approach is to restrict the number of metiers covered and to step up the sampling intensity of those selected as having priority in the context of the issues surrounding study of discards. France proposed therefore in 2010 to RCMs to carry out such selection of metiers at regional level, in charge for France in a second step to reallocate its regional sampling capacities to focus on the chosen metiers.

V.4. Indicator 9 – Fuel efficiency of fish capture

V.4.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

As mentioned in the national programme, this indicator could be calculated annually, given that the fuel consumption data is available on an annual basis.

V.4.2 Actions to remedy shortfalls

The issue of quarterly estimation of fuel consumption, in order to meet the DCF requirement, is ongoing within the framework of the working group on econoimc data, led by the Directorate of Fisheries with participation of the partners of data collection.

62

VI. Module for management and use of data

VI.1 Achievements: results and deviation from NP proposal

Development of IT fisheries tools by Ifremer (see also section III.C-General comments):

The development effort has been largely focused on Allegro. This software offers scientists and technicians the complete palette of forms required for the entry of all the types of data to be collected as part of DCF and during fieldwork in general. Its core purpose is thus to cover the whole range from economic surveys to biological sampling and research survey. In order to ensure high quality for the data prior to their transfer to the Ifremer’s Harmonie central database, the data are pre-validated automatically by applying plausibility criteria consistent with the reference criteria of Ifremer’s Fisheries Information System [System d'informations halieutiques (SIH)] and Harmonie (active vessels, taxonomic references, reference lists of metiers, and so on). In addition, this software will provide data collectors with all the preliminary documentation required for their data collection activities.

Work on Allegro in 2010 concerned the technical development by subcontractors of the modules on transversal data (vessel activities calendar, fishing effort and catch of vessels under 12 m by enquiries and trip sampling at the landing places – OBSDEB) and on metier related variables (sampling at sea on professional fishing vessels - OBSMER, retained and discarded parts of the catch). Development of the module sampling at the markets was concomitantly launched for including in the Allegro tool the new metier approach (in place of last DCR stock approach) and integrate the now concurrent sampling scheme by trip. Design for archiving individual data to provide age-length keys and estimates of the biological parameters required by the DCF is also joint to that module. Work was also done on the “Allegro mobile” application to make it a genuinely effective tool that is easy to use in the field.

IT developments were also made in 2010 to produce tools for monitoring the achievement of the various sampling plans implemented at national level. The Web application WAO (Web Applicatif Obsmer) allows to follow in real time works being done or difficulties encountered by partners and their subcontractors, those being in charge to give in continue information on contacts taken with the industry and/or the fishermen, with strata of the sampling plans have been sampled during a given journey on the field or at sea, what are the reasons of refusals, etc... WAO is now fully operational for OBSMER (biological sampling on board professional vessels and OBSVENTES (biological sampling at the markets). It will be implemented in the first semester 2011 for OBSDEB part (small scale fisheries sampling for effort and catch data).

More specific IT developments have also been carried out for the analysis and validation of the data stored in Harmonie: control of the quality of data from scientific surveys (development of the Coser tool coupled with R-Sufi software for providing surveys ecosystem indicators -see section III.G.2), a gateway to allow use of COST tools for estimating quality of sampling plans and precision levels achieved, and algorithms for the processing of VMS data for production of the three ecosystem indicators (5 to 7) related to this type of data.

All DCF regions benefit from this work. In general, the specifications are drawn up by Ifremer or consultants assisting programme managers. The IT developments are carried out by subcontractors.

IRD tropical tunas databases development

An important work aiming at describing databases (metadata) of the Observatoire Thonier started in October 2010. This work will result in an exhaustive description of content of AVDTH (logbooks), BALBAYA (corrected sets), LEGUNA (corrected trips), SARDARA (aggregated data) and ObServe (by catch and discards) databases and establishing correspondences between their variables and DCF parameters. This dictionary will use ISO 19115 format and will facilitate exploration of data available and formulation of DCF data request as formulated in Regulation(UE) 665/2008. During this work a prototype of a transfer module toward the COST model has been conceived and tested successfully.

63

Furthermore, in direct contribution to DCF activities but financed by IRD, it is worth mentioning:

• finalization and deployment of ObServe, the database and the application (data entry and transfer) used for observer data. This tool being adopted by European partners in 2011 (IEO and AZTI).

• modernization and re-structuration of T3 (for Tropical Tuna Data Processing), the core software used by France/Spain/Seychelles/Senegal to correct species composition and calculate length frequencies from biological sampling.

VI.2 Actions to remedy shortfalls

DCF Information System managed by the Directorate of Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture (DMFA)

Four projects are identified to meet DCF regulation:

- The implementation of a central Web site for the management of datacalls, from the entry of data by datacallers to the providing of responses

- The creation of a DCF scientific and economic data dictionary

- The implementation of a DCF datawarehouse to help the constitution of responses

- The analysis of Regional Databases and a common data exchange format

The year 2010 has enabled the completion and deployment of the first version of the web site for datacalls traceability, the progress on writing data dictionaries, the initialization of DCF datawarehouse, and participation in early evaluations for the constitution of Regional Databases.

The following diagram shows the relationship between the projects of DCF information system.

Figure 1 : Organisation of DCF projects

64

The progress of each project is presented below.

Project 1 : Central Web Site of datacalls management

A secure FTP site was established in 2009 to gather data collected from partners, including personnel data, and responses. This site is now replaced by the website of datacalls management and traceability presented above in blue, but is still used by economists for sensitive personal data until the end of the security analysis of the web site.

The DCF Web site is accessible on the Internet by secure encrypted dataflow (https) and a personal authentication. Access profiles are:

- DMFA managers, national correspondent : datacall management, creation of a new datacall, eligibility and automatic transmission to partners, upload of the final response, management of references and users

- Partners: consultation of eligible datacalls transmitted to them, uploading files for DMFA. Those files are not viewable by the datacaller, who can only download the final answer.

- EC consultation: this profile was created for the European Commission, and provides access to all datacalls, in progress or completed. The user is able to consult the workflow of datacall and responses.

- Full consultation: this profile is the same as EC consultation, and can view also the files provided by partners. It will be attributed to DMFA responsible.

- Datacaller: A datacaller profile is granted to any person who contact the DMFA and want to make a datacall. Datacallers can create new datacalls, verify the eligibility, and download responses. They consult only their own datacalls.

The home page of the website presents briefly the DCF regulation and how the website operates.

Figure 2 : Home page of the website

Project 2 : Data dictionary and catalog

Workshops including partners and DMFA have build dictionaries of economic and biological data. These works, started in 2009, were extended in 2010 by each partner.

The dictionaries allow the referencing of data relevant to DCF, and the description of metadata like definition, origin, method of collect, database, quality control, etc.

65

Project 3 : Datawarehouse

Design and realization works of the datawarehouse has began in 2010, with the writing of general specifications, the allotment of project realizations, the analysis of technical architecture, and the detailed specifications of the management of references in the datawarehouse.

Figure 3 : Steps for loading and retrieving data

Project 4 : Regional Databases

A first common workshop was held in 2010 to perform an analysis of scenarios for the establishment of regional databases. DMFA has been actively involved.

Operational databases

Collected databases

Data exchange platform ETL

Processing, calculation

Archiving, purging

Restitution of data

Supprimé : <sp><sp><sp><sp><sp><sp>

66

VII. Follow-up of STECF recommendations

Action taken by France to follow DCF related recommendations by STECF and its subgroups are given in the following table.

Source Recommendation Action taken 30th PLENARY MEETING REPORT OF THE STECF (PLEN-09-01) Page 65 Section 5.6.4

In order to advise on the proportion of cod in the catch of a specific group or groups of vessels in future, STECF recommends that the French authorities provide the following information:

- Catches (landings and discards) in weight of cod and all other fish, crustaceans and molluscs by all vessels identified as belonging to the group of vessels together with the fishing effort (kW days) deployed to obtain those catches. Spatial and temporal coverage, sampling intensity (e.g. sampled effort vs. total effort for a given vessel) should be given for onboard observer schemes for the considered group(s) of vessels.

- Catch and effort data should be provided by vessel by month of the year and for the most recent three calendar years. Any information on technical characteristics (gear, mesh sizes etc.) and exploitation patterns (e.g. target species) of these vessels will help identifying the grouping of the vessels. Individual vessel data are required in order to assess between-vessel variation within the group. If individual vessel data are not available, then the data should be aggregated over vessels within the group by month of the year. The vessels belonging to each group should be listed together with their Community Fishing Register (CFR) number.

- In order to assess the extent of spatial decoupling of the fishery and the cod stock, longer term spatial information is required on the percentage of cod catches, the period ideally including the time when the cod stock was above Bpa.

31st PLENARY MEETING REPORT OF THE STECF (PLEN-09-02) Page 9 Section 4.1

STECF recommends that MS indicate the data collection category that is to be applied for each fleet segment and for each economic variable as listed in Appendix VI of Council Decision 949/08. SGECA 09-02 identified three different categories of data collection scheme that covers all the possible typologies of data collection :

• A. Census, which attempts to collect data from all members of a population.

• B. Probability Sample Survey, in which data are collected from a sample of a population members randomly selected

• C. Non-Probability Sample Survey, in which data are collected from a sample of population members not randomly selected.

STECF notes that this classification will facilitate the comparison of survey methodologies among Member States (MS).

Type of data collection is mentioned in the tables III.B.

67

STECF also recommends that MS: - include in their NPs for the period 2011-2013, a

methodological report to describe the sampling strategies. STECF also recommends that MS adhere to the guidelines for the preparation of the methodological report given in Table 4.1.1 below (adapted from the report of the STECF-SGECA 09-02).

- include in their annual Technical Reports, the data quality indicators given in Table 4.2.2 below (discussed under TOR 2 of STECF-SGECA 09-02).

31st PLENARY MEETING REPORT OF THE STECF (PLEN-09-02) Page 30 Section 5.2

STECF recommends that it should be mandatory for MS to collect data on landings (size frequencies) and on biological aspects for all the shark species and that data should be collected independent of the threshold reported in the Commission Decision 2008/949/EC, and for all areas. STECF recommends that no derogation for the collection of the basic data for all the shark species should be allowed at least until 2013. 3. STECF notes that the actual requirements for biological sampling under the DCF are not consistent with the requirements of the EC-APCMS (i.e.: data collection at landings, discards, biological data, etc.). STECF therefore recommends that the DCF be amended so that the requirements under the EC-APCMS can be met

The onboard sampling protocol demands that sensitive species (such as rays and sharks) be sampled on every catch occasion. See section 5.4 of the relevant protocol : http://www.ifremer.fr/sih/affichagePageStatique.do?page=/collecte_donnees/observations_mer/documentation/Manuel_OBSMER_V2_1_2011.pdf A special sampling protocol with extra data to be collected as been set up for Cetorhinus maximus http://www.ifremer.fr/sih/affichagePageStatique.do?page=/collecte_donnees/observations_mer/documentation/APECS_protocole_OBSMER.pdf

31st PLENARY MEETING REPORT OF THE STECF (PLEN-09-02) Page 50 Section 5.6

In its previous evaluation (see STECF Plenary report of summer 2008), STECF suggested that pilot studies on the “tartarun” (boat seine) and “gangmu” (bottom towed dredge) fisheries should be undertaken for at least one year using a specified number of vessels with observers onboard. These pilot studies should include information suitable for the evaluation of derogations and specifically for the assessment of the impact of the two fisheries on Posidonia oceanica beds. It should be noted that the Maltese Management Plan includes the proposal to carry out such a pilot study for the “gangmu” fishery. However, basic data to evaluate the requested derogations are currently unavailable in the Plan. Nevertheless, STECF notes that the physical impact of the two fisheries on Posidonia oceanica beds and wider ecosystem impacts, will be difficult to evaluate for a short timeframe project (1 year). Thus, on the basis of the precautionary approach and also considering that Posidonia oceanica is currently legally protected by EU legislation under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)2, STECF recommends that no derogation should be granted for fishing on Posidonia oceanica beds.

The results have been submitted to the Commission and to the STECF.

32nd PLENARY MEETING

STECF recommends that at least Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, The

2 experts from France participated to the RCM Long

68

REPORT OF THE STECF (PLEN-09-03) Page 62 Section 4.6

Netherlands, Portugal and Spain should participate in the RCM on Long-Distant Fisheries, considering their fisheries in the CECAF area, South Pacific, Indian Ocean and 'other regions where fisheries are operated by EU vessels and managed by RFMOs'.

distance in 2010 in Madrid

STECF Quality aspects of the collection of economic data - methods of calculation of the indicators and sampling strategies SGECA-09-02 Page 9-10 Section 2

SGECA-09-02 recommends that MS should carefully assess the impact of non-response, especially in the case of census with low response rate. Regarding the clustering issue, SGECA-09-02 considered that approaches to clustering should depend on the particular characteristics of fleet segments. The group proposed that MS should distinguish between segments considered for clustering as follows: 1. important segments with distinct characteristics, 2. egments similar to other segments, 3. non important segments with distinct characteristics.SGECA-09-02 recommends a set of guidelines for clustering for each of these three cases. Due to concerns raised over the implications for data time series if clustering practices change over time, SGECA-09-02 recommends MS to take this into account when they segment the fleet in order to produce consistent time series over time. SGECA-09-02 recommends that MS assess the comparability of economic variables over time, include the results in the TR and discuss inconsistencies in trends.

Economic data are mostly produced from samples. France has taken into account the SGECA recommendations on clustering. Clusters have been made at the stage of processing data: segments including a small number of vessels have been clustered, notably for confidentiality reasons.

STECF Report of the Sub-group on Research Needs (SGECA/SGRN 09-02) Page 17 Section 3

“SGRN has repeatedly recommended every MS to estimate the precision of the data obtained by sampling in order to assess the quality of the associated estimates. In SGRN opinion, the best way to explore data is to evaluate the precision with the aim of optimising the sampling design (see Section 7.2 in SGRN-06-03 report, Anon. 2006). More than the exact quantification of the level of uncertainty, the objective of calculating precision levels should be to improve the quality of the data that is collected. In parallel, SGRN has supported the idea of developing a common tool for assessing the accuracy and precision of the biological parameters estimated through sampling programmes. Such a tool has been granted financial support by the Commission through the Call for Service Contracts FISH/2006/15. (COST project) SGRN will continue to request all MS to assess the quality of the estimates even if the different methodologies used prevent the direct comparisons of the results between MS.”

France has broadly used the COST tool on 2010 data for the estimates needed for 2011 assessment working groups. The results are given in the tables III_C_3, III_C_5 and III_E_3. This has been initiated in a 3 days dedicated workshop at Ifremer.

STECF Report of the Sub-group on Research Needs (SGECA/SGRN 09-02) Page 18 Section 5

SGRN recommends that species recorded under mixed categories should be reported at species level and this requirement should be enforced. The collection of such data is also important in view of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) Management, were data for example on sharks and rays is required at the species level. MS should find solutions for the next NP with respect to this problem either by rectifying the reporting of landings in ports and markets or by estimating the percentage contribution of the relative

Sharks and rays have to be landed at the species level since Regulation 28/07/1983. Concerning other species such as megrims, anglerfish, red mullets, which are sampled at sea and at markets, France is able to calculate proportions of each scientific species found in the catches or landings. This

69

species in the genera (see ICES PGCCDBS report 2009).

information will now be reported systematically.

STECF Report of the Sub-group on ResearchNeeds (SGECA/SGRN 09-01) – Evaluation of Data Collection Programmes of Member states for 2009 and 2010 Section 6.14

Because the official list of approved meetings did not appear until mid-December, many of the proposals try to anticipate which meetings might be eligible for co-financing while other MS do not. This has made it very difficult to review the NP and the review itself may be inaccurate. SGRN recommends that Member States should be asked to review their programmes for 2009 in light of this. SGRN would ask the Commission to identify meetings for 2010 as soon as possible.

The list was updated accordingly.

STECF Report of the Sub-group on ResearchNeeds (SGECA/SGRN 09-01) – Evaluation of Data Collection Programmes of Member states for 2009 and 2010 Section 6.21

SGRN reminds MS that in case of clustering of segments, the scientific evidence justifying it should be explained in the text. At the same time, SGRN recognizes that no common methodology exists on the approach to be followed and to assess whether or not clustering of fleet segments is appropriate. SGRN recommends that this issue will be discussed in the next SGECA meeting on data quality (May 2009).

Clustering is justified in particular for confidentiality reasons. Clusters are made with similar segments (same kind of gears).

STECF Report of the Sub-group on ResearchNeeds (SGECA/SGRN 09-01) – Evaluation of Data Collection Programmes of Member states for 2009 and 2010 Section 6.26

The Data Collection Regulation does not make any specific mention to the fisheries acting under a derogation regime (i.e. several Mediterranean fishing practices allowed till 2010). This grey area is particularly relevant, because the absence of a specific obligation to collect data on these fishing activities will make it impossible to evaluate the effects of the derogations. This can also negatively affect the national management plans. SGRN recommend that each fishery acting under a derogation regime “should” be identified, included in the ranking system and sampled if selected.

STECF Report of the Sub-group on ResearchNeeds (SGECA/SGRN 09-01) – Evaluation of Data Collection Programmes of Member states for 2009 and 2010 Section 6.30

SGRN recommends that all MS concerned with large pelagic fisheries, make every effort to report catches of pelagic sharks at the species level and establish the proper sampling for the pelagic species to be reported to ICCAT or other RFMOs. SGRN would point out that this is in line with the new EU Shark Action plan.

There is a problem with the data for 2009 which couldn’t be sent to the CTOI. But these data were sent to the ICCAT.

STECF Evaluation of Revised National Programs for 2010 under the DCF and a Roadmap for the Review of Surveys. Report of the Subgroup on Research Needs (SGECA/SGRN 09-

SGRN agrees with the proposed schedule for the submission of economic data in relation to the AER as being reasonable. SGRN strongly recommends MS to submit the requested data according to this time schedule (Call end jan. 2010) to enable SGECA to prepare a AER of high quality. This means complete and up-to-date data of necessary quality are necessary. In the light of experience with the next year´s data call some adjustment might be necessary.

France agrees with the change of schedule of the working group aimed at preparing the AER.

70

04)

STECF Evaluation of Revised National Programs for 2010 under the DCF a Roadmap for the Review of Surveys. Report of the Subgroup on Research Needs (SGECA/SGRN 09-04)

SGRN stresses that the revised guidelines which will be circulated to National Correspondents must be used by Member States in their 2011-2013 National Programme Submissions. Furthermore, SGRN stresses that Member States must fill in new forms in the submission of their 2009-2010 Technical Reports, transposing the informational contained in their 2009-2010 National Programmes from the old forms.

The AR Tables are filled following this recommendation, as was the case for the AR 2009.

(STECF) OPINION BY WRITTEN PROCEDURE STECF advice on sampling strategies in fisheries for blue ling

ICES recommends that MS review their Sampling Plans to ensure that the maturity of sampled blue ling is recorded and that adequate sampling is carried out in, and adjacent to, the blue ling protection areas.

The OBSMER protocol was adjusted to include this recommendation as a task to carry out on board vessels practising metiers targeting blue ling.

STECF Report of the SGMOS-09-05 Working Group on Fishing Effort Regimes Regarding Annex IIA of TAC & Quota Regulations and Celtic Sea Page 27 Section 3

Specific technical or gear configurations defined in the special conditions of the derogations are often not registered in the logbook databases, i.e. multi rigging, sorting or escapement devices (special conditions 8.1.a, b, j) or in-season management plans (8.1.d, h, i, k). STECF-SGRST notes that in-season information and fleet aggregations imply the direct involvement of the national control and enforcement institutions in the review process. STECF-SGRST recommends that to the fullest extent possible, national logbook data bases be made consistent with both the regulations defined in Annex IIA of the fishing opportunities regulation and the fleet-metier definitions defined under the revised data collection regulation (Council Reg. 199/2008).

Report on the Evaluation of Data Collection Related to the Fish Processing Sector (SGECA 09 03) Page 9 Section 3

STECF observes that section 9.2. of the working group report presents possible deeper economic analysis based on data collected under the old and new data regulations. The possibilities presented here are ambitious, and are not feasible if economic data are provided on a national level only, as requested by the DCR/DCF. In order to be able to conduct the analyses proposed here, STECF recommends that at the national institutes, data should be disaggregated by either type of commodity or by company size.

71

VIII. List of acronyms and abbreviations

AZTI AZTI-Technalia Foundation CPUE Catch Per Unit of Effort CRO Centre de Recherches Océanologiques (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) CRODT Centre de Recherches Océanographiques de Dakar Thiaroye (Dakar, Sénégal) DCR Data Collection Regulation (Council Regulation 1543/2000) DCF Data Collection Framework (Council Regulation 199/2008) DPMA Directorate for Marine fisheries and Aquaculture EVHOE Évaluation des ressources Halieutiques de l'Ouest-Européen / French evaluation of

Western European Fisheries Resources (part of W-IBTS-4thQ survey) FBA Fleet Based Approach GFCM General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean IBTS International Bottom Trawl Survey ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IEO Instituto Español de Oceanografía / Spanish Institute of Oceanography IFREMER Institut Français pour l'Exploitation de la Mer / French Institute for the Exploitation

of the Sea IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission IRD Institut de Recherche pour le Développement / Institute for development research ISRA Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles / Agricultural Research Institute,

Senegal JRC Joint Research Centre MEDIAS MEDiterranean International Acoustic Survey MEDITS MEDiterranean International bottom Trawl Survey ORC Oceanographic Research Centre PELGAS Campagne acoustique PELagiques-GAScogne / French acoustic survey for small

pelagics in the Bay of Biscay (part of SAHMAC survey) PELMED Campagne acoustique PELagiques-MEDditerranée / French acoustic survey for

small pelagics in the Mediterranean (part of MEDITS survey) PGCCDBS ICES Planning Group on Commercial Catch, Discards and Biological Sampling PGMED Mediterranean planning group for methods RCM DCR/DCF Regional Coordination Meeting RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation SFA Seychelles Fishing Authority SGMED Sub-Group for the Mediterranean (STECF sub-group) SGRN Sub-Group for Research Needs (STECF sub-group) STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries TAAF Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WECAFC WEstern Central Atlantic Fishery Commission WPEB IOTC Working party on Ecosystem and Bycatch WPTT IOTC Working party on Tropical Tunas WPDCS IOTC Working Party on Data Collection and Statistics NB : for ICES Working Groups acronyms see Technical Table II.B.1 and VI.1

72

IX. Comments, suggestions and reflections

73

X. References

74

XI. Annexes

- Table III.B.1: Population segments for collection of economic data - Table III.B.2: Economic clustering of fleet segments - Table III.B.3: Economic data collection strategy - Table IV.A.1: General overview of aquaculture activities - Table IV.A.2: Population segments for collection of aquaculture data - Table IV.A.3: Sampling strategy Aquaculture sector - Table IV.B.1: Processing industry: Population segments for collection of economic data - Table IV.B.2: Sampling strategy – Processing industry