Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2015)294 - Establishment of a Union framework for data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (recast)

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier COM(2015)294 - Establishment of a Union framework for data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common ...
source COM(2015)294 EN
date 18-06-2015


1. Context of the proposal

1.1.Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

Data collection is essential for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), as a basis for founding it on the best possible scientific advice. Data are needed to evaluate the state of fish stocks, the profitability of the different segments of the sector and the effects of fisheries and aquaculture on the ecosystem. Data are also needed to evaluate EU policies: fisheries management measures, structural financial measures in support of the fisheries and aquaculture dependent areas, mitigation measures to reduce negative effects of fisheries on the ecosystem.

For this reason, an EU framework for the collection and management of fisheries data was established in 2000 1 , and then reformed in 2008 resulting in the Data Collection Framework (DCF) 2 . The DCF represented a major progress in establishing a harmonized set of EU rules governing the collection of biological, environmental, technical, and socio-economic data on the fishing, aquaculture and processing sectors.

The 2013 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) needs to be matched by adaptations in the supporting scientific advice and therefore the data needed for it. This is particularly relevant in order to achieve maximum sustainable yield (MSY) at the latest by 2020, to manage fisheries taking account of their impacts on the ecosystem, and to gradually introduce a landing obligation. The reform of the CFP also requires changes in the way data are obtained, e.g. regionalisation and devolution of tasks from the European Union to Member States in the context of regional cooperation.

As part of its Work Programme 2015 3 , the Commission has announced that it will focus its efforts on putting the recent CFP reform smoothly into operation, and that the top priority for fisheries is to focus on exploring synergies between existing legislation.

This proposal intends to build on what works (therefore maintaining a large degree of continuity), whilst at the same time responding to the new requirements. It is accompanied by a staff working paper.

1.2.Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area: alignment with the CFP reform

At the adoption of the CFP Regulation 4 , the Council and European Parliament requested the Commission to 'fast track the adoption of a proposal to amend EU Regulation 199/2008 in order that the principles and objectives for data collection that are essential to support the reformed Common Fisheries Policy and set out in the new CFP Reform Regulation can be given practical effect as early as possible' 5 . The enclosed proposal aims to reach this aim through:

Adjusting to new data needs: The scope of the DCF should be aligned with needs strictly arising from the revision of the CFP Regulation as set out in its Article 25. This requires adjustments relating to: the gradual move to MSY, the impacts of fisheries on ecosystems (e.g. protected species, seabed habitats); the environmental and other impacts of aquaculture (illustrated by information on mortality/losses, use of medicines); and the effects of the landing obligation.

Consultations have shown that some data were collected but not used even for some stocks managed at MSY. There are over 400 stocks covered by the current DCF, and not all require the most detailed type of stock assessment and thus will not require the most extensive and frequent data collection. The revision of the DCF should therefore also ensure that data are collected according to a cost/benefit or a cost/use analysis of the precision obtained by scientific models and the associated level of risk. For example, instead of conducting surveys every year, doing them every three years.

Such an analysis should be based on a discussion between the fisheries managers, data collectors and the providers of scientific advice in order to remedy the situation whereby data requirements were established essentially as a compilation of needs for individual stocks, resulting in a mismatch between the amount and extent of data collected for some stocks and the needs of end-users including fisheries managers. This will be achieved by including for the first time criteria for stock prioritizing 6 , for example, economic and social importance, rate of stock exploitation or the existence of management or protection plans. These should be used when developing and then revising the EU Multi-annual Programme, which implements in detail the DCF Regulation. An example of this is Baltic plaice, for which more data is collected than needed to monitor the stock.

Strengthening regional cooperation: in line with the regionalisation of the CFP, whereby more tailor made fisheries management decisions will be made through cooperation between Member States within the same marine region, data collectors should plan their activities in discussion with regional data end-users, and increasingly share tasks across Member States.

1.3.Consistency with other Union policies

Contents

1.

The proposal also harmonises and coordinates with similar data collection policies in the environmental and in the statistical regulatory frameworks (see below under simplification)


2. Legal basis, subsidiarity and proportionality

2.1.•Legal basis

2.

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43 (2) on fisheries, also the legal basis for the CFP


2.2.•Subsidiarity

3.

Not relevant here because fisheries policy is exclusive EU competence


2.3.•Proportionality:

This legal proposal is intended to establish a framework for data collection, management and use and thus does not go beyond what is necessary and appropriate, for the achievement of the basic objective of improving data quality, access and availability in the fisheries sector

2.4.•Choice of the instrument:

4.

This legal form is chosen because of the positive experience with the current legal instrument (see next chapter on ex-post evaluations, and stakeholder consultations)


3. Results of ex-post evaluations, stakeholder consultations and impacts assessments

3.1.Ex-post evaluation stakeholder consultations and other studies

Several studies, evaluations, one dedicated ex-post evaluation and a stakeholder workshop are the basis or the preparation of this proposal. A summary of consultations and studies carried out is provided in the staff working paper. On this basis, the Commission draws the following conclusions:

Data quantity: The DCF has significantly increased the quantity of fisheries data, and is generally considered to be fit for purpose. The DCF has, in particular, provided an EU-wide framework with harmonized procedures, and has enabled development of time series of data. Nevertheless, the current data collection system has focused on providing data primarily for fisheries management, while under the reformed CFP, data will be needed also to support several new or strengthened policy objectives: the move to ecosystem-based fishery management; a new emphasis on the development of sustainable aquaculture; an improved impact assessment of decisions on fisheries management.

Data quality is now considered to be relatively good but there remains scope for improvement. Quality assurance and control procedures vary greatly between Member States and should in general be further strengthened, in particular for socio-economic data.

Data availability: is the area where most progress should be made. The main issues are the following: i) The process through which end-users 7 request data from Member States ("data calls") is too burdensome and resource intensive; ii) compliance and timeliness of data provision by Member States to end-users has not always been satisfactory; iii) Accessibility to fishing activity data varies across Member States due to differing access rules, based in part on limitations of multi-purpose use of these data; and iv) DCF data are under-utilized due to difficulties in accessing them, leading to great opportunities lost in potential use of these data and unnecessary investments when collecting the same data for other purposes (e.g. in maritime spatial policies). Availability should therefore be increased and simplified. As the need for information on the marine environment is increasing, there is an opportunity for multi-purpose collection of data that should not be missed.

Flexibility: The DCF has been an improvement in setting common rules for all Member States, which allow policy makers (including at national level) to base their decisions on a similar, comparable set of information. However, the legal set-up of the DCF is generally considered excessively prescriptive and detailed, resulting in a cumbersome and insufficiently responsive system to evolving needs. It is therefore necessary to better incorporate end-user in the design and implementation of the DCF to ensure closer alignment between data needed and data collected.

Complexity: The DCF is generally considered as too complex, both the legal framework, and in terms of implementation arrangements. One source of complexity and inefficiency is the duplication, between data requirements covered by the DCF and other EU legislation such as the fisheries Control Regulation 8 and EU statistical Regulations 9 . The fact that the same raw data need to be sent in differently aggregated forms to different end-users is perceived as another source of complexity and inefficiency.

Another area is the need to increase synergies with the objectives of other EU legislation. This is primarily the case for The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) 10 , which aims at reaching 'good environmental status' of the EU's marine waters by 2020, and is to be assessed, among other tools, by 11 qualitative descriptors, some of which are directly or indirectly related to fisheries. Through its revision, the DCF should ensure that data can be used also for the purpose of implementing the MSFD.

Regional cooperation is widely heralded as one of the key strengths of the DCF and should be further strengthened in line with the direction taken by the CFP reform. To support the regionalisation of the fisheries management measures by adequate scientific advice at regional level, it is important to further encourage cooperation between Member States also in the area of data collection.

A separate dedicated impact assessment was not deemed necessary in view of the large database of studies available and because the DCF was subject of the impact assessment for the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) when the intention was that the DCF should be part of it.

3.2.Regulatory fitness and simplification of the current system

The revision of the DCF is part of the Commission's Regulatory Fitness Programme (REFIT) which seeks to cut red tape and remove regulatory burden. This means simplifying the DCF at different levels.

5.

3.2.1.Removing overlaps and seeking synergies between EU legislations


The proposal aims first to align the DCF and other relevant EU legislation relating to fisheries data collection so as to remove overlaps and therefore reduce costs of the entire system of marine data. The DCF will only create data collection obligations insofar as they are not already covered by other EU legislation, thus clearly becoming the main EU instrument to provide biological, socio-economic and environmental data on fisheries, whilst the Control Regulation will continue to provide the core data on fishing activity (landings, catches and effort) and the statistical Regulations will provide core production statistics on the aquaculture and processing sectors. Following this alignment, the Commission would make the necessary proposals to also amend these Regulations should the need arise for the purposes of the CFP.

The proposal also intends to maximise synergies with environmental law. The current DCF does not provide sufficient data on some ecosystem impacts of fisheries which are however required for implementing efficiently the MSFD. This is the case of incidental catches of protected species (birds, marine mammals, turtles etc.), effects on food webs (predator-prey relations), and the impact of fishing on habitats. Relevant data on these three impacts could be collected through existing or modified DCF mechanisms and therefore, at minimum costs, also serve the purpose of improving knowledge of the marine environment.

Synergy would also be sought with the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community 11 , which requires Member States to establish compatible data storage and exchange systems for the purposes of EU environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment.

6.

3.2.2.Reducing the level of prescriptions set at EU level without compromising data quality


The legislation should be more result-oriented and leave more flexibility to Member States regarding implementation. By ensuring more and earlier involvement of the Member States, in the context of regional cooperation, on decision making about methodologies to be followed or quality targets to be met, the DCF can be greatly simplified and the data collection system made more flexible. This can also be achieved by allowing the main data end-users within a region (such as ICES 12 , GFCM 13 ) to take part in the elaboration of the data requirements, so as to ensure these better respond to their needs, such as in the context of the establishment of long term management plans. In future, this will primarily be discussed by Member States and end-users at regional level, while the scientific soundness will still be ensured by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) involvement.

At the same time, improvements in quality and reliability still need to be achieved so as to guarantee a high quality of data. One way will be to apply the European Statistics Code of Practice and the Quality Assurance framework of the European Statistical System

7.

3.2.3.Reducing the details decided by or reported to the Commission


Currently, national programmes describe in great detail what will be done, how and by whom in each Member State. The objective is to reduce this significantly. With the move away from triennial to multi-annual EU and national programmes, Member States will be in a position to plan their work over a longer period. This will also result in a lower administrative burden for the Commission and Member States relating to annual adoptions of financing decisions and work plans. Similarly, with regard to reporting, the process and format will be greatly simplified (see below).

8.

3.2.4.Collecting once, using several times


The data requests have increased over time and will continue to do so as the impacts of fisheries and aquaculture on the marine ecosystems need to be increasingly well described, and the effects of human activity on the marine environment need to be increasingly well monitored. The revision of the DCF is an opportunity to, on the one hand, ensure better availability of fisheries data to a wider circle of interested parties, and on the other hand, to reduce the burden of data requests on Member States by using the most recent technical developments.

To achieve this dual objective, a first proposal is to make the DCF the main legal instrument by which Member States are to provide any data necessary to data users (end-users and other interested parties), whatever the source of the legal obligation under which data are collected (DCF or any other EU legislation), unless other legal instruments already provide for the availability of the data (e.g. most statistical Regulations).

It is important that no generic measures are taken to restrict a priori the access to data, whether by scientific users or by other interested parties. In case the protection of personal data is at stake, it must be ensured that the EU rules on data protection are applied. In case of conflict between the interests of personal data protection and the public interest of data availability, alternatives should be developed by data managers, rather than simply withholding or excessively aggregating data.

The second proposal is building on existing experiences of data pooling at regional level to greatly simplify data provision to data users. The new framework should enhance cooperation between Member States to develop compatible data storage and exchange systems and formats in line with those agreed under Directive 2007/2/EC 14 and promote compatibility between data formats used under other Union legislation (e.g. Fisheries control, MSFD). Without prescribing the means or the end results, there is an opportunity to greatly reduce the current burden of data calls.

These proposals will fulfil the mandate set in the new CFP Regulation (Article 25) as well as follow-up on the Commission's Communication on innovation in the Blue Economy 15 : the availability of data to scientists and to any interested parties must be ensured, save in circumstances where protection and confidentiality are required under applicable EU law. As this evolution requires time to be effective, and consultations are still ongoing on the best design, the DCF Regulation should only include general provisions reflecting this evolution. More detailed provisions would be developed at a later stage when a consensus has been found between Member States on the most appropriate solutions.

4. Budgetary implications

9.

None not already foreseen in the EMFF


5. Other elements

5.1.Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements and other complementary measures

Besides the changes necessary at the level the DCF Regulation, the Commission has identified a set of complementary actions which will be set in motion to ensure that the objectives of the legislation are effectively achieved.

First, a new concept will be developed for the EU Multi-annual Programme, which is to be adopted by the Commission after the Regulation enters into force. The future programme will be less prescriptive to Member States and more flexible to intermediate changes. Only core variables, stable for the whole period, would be in the multiannual programme, while additional variables would be discussed and recommended by regional groups of Member States as well as the detailed requirements on how to collect data.

Second, when developing the new EU Multi-annual Programme, the Commission will assess the cost of collecting certain data, as well as their coverage, detail and aggregation level. Bearing in mind the needs of end-users, it will systematically assess whether data can be collected less often or through alternative means that may be more appropriate for the type of information needed (e.g. a unique study).

Third, annual reporting will be simplified. This reporting has until now been cumbersome and not used to find remedies to problems encountered. The reports will be made less narrative, reporting mostly facts and figures, and less repetitive.

Fourth, as of 2014, there is significant EU funding under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) to allow Member States to improve data collection 16 . As programmes are being discussed with Member States, the Commission is inviting them to focus on improving their current set up for data collection (particularly streamlining organisation and improving data storage and transmission systems), investing in better data quality control and preparing the ground for adapting to new data requirements. In addition, the Commission has already launched grants under direct management to further strengthen regional cooperation. Financing will be made available to groups of Member States who plan to carry out joint actions, thus building capacity to implement the new DCF provisions on regional cooperation when they enter into force.

Finally, the Commission is actively preparing for improving monitoring of Member States' implementation. Although Member States' compliance with the DCF has generally been good since the onset of the DCF, there have been problems in establishing and/or carrying out their obligations. This is generally due to problems of administrative capacity or organisation.

Improving performance will be pursued through different paths. Under the EMFF, Member States will be required to demonstrate, upstream, their administrative capacity to implement the DCF through the mechanism of ex-ante conditionality. The EMFF also contains provisions down-stream enabling the Commission to interrupt, suspend or recover EU funding in cases of non-compliance with the CFP rules (as is currently the case under the DCF Regulation).

But more significantly, the Commission will change its approach of monitoring Member States' implementation by giving priority to preventing cases of non-compliance and finding early remediation to failures. This will be achieved through giving more attention to systemic issues leading to failures to submit data, and through closer cooperation with end-users regarding their feedback on Member States' delivery of data.

Ultimately, the Commission will not refrain from launching infringement proceedings if required.

5.2.Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal

The changes to be made to the rules laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 require the replacement, deletion or amendment of a number of articles of that act. If those changes were made by means of an act amending that Regulation, the applicable rules would be scattered among the original instrument and the amending act and would only be identified by comparing those two acts. Furthermore, inserting the new rules in the framework of the original instrument would lead in certain cases to overly long articles and thus impair the readability of the text. Consequently the Commission finds that it is appropriate to proceed to a recast of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 in order to ensure that the applicable rules are clear and readily understandable. Where the articles are given new numbers, the correlation between the old and the new numbers is shown in a table set out in an Annex.

In terms of substance, this proposal amends only those articles in which modifications are essential because of the new needs arising from the CFP reform; it deletes articles that are redundant and leaves untouched those articles and elements that have proven to be fit for purpose and cost effective according to past experience.

Notably, one should retain the key provisions of the current system: the establishment of an EU Multi-annual Programme, to be implemented by national Data Collection plans; key obligations in the form of commitments by Member States in relation to collection, storage, protection and provision of data; provisions on rights and obligations of end-users of data; and provisions on cooperation within and between Member States, as well as with and between scientific and management bodies.

The proposed modifications compared to the current DCF Regulation are presented as follows:

10.

Article 1


For clarity and in order to avoid duplication, a distinction is made between data collected under this Regulation for which rules for collection, management and use are defined, and data collected under other Union legislation for which only rules for use are defined in this Regulation. This approach is not new but the distinction is made sharper..

Data collected under other legal frameworks include notably Regulation (EU) No 1224/2009 (data on fisheries activities), Regulation (EC) No 295/2008, Regulation (EC) No 762/2008 (aquaculture statistics), Directive 2008/56/EC (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), Directive 2000/60/EC (water framework Directive) ,Directive 2009/147/EC (Birds Directive), Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive), Regulation (EC) No 1921/2006(landings and catch statistics), Regulations (EC) No 216/2009, (EC) No 217/2009, (EC) No 218/2009 (catch statistics, Regulation (EC) No 26/2004 (fleet register), Regulation No 812/2004 (cetacean Regulation), Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 (Eel Regulation), Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 (Mediterranean Regulation), Regulation (EU) 1343/2011 (GFCM transposition) and Regulation (EC) 2347/2002 (deep sea access regime), Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 (EU), Council Decision 717/2010/EU (transposition of multilateral agreements on control) and Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 (Fishing Authorisation Regulation). These Regulations are not listed in the articles, but in a recital as examples.

11.

Article 2


Provisions to ensure respect of personal data protection rules are preserved from the existing Regulation.

12.

Article 3


Whilst data collection on recreational fisheries is a limited part of the current requirements, the current definition is too limitative and should cover all types of recreational fisheries, not only those for 'recreation or sport'.

Definitions used in different legislations should be aligned as much as possible, such as the definition of a fishing vessel. On the other hand, whilst marine regions are defined in the CFP Regulation, this definition does not correspond to the geographic regions applied in the DCF, since the definition may be based upon other considerations than scientific ones. Therefore in defining marine regions for collaboration on data collection, it is important that this can be done based on scientific considerations concerning shared stocks.

The DCF Regulation should no longer determine methodologies to be applied in collecting data. A definition of a particular method such as 'fleet-fishery based sampling' should therefore be removed.

13.

Article 4


The DCF Regulation should set only basic rules and criteria regarding what has to be collected. A key challenge is finding the most appropriate legislative format to establish an appropriate balance between flexibility (for example, smooth adaptation of the data collection programmes to new needs) and predictability (for example, the need to ensure that key data will be collected over a sufficiently long time period so as to allow the development of robust time series).

On the one hand, the DCF Regulation should primarily ensure that the contents of the EU Multiannual Programme (EU MAP), and any amendments thereto, should be based on certain principles set out in Article 25 of the CFP Regulation. There is no need to repeat these provisions, however the link is made through recitals.

On the other hand, the exact variables, species, segments, dimensions, including coverage and aggregation level (what to collect)- and the methodologies (how to collect) should be detailed in a Commission delegated act (what to collect) or first discussed by Member States in regional groups (how to collect). Regarding the first aspect, this is the primary function of the EU MAP, whilst for the second aspect, the commitments made by Member States should be reflected in their work plans.

No criteria currently exist in the DCF Regulation to guide the establishment of the EU MAP. The introduction of criteria aims at introducing more transparency and a rational approach to the selection of data needs.

Regional Coordination Groups, EU Member States' experts and EU scientists in STECF will be consulted, before the Commission adopts the EU MAP by delegated act.

14.

Article 5


Paragraph 1 and 3: The data to be included in the EU MAP are those not collected under other EU legislation.

Paragraph 2: The categories of data needs are specified. These are the categories to be included in the EU MAP.

With regard to fisheries data, the exact need would be derived from the following key considerations:

– compliance with the international obligations of the EU and its Member States;

– data requirements for stocks which are managed under EU legislation. The exact data requirements, including variables and periodicity, shall be those required to achieve the objectives of the relevant EU legislation. Examples include: the MSY objectives of the CFP, the relevant long term management plans or discard plans at EU, regional or national level; the fishing opportunities Regulations; minimum reference sizes specified under Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 (Mediterranean Regulation), Regulation (EC) 2347/2002 (Deep Sea Access Regime) 17 , and Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 (Eel Regulation). Data requirements for stocks which are currently not managed under EU legislation but are of significant social or economic importance. In that context, recreational fisheries may be included when appropriate, e.g. when these are expected to have a significant effect on the fishing mortality and when not already covered by Article 55 of Regulation (EU) No 1224/2009 (Control Regulation).

– socio-economic data on the fisheries sector are collected primarily through the DCF, and are essential to assess and monitor its performance.

– data needed to assess the impact of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. This includes: data on by-catch of non-target species, in particular species protected under international or EU law; data on impacts of fisheries on marine habitats; and data on impacts of fisheries on food webs.

Data on fishing activity (catches, landings, effort and capacity) are required for biological and economic analysis. For these data, scientists are drawing partially upon census data recorded or collected under the Control Regulation. However, there are currently important gaps that need to be filled with the DCF, such as the smaller fleet segments and landings under 50 kg, and this situation will remain until the Control Regulation may cover also these variables.

Concerning aquaculture, variables on sustainability are needed in view of the CFP objective on sustainable development of aquaculture, in particular impacts and efficiency of aquaculture for which parameters such as mortalities/losses and input of pharmaceutical products may be used. The overlaps that currently exist between DCF and Statistical Regulations concerning primary production data will be eliminated by working to a system where core production data collection requirements will be covered by the Statistical Regulations and additional socio-economic and environmental/sustainability data by the DCF when needed and when not already collected elsewhere. Concerning the processing sector, currently data obtained on fish processing are collected both under the DCF and under the Structural Business Statistics Regulation (SBS), as part of agriculture/food processing category. In the future, the DCF will only specify additional data collection requirements when not already specified in the SBS Regulations.

Paragraph 4 and 5: As regards research surveys, as currently, the list should be specified in the EU MAP as there is a need for a framework of cooperation between Member States and scientific institutes, given that many surveys are run at international level. A framework is set with criteria for when surveys must be carried out, while thresholds of fishing activities for Member States below which they do not have to participate may be set in the EU MAP.

To balance the burden of establishing a sampling programme against the benefits of obtaining the data, the DCF Regulation should include a provision on the possibility to grant derogations to Member States from sampling of certain data. The EU MAP would specify the conditions under which Member States can be granted derogations from sampling.

15.

Article 6


Paragraph 1: Provisions on modalities of the implementation of the Union programme must be updated in light of the recent adoption of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).

As of 2014, programming of data collection activities will take place on the basis of the rules established under the EMFF. Member States shall submit an EMFF Operational Programme including a section on data collection (Article 18(1) (p)). This should contain a description of the activities of data collection, of the data storage methods, data management and data use and a description of the capability to achieve sound financial and administrative management of the data collected. The Operational Programme section on data collection will contain more generic information on the aforementioned topics, and will be less detailed than the current National Programmes. This programme will be adopted by the Commission and will constitute the basis for Member States' obligations, as well as for the EU co-financing of these activities. In other words, instead of two successive, detailed triennial decisions on the National Programmes, coupled with annual financing decisions, the programming of data collection activities will require only one single, strategic Commission decision for seven years.

The EMFF Operational Programme will be complemented by a national work plan, containing greater detail on activities to be carried out, to be submitted annually unless the national work plan of the previous year still applies (Article 21). This work plan will be adopted by the Commission through simplified procedures. When setting up implementing rules on the submission of the national work plan, the Commission would draw lessons from past experience and simplify the process of submission, approval and reporting on these work plans, so as to maximise the benefits of the simplification brought by the new set up.

Paragraph 2: Based on the above, the contents of the work plan should be described in this Regulation. The procedure, format and timetables may be further specified in an implementing act in accordance with Article 22 (1) (d) of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014.

Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 refers to Article 4 i of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008, while after adoption of this Regulation it would be better to refer to the entire Article 4.

Paragraph 3: With regard to the establishment of methodologies for data collection, new provisions are needed describing what steps Member States should follow and what they should take into consideration. This includes coordination to avoid duplication and to profit from economies of scale. The involvement of the Commission will consist only in verifying whether the resulting work plans comply with the Member States' obligations and whether the coverage is sufficient. The STECF will be consulted before approving the work plans.

16.

Article 7


The role and tasks of national correspondent, previously provided for in Regulation (EC) No 665/2008, is further specified.

17.

Article 8


Paragraph 1: The process by which data needs are determined is strongly anchored into regional cooperation. Building on existing mechanisms of Regional Coordination Meetings, a continuous process coordinated by Regional Co-ordination Groups (RCGs) should take place in each marine region. These groups will consist of experts from Member States, the Commission, and relevant end-users of data (Paragraph 2) and decide on their rules of procedure (Paragraph 3). To maintain a degree of homogeneity and respect by all marine regions of the horizontal principles set by EU rules, data collection relevant for all regions will be co-ordinated by the Commission (Paragraph 4), 18 .

Coordination within RCGs may result in joint recommendations in the form of a draft of a regional work plan regarding procedures, methods, quality assurance and quality control for collecting and processing of data. This innovation could bring important benefits in terms of alignment and overall quality of the data collection process, as well as better adjustment between data collected and regional needs for scientific advice. For simplification purposes, regional work plans, could replace parts of national work plans. Similar to national work plans, regional work plans will have to be approved by the Commission after consultation of STECF (Paragraphs 5 and 6).

When establishing the EU MAP, the Commission will consult the RCGs (cf. Article 3), and similarly, when drawing up their work plans, Member States should first consult each other within RCGs (Article 4), and should also amend them in line with joint recommendations by RCGs or regional work plans (Paragraph 6).

As necessary, the provisions for regional coordination could be further specified in implementing acts (Paragraph7).

18.

Article 9 and 10


References to National programmes should be replaced by references to work plans and reference to financial provisions deleted because they are covered by the EMFF.

Consultation of STECF on the Member States' work plans and annual reports by the Commission is comparable to the current consultation on the national programmes and should be continued to verify compliance of the Member States’ obligations.

A Commission implementing act will allow further simplification of the reporting formats and tools.

19.

Deletion of former Articles 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19


Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) changed the structure of financial support to Member States' data collection activities and is the sole EU funding instrument to Member States' data collection activities. It is therefore necessary to align Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 correspondingly, and remove any provision on EU financial assistance from the DCF Regulation (in former Article 8).

EU rules should no longer determine methodologies to be applied in collecting data. Provisions on particular methods of data collection should therefore be removed (in former Articles 9, 10, 11 and 12). These methods will be elaborated in EU expert groups, RCG joint recommendations, or in regional work plans.

Specifically, former Article 9 should also be deleted because it prescribed ways of sampling for which there are currently better alternatives and which can be decided on a regional level.

Provisions in the former Article 10 are now covered by proposed in Article11.

20.

Former Article 11 can be deleted because its provisions in Paragraphs 1 and 2 are covered by proposed Article 3 and 4 and its provisions in Paragraph 3 and 4 are covered by proposed Article 6


Former Article 12 should be deleted because its provisions are covered by proposed Article 5.

Former Article 15 is deleted because it becomes redundant with the new Articles 1 and 4 and recital 5.

Former Articles 18 and 19 are deleted as they are grouped with article 16,

21.

Article 11


To ensure effective and homogeneous implementation of the DCF by Member States, key requirements are necessary as regards data collectors' rights and obligations of masters of fishing vessels. These requirements follow on existing provisions of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008, and may be further specified in implementing acts

Articles 16 and 17

Articlse 16 and 17 are intended to replace former Articles 18 and 19 in order to ensure alignment with Article 25(2) e) of the CFP Regulation with a view to give effect to its principle of timely availability and provision to any interested parties. In circumstances where protection and confidentiality are required under applicable Union law, it should provide for the necessary safeguards to ensure this.

'Primary data' are defined as data associated with individual vessels, natural or legal persons or individual samples (Article 2(e). Primary data may include personal data, relating to identified or directly or indirectly identifiable individuals, e.g. vessel owners. Member States are required to ensure that primary data are safely stored in computerised databases and are treated as confidential (Article 12(a)). Provisions concerning such primary data are not modified by this proposal.

Data protection rules are, however, relevant in the case where detailed data extracted from the system for a specific analytical purpose would give a result that could identify a natural person.

Detailed data are data based on primary data in a form which does not allow natural persons or legal entities to be identified directly or indirectly. Aggregated data are the output resulting from summarising the primary or detailed data for specific analytic purposes. Under the current Regulation, Member States are required to provide these data on request to end-users and other interested parties. Under Article 16 of this proposal, this latter principle is reaffirmed. In general, these data are unlikely to identify a natural person, but for very small data sets there may be a risk that it is possible to do so. The proposal includes a provision therefore, whereby safeguards must be established in case there is a risk for data sets that personal data may directly or indirectly be disclosed.

More specifically:

Paragraph 1 recalls the principle of timeliness of data provision and the need to avoid undue restrictions. Paragraph 2 adds the requirement that Member States should ensure appropriate safeguards such as a higher level of aggregation or anonymisation of data should they include information relating to identified or identifiable natural persons.

22.

Paragraph 2 also provides for delegated acts to define what kind of safeguards are needed


Paragraph 3 provides for an obligation to ensure that end-users involved in scientific advice on fisheries 19 are provided with data within relatively short deadlines, as they need to provide timely advice to fisheries managers and where relevant to environmental managers. Other interested parties such as Advisory Councils established under Article 43 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, members of the scientific community or the public, interested by data in the interest of scientific publication, public debate and stakeholder participation in policy development should also be assured to receive data they need within a certain deadline.

23.

Paragraph 3 and 4 maintain an existing provision of Article 20(3)


Article 17 sets a requirement to enhance compatibility of data storage and exchange systems to facilitate data exchange between Member States, end-users and the Commission. In doing so, there is also a requirement to facilitate dissemination of information to other interested parties (Paragraph 1). The Regulation does not determine in what form such data exchange modalities would take place, as there is still a need to further explore the technical possibilities. In any event, parties of such data system should also ensure personal data protection, and therefore put in place appropriate safeguards such as a higher level of aggregation or anonymisation of data should data include information relating to identified or identifiable natural persons (Paragraph 2).

24.

Article 24


Article 24 updates the reference to the name of the Committee following adoption of the new CFP Regulation and a provision is added on reporting to the European Parliament and Council about implementation of this Regulation.

25.

Deletion of Article 25, introduction of Article 23, modification of former Article 27, now 24


The DCF Regulation has been adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, and rules applicable to delegation and comitology procedures therefore need to be updated.

6. Timeline

Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 is not time-limited and will remain in force until it is amended. However, the current EU Multiannual Programme, as well as the 23 Member States National Programmes expire by 31 December 2016. It is therefore important that the DCF amendment should be adopted in time to allow adoption of the new EU Multiannual Programme and adoption of Member States' work plans by end 2016, in view of the preparations and consultations needed between Member States at regional level and with scientific bodies such as the STECF.


🡻 199/2008 (adapted)