Applications halieutiques du système Argos

Le système Argos est actuellement utilisé dans trois programmes se rapportant aux pêches maritimes. Les programmes d'aide à la prospection du germon (#Thunnus alalunga) dans le NE de l'Atlantique et d'étude des stocks de crevettes (#Penaeus subtilis et #P. brasiliensis) sur le plateau continental de la Guyane française utilisent une balise connectée à un micro-calculateur destiné à compacter les messages. La technologie de ce matériel permet de transmettre des données issues de capteurs météorologiques et de messages entrés au clavier en mode conversationnel. La structure du message est déterminée par un programme écrit en langage BASIC. A la réception, le décodage et le traitement sont effectués par un micro-ordinateur. Le troisième programme concerne les larves de sole (#Solea vulgaris) du Nord du Golfe de Gascogne. Trois balises Argos, reliées chacune à une ancre flottante immergée à une profondeur donnée au centre de la frayère permettent de suivre l'évolution des masses d'eau. La comparaison avec l'évolution de la distribution des larves permet d'avancer des hypothèses sur le (ou les) mécanismes de transfert des larves depuis la frayère au large, jusqu'aux nourriceries, à la côte. (Résumé d'auteur

Report of the Regional Coordination Meeting for the North Atlantic (RCM NA) 2015

The 12th RCM North Atlantic was held in Hamburg (Germany) 14-18 September 2015. The main purpose of the RCM is to coordinate the National Programmes (NP) of the Member States (MS) in the North Atlantic region. National Programmes for 2011-2013 have been rolled over for the period 2014-2016. Therefore, the main focus at this year was to improve regional data collection, analysis and storage and the evolution towards Regional Coordination Groups (RCG).The impact of the introduction of the landing obligation and preparations for its implementation was also discussed taking into account possible changes in scientific sampling schemes. The participation of four National Correspondents make possible to address National administration issues related to the oncoming EU MAP. A data call was launched by the chairs of the RCM NA, RCM Baltic and RCM NS&EA where MS were requested to upload data for 2014 in the regional database (RDB Fishframe) hosted by ICES. All MS except France and Northern Ireland complied with this request on landings and effort data. All MS except France uploaded sample data for 2014. French data were available for the meeting using a web base interface. Evaluation of the data call for submission data to the RDB revealed the numbers of species in landings and sample data and the numbers of metiers in effort data are in general data stable. RCM NA see big improvements in the work MS are doing regarding data calls coming from a situation where some countries didn´t provide any data to a new scenario where everyone is providing data; at the same time the overall quality has significantly improved, which is a large step forward. Regional data collection, analysis, storage and the evolution towards Regional Coordination Groups (RCG). Optimizing and harmonizing fisheries management across MS is dependent on improving regional coordination. The group discussed various needs and aspects relevant for facilitating future work of the RCM. Future tasks for the RCM don’t differ much from the current tasks. The discussion was focused on the structure of the RCGs, funding and short term needs to address tasks in an efficient way in the future. Regional coordination encompasses many different aspects, ranging from regional cooperation, sampling design, quality control procedures, data storage and analysis to the actual coordination, reporting and accountancy. Current task sharing and coordination procedures as well as future mechanisms are partially covered under the current MARE study 2014/19 (FISHPI). The project and its progress were presented to the group. The outcomes of this study will demonstrate future procedures based on case studies. As substantial effort and costs are involved to facilitate the process of regional coordination, the group highlighted the importance to access to budgets to cover these costs. Development of the RDB is also crucial for future work of the RCGs; funds are needed for the development. Additionally, RCM NA identified 4 supra regional topics where work can be done intersesionally in cooperation with the rest of RCMs: (1) Cost sharing of funding surveys; (2) Impact of landing obligation; (3) reviewing the ICES list of data needs ; and (4) review and follow up on RDB upload logs. Due to the importance to moving to a regional catch sampling scheme, an exercise was realised using the distribution of landings by harbour and fleet segment as a proxy of sampling frames that could hypothetically operate in a regional probability based design. The exercise was based on landing weight, for the simple reason that this was the only complete variable that was available for all the various national data sets. A regional sampling design can however be optimized in any number of ways (e.g. by landings value, by métier diversity, by species diversity, by number of fishing trips). The aims and aspirations of the end users need to be defined to ascertain which is most appropriate. It is one of the overriding advantages of a regional sampling design (as opposed to the aggregation of national designs) that the overall coverage can be set out to achieve regional goals. The RCM NA analyzed and discussed the main achievements of WKISCON2. It was clear that concurrent sampling at-sea is a long-established practice in most MS and that, where it was applied, concurrent sampling of fishing trips on-shore resulted in substantial increases in species collected without jeopardizing the main uses of data. Stock assessment and discard estimation and management are the major current uses of concurrent sampling data. Concurrent sampling has also been providing other benefits than its initial reason, such as advice to local, national and international authorities, research on MSFD descriptors, mixed fisheries and gear interactions and on mortality of rare species, data-poor stocks and PETS. It was clear that concurrent sampling being a statistically valid method for species selection which has proven to fulfil different end-users needs, implementation constraints hinder concurrent sampling on-shore. Thus, in order to meet end-users needs and to overcome the constraints that may arise from the implementation of concurrent sampling in some countries, particularly on-shore, RCM NA considers that different statistically sound approaches other than concurrent sampling must be developed to be tested in the field, so they may provide useful alternatives. Introduction of the landing obligation and its impact in the implementation in scientific sampling schemes. In terms of evaluating the impact of the introduction of the Landing Obligation (LO) regulation on data collection, there is only limited experience as the current implementation only covers Pelagic and Industrial fisheries in this region but MS have or are preparing for the implementation where they can. It is currently perceived that this year is a transition period for the pelagic fisheries and that these fisheries and control agencies are not fully implementing the LO (managing but not enforcing). As a result MS did not have a lot of comments on the current year and are in general preparing for next year. During the meeting it was decided to gather further information to address this issue by getting member states who were present to fill in a table on “Monitoring the impact of the landing obligation on data collection in the North Atlantic region” outlining the current state of play. This table could be considered as a live document which should be filled in year by year as the Landing Obligation is phased in. This table will then serve to provide an historical record as countries can document the changes year by year and will also provide guidance and act as a learning tool to all member states on how other countries are implementing the LO. National administrations The group discussed the proposal for task sharing and criteria for joint surveys. RCM NS&EA and RCM NA 2014 discussed a cost model for the present joint MS financed surveys and for future joint surveys. In addition to this model, the RCM NA 2015 highlighted that four categories of surveys should be considered in relation to task sharing and criteria for joint surveys. In the light of cost sharing, the group commented that the current DCF recast proposal refers to ‘exploitation of stocks’ rather than EU TAC or landings. Given the relative stability, EU TAC shares are the preferred basis for sharing costs. The exploitation of stocks shall be interpreted as EU-TAC share as a default. In specific cases, RCGs can in the future agree on different interpretation where needed and feasible. Fully agreement among the group was concerning to the engagement and participation of National Correspondent (NC) in this meeting. The future role of the NCs in the RCG context was discussed, indicating a formal role for the NCs in the RCG process to approve and agree on regional arrangements. However, the current recast of the DCF doesn’t include the formal involvement of the NCs in the coordination procedures and meetings. RCM NA highlights this as potentially problematic for the foreseen formal role of the NCs. Other items on the agenda were the consideration of the follow up of relevant recommendations made last years by Liaison Meeting and presentations and relevant development from ICES, EC and SC-RDB

Estimation of technical interactions due to the competition for resource in a mixed-species fishery, and the typology of fleets and metiers in the English Channel

In a multi-gear and multi-species artisanal fishery, the level of technical interactions (i.e. the competitive externalities resulting from a shared exploitation of common resources or fishing grounds) among various fishing units is high. Assessing these technical interactions is of great importance for fishery management, as any control applied to one fishing unit may have positive or negative effects on others. The magnitude and direction of these effects cannot be easily measured, unless all fishing units and species in the fishery are considered simultaneously. Technical interactions are particularly important in the complex artisanal fisheries of the English Channel. Using a bioeconomic model of the English Channel that incorporates all the major fishing units (the BECHAMEL model), we describe a method for measuring and classifying the technical interactions due to the competition for resource (stock externalities). The results are used to develop a typology of metiers and fleets based on their overall level of interaction for the resource. We also define fleets and metiers as structuring, dependent, intermediate or autonomous.Au sein d’une pêcherie multi-engins et plurispécifique, le niveau d’interactions techniques existant entre différentes unités de pêche (flottilles ou métiers) peut être élevé. La mesure de ces interactions techniques est capitale en termes de gestion, car une mesure de gestion appliquée à une unité de pêche aura des conséquences, positives ou négatives, sur les autres unités. Cependant l’amplitude et le sens de ces interactions sont difficiles à mesurer, car toutes les unités de pêche et les ressources intervenant dans la pêcherie doivent être prises en compte simultanément. Les interactions techniques sont particulièrement importantes dans la pêcherie artisanale de la Manche. A partir d’un modèle bioéconomique intégrant l’essentiel des unités de pêche de la Manche (le modèle Bechamel), nous décrivons une méthode pour mesurer et classifier les interactions techniques issues de la compétition pour la ressource (externalités de stock). Les résultats sont utilisés pour développer une typologie des flottilles et métiers à partir de leur niveau global d’interaction. En fonction de ce critère, on définit des flottilles et métiers dits structurants, dépendants, intermédiaires ou autonomes

La recherche scientifique face à la pêche artisanale = Research and small-scale fisheries

The penaeid prawn resources occuring off French Guyana are biogeographically part of the large homogenous populations of the northern coast of South America from Northern Brazil, French Guyana, Surinam and Guyana. The exploitation of this multi-species prawn stock, started in 1959, yielded a so-called "equilibrium annual yield" of 12000 to 15000 tonnes. The setting up of exclusive fishing zones and national regulations ten years later led to a sedentarisation of the fleet and the gradual introduction of fishery licensing systems. Theunusual political status of French Guyana (as part of France and the E.E.C.) leads to differences in the way this resource is exploited, compared to neighbouring countries. A description is provided of the increasing research support given to management of the fishery over the last 30 years. This includes :exploratory cruises and scientific surveys, overall modelling on a regional and local basis, tentative introduction of hydroclimate variability in the fishery management, multispecies and multigear analytic modelling, macroeconomicanalysis, and finally analytic bioeconomic simulation as an attemps to provide objective answers to fishery licensing policy of the French Authorities. (Résumé d'auteur

La pêche de loisir, récréative et sportive, en mer en France (Métropole et DOM)

Direction des pêches maritimes et de l'aquaculture, rapport contractuel, 155p

Report of the Regional Coordination Meeting for the North Atlantic 2014 (RCM NA 2014)

The 11th RCM North Atlantic was held in Horta (Portugal) 22-26 September 2014. Due to the delayed introduction of the revised DCF the European Commission decided a roll-over in 2013 meaning Member States National Programmes 2011-2013 remains unchanged for the period 2014-2017. The limitations this decision brings for coordination of current MS national programmes have allowed RCM NA to focus in three major different aspects of the data collection where a better integration –as stated by article 4 Commission Decision 665/2008— is currently needed. 1. Concurrent sampling One of the major changes in the DCF that came into force in 2009 was a shift towards concurrent sampling: a sampling strategy covering the sampling of all species during sampling operations. Via this strategy the DCF is able to facilitate the data demands of the existing stock-based assessments as well as serving the revised needs for the ecosystem approach to fishery management. The requirements for concurrent length sampling were developed in PGCCDBS07. Implementation studies were done through the following years at national level and an ICES Workshop (2008) discussed about the common problems and the way for best implementation. However it seems concurrent sampling has been under discussion in some countries since then. STECF report (STECF, 12-07) noted “that concurrent sampling of different fish stocks in the same catch is carried out differently in different Member States leading to inconsistent estimates of catch compositions from sampling schemes. There is a need to explain and define concurrent sampling in order to ensure consistent sampling by MS.” RCM NA analysed the current situation. Data collected is increasingly being used by groups to provide additional information, not available in the past under historic data collection methods. RCM NA detailed the ICES Working Groups that have benefited from the introduction of concurrent sampling allowing them to provide more robust advice. Moreover, there are a large number of stocks lacking quantitative assessments and reliable estimates of stock status. RCM NA specified recent studies indicating that simple harvest control rules using information on the catch length composition and length reference points can be used to deliver catch-based advice that is risk adverse (e.g. Geromont and Butterworth 2014, Jardim et al., 2014, ICES WKLIFE). Concurrent sampling may constitute an important source of biological data for many of the data-limited stocks and the application of these simple HCRs. And historical series are in fact very recent so more results from on-going work is expected. The benefits of concurrent sampling were also highlighted regarding species specific data in species that are often grouped together, with quality that can be verified given the experience and expertise of the data collectors. In the RCM NA it was evident that not all MS were carrying out sampling in this manner. The question as to whether this variability in sampling affects the quality and utility of the data collected needs to be investigated. 2. Regional coordination Optimizing and harmonizing fisheries management across MS is dependent on improving regional coordination. This coordination is expected to improve through the use of tools as the regional data bases where on-going work is being developed. RCM NA analysed that there is a need for harmonization of métiers at level 6. This work was being accomplished since the 2008 RCM NA and was somehow abandoned last years so the problem persists. Reviewing and collating fleet descriptions, metier definitions, standardising metier coding and merging national métiers into regional metiers are fundamental steps that has to be taken by MS. RDB is currently containing big amounts of data not useful for regional coordination. The 2014 RCM NA decided to produce a reference list containing all the possible combinations for métier naming. The reference list was compared with both, data uploaded into the RDB and list of métiers as provided in the MS National Programme (NP 2011-2013). The results of this comparison show the need to restrict the RDB uploads and métier lists provided in the NP accordingly to the reference list and following the métier naming standards. The current list of métiers uploaded to the RDB is incomplete and definitely contains incorrect métier codes. 3. Quality checks There has been considerable discussion, guidance and recommendations about improving and reporting quality in relation to the DCF at STECF, RCMs and at ICES expert groups. This is an ongoing and collective task where specific inputs are needed. The report of RCM NA provides extensive guidelines to the MS how to implement quality assurance procedures. RCM NA focused on the quality issues and recommended QC and QA procedures at the National data capture and data processing level - those stages where the responsibility for checking the data remains firmly in the hands of the MS.This formsa simple standard QA document which can also inform data users and evaluators of the minimum checks carried out by each MS prior to any data upload to the RDB. There was not sufficient time to review the results and these will need to be done at the next RCM. The document itself will need to be reviewed as to its efficacy, whether it may form part of a Regional QA document and how it may be kept up to date if it does. Between the other issues addressed by the RCM NA it is necessary to stress the landing obligation. This represents a fundamental shift in the management approach to EU fisheries. The RCM NA considered different topics related to this new situation and discussed how it might have an impact on data. The direction of some of these implications is also unclear until the implementation of the obligation has been defined and the practical implications on the ground can be addressed. First issue considered was the access to vessels for biological sampling and potential changes in behaviour of fishing vessels. Opinion of the RCM is that scientific observers should have no mandate for the control of fishing regulations. Previous observer programmes have indicated that changes in operational behaviour already occur when an observer is on board. It is suspected that this will increase with the introduction of the landing obligation. Secondly, changes in IT systems and protocols were addressed. The landing obligation will generate changes for the collection of sampling data. One of the major changes is that the catch will be split into three catch components. As already stated in the other RCMs on-board sampling protocols will have to be adjusted to account for the new defined components of the catch. National fisheries institutes must update and adapt their existing IT systems in order to include the new catch components. Furthermore, the regional data bases and consecutively FishFrame and InterCatch need to be prepared and the uploading processes and raising and estimation procedures adapted. The third issue was the quality of data compliance of the logbooks. The quality of the data depends both on the quality of the catch information and the quality of the biological sampling. Both elements will be affected by the landing obligation. Concern is expressed by the RCM on the future quality of the catch statistics. The RCM is of the opinion that the discard plans, to be implemented in the different regions, should contain clear proposals on how different components of the catch should be monitored and that logbooks and IT systems should be adapted in a timely manner to record the different catch components. Analysis of the data call for submission data to the RDB revealed huge work must be done in order to ensure correct data are available for regional coordination and/or expert groups. Most part of countries uploaded data (only Spain –not uploaded but available to the meeting- and France –similar situation- didn’t do it) but superficial analysis showed the data uploaded was inconsistent: large differences between MS, low number of species uploaded indicating that uploads from several countries are still incomplete, incorrect name of the fishing activities making impossible check again the metier descriptions compiled in the past, etc. It is not the task of the RCM NA to check every data upload, so it was clear a new data call should be established to ensure MS upload correct data. Nevertheless RCM NA see big improvements in the work MS are doing regarding these data calls coming from a situation where some countries didn’t provide the data to a new scenario where everyone is providing data and worries concern the quality, which is a large step forward. Other items on the agenda were the consideration of the follow up of relevant recommendations made last year by Liaison Meeting; consideration of the cost sharing proposal received from RCM NS&EA; evaluation of the ICES data quality transmission sheets and presentations on relevant developments from ICES, EC and SC-RD

ICES PGCCDBS Report 2010, ICES Advisory Committee, ICES CM 2010/ACOM:39 - Report of the Planning Group on Commercial Catches, Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS)

The Planning Group on Commercial Catches, Discards and Biological Sampling [PGCCDBS] (Co-Chairs: Christoph Stransky, Germany, and Kjell Nedreaas, Norway) met 1¿5 March 2010 in Lisbon, Portugal. The Planning Group and workshops are proposed in response to the EC-ICES Memorandum of Understanding that requests ICES to provide support for the Data Collection Framework (DCF; EC Reg. 199/2008 and 665/2008, Decisions 2008/949/EC and 2010/93/EU). PGCCDBS is the ICES forum for planning and co-ordination of collection of data for stock assessment purposes; it coordinates and initiates the development of methods and adopts sampling stan-dards and guidelines. Many activities in this group are closely linked to the activities of the DCF, and DG MARE of the European Commission is a member of PGCCDBS to ensure coordination with the DCF activities. Stock assessment requires data cover-ing the total removal from the fish stocks and the PG serves as a forum for coordina-tion with non-EU member countries where appropriate. Since 2007, Mediterranean scientists have organised a Mediterranean Planning Group for Methodological De-velopment (PGMED) to deal with specific sampling issues of this area. Although or-ganised in an autonomous group, it was agreed among all scientists that the contact and cooperation between the Mediterranean area the ICES area should be promoted and maintained. The link between the two planning groups is maintained through: (i) the organisation of parallel meetings; (ii) the organisation of joint plenary sessions for generic issues, and (iii) the organisation of joint workshops.JRC.DG.G.4-Maritime affair