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

Statistical analysis of the sampling design: FishPi case study on the biological sampling of the European hake fishery

FishPi is a pilot project financed through an European grant (MARE/2014/19) aiming to strengthen regional coordination in the area of fisheries data collection. This project includes four case studies, one of which aims at analyzing alternative sampling plans for fisheries operating on Northern & Southern hake stocks. The case study analyzes a variety of sampling design scenarios, from Simple Random Sampling to combinations of stratified sampling designs (by country, by port, by quarter…), using anonymised landings data from logbooks and sales notes (2013-2014). The results were compared regarding bias and precision to evaluate the best approach. The most precise estimates of total catch were obtained in scenarios stratified by port and, secondly, by port and country and by port and quarter. The general conclusion was that regional sampling designs stratified by port provided improved precision in this fishery. Apart from statistical considerations, this conclusion was also discussed under other points of view to give a feasibility perspective showing that coverage by country, and also by domain (stock), would be compromised if regional design is simply based on statistical analyses. Efficiency and precision of sampling were found to be highly sensitive to the sampling assumptions and in general countries with smaller contributions to overall landings of hake would see their sampling plans reduced, compromising other requirements for advice such as those related to other stocks or local management measures established by National governments. Hence further analyses are being considered that integrate biometrics, cost-benefit aspects, and concurrent or single-stock sampling strategies

Report of the 12th Liaison Meeting

The 12th Liaison meeting was held in Brussels on 8th and 9th October 2015 to address the following Terms of Reference: TOR 1. Discussion on possible follow-­‐‑up to the main outputs/recommendations of: • The 2015 RCMs -­‐‑ specific recommendations addressed to the Liaison Meeting • PGECON, PGDATA, PGMed – outcomes and recommendations from their 2015 meeting • STECF EWG and STECF Plenary -­‐‑ outcomes and recommendations from their 2015 meetings • Data end users (ICES, STECF, RFMOs – GFCM, IATTC, ICCAT, IOTC, WCPFC, NAFO, SPRFMO, CECAF, WECAFC) TOR2. End user feedback on data transmission and related issues • Discuss feedback received from data end-­‐‑users on data transmission: main issues and possible harmonization of end user feedback to the Commission • JRC data transmission IT platform: experience gained and future steps • Discuss best practices on automatization of data upload by MS: data validation tools used by end users • Discussion on new set-­‐‑up for STECF evaluation of AR2014 & data transmission 2014 used in 2015 – continue like this next year? • Harmonisation and dissemination of DCF metadata: codelists, metiers, nomenclatures, best practices, standards • RCM data calls – overview of how MS responded TOR 3. Regional cooperation • Call for proposals MARE/2014/19 'ʹStrengthening Regional Cooperation in the area of fisheries data collection– state of play'ʹ. Presentation by a representative of the two RCG grants and discussions by LM thereafter. What should be the way forward? • Regional databases • Overview of use of the Regional Databases for RCMs in 2015 and problems identified • Other developments (RDB trainings in 2015, RDB Med&BS development) • Changes for the future – any recommendations from the LM? • Future role of RCMs and DCF-­‐‑related meetings: best practices, coordination, cohesion and common structure in line with emerging needs of DCF TOR 4. EU MAP • Discuss recommendations/ output of RCMs: List of proposed stocks, landing obligation, metiers • Discuss design-­‐‑based sampling in relation to DCF: does it fulfil DCF requirements? TOR 5. Availability of data • Overview of latest developments (DCF Database Feasibility Study and plans for a follow-­‐‑up study to this) TOR 6. AOB • Agree on a list of recommendations relating to DCF (that MS will need to report on in their AR2015) – COM will provide a compilation of proposed recommendations from LM & STECF Plenaries in 2014 as input • Prepare a list of recommended meetings for 2016 as guidance for MS • Review and prioritize DCF-­‐‑related study proposals from RCMs, PGECON, EGs etc • ICES update on workshop on concurrent sampling and plans to re-­‐‑evaluate survey

Conveying Equipoise during Recruitment for Clinical Trials:Qualitative Synthesis of Clinicians’ Practices across Six Randomised Controlled Trials

<div><p>Background</p><p>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based medicine and increasingly rely on front-line clinicians to recruit eligible patients. Clinicians’ difficulties with negotiating equipoise is assumed to undermine recruitment, although these issues have not yet been empirically investigated in the context of observable events. We aimed to investigate how clinicians conveyed equipoise during RCT recruitment appointments across six RCTs, with a view to (i) identifying practices that supported or hindered equipoise communication and (ii) exploring how clinicians’ reported intentions compared with their actual practices.</p><p>Methods and Findings</p><p>Six pragmatic UK-based RCTs were purposefully selected to include several clinical specialties (e.g., oncology, surgery) and types of treatment comparison. The RCTs were all based in secondary-care hospitals (<i>n =</i> 16) around the UK. Clinicians recruiting to the RCTs were interviewed (<i>n =</i> 23) to understand their individual sense of equipoise about the RCT treatments and their intentions for communicating equipoise to patients. Appointments in which these clinicians presented the RCT to trial-eligible patients were audio-recorded (<i>n =</i> 105). The appointments were analysed using thematic and content analysis approaches to identify practices that supported or challenged equipoise communication. A sample of appointments was independently coded by three researchers to optimise reliability in reported findings. Clinicians and patients provided full written consent to be interviewed and have appointments audio-recorded.</p><p>Interviews revealed that clinicians’ sense of equipoise varied: although all were uncertain about which trial treatment was optimal, they expressed different levels of uncertainty, ranging from complete ambivalence to clear beliefs that one treatment was superior. Irrespective of their personal views, all clinicians intended to set their personal biases aside to convey trial treatments neutrally to patients (in accordance with existing evidence). However, equipoise was omitted or compromised in 48/105 (46%) of the recorded appointments. Three commonly recurring practices compromised equipoise communication across the RCTs, irrespective of clinical context. First, equipoise was overridden by clinicians offering treatment recommendations when patients appeared unsure how to proceed or when they asked for the clinician’s expert advice. Second, clinicians contradicted equipoise by presenting imbalanced descriptions of trial treatments that conflicted with scientific information stated in the RCT protocols. Third, equipoise was undermined by clinicians disclosing their personal opinions or predictions about trial outcomes, based on their intuition and experience. These broad practices were particularly demonstrated by clinicians who had indicated in interviews that they held less balanced views about trial treatments. A limitation of the study was that clinicians volunteering to take part in the research might have had a particular interest in improving their communication skills. However, the frequency of occurrence of equipoise issues across the RCTs suggests that the findings are likely to be reflective of clinical recruiters’ practices more widely.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Communicating equipoise is a challenging process that is easily disrupted. Clinicians’ personal views about trial treatments encroached on their ability to convey equipoise to patients. Clinicians should be encouraged to reflect on personal biases and be mindful of the common ways in which these can arise in their discussions with patients. Common pitfalls that recurred irrespective of RCT context indicate opportunities for specific training in communication skills that would be broadly applicable to a wide clinical audience.</p></div

Report of the Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the North Sea and Eastern Arctic (RCM NS&EA) 2014

Report of the Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the North Sea and Eastern Arctic (RCM NS&EA) 2014 Swedish University of Agriculture Sciences (SLU Aqua) Lysekil, Sweden 08-12 September 2014The RCM NS&EA met in Lysekil (Sweden) between 8-12 September 2014. The main purpose of the RCM is coordinate the National Programmes (NP) of the Member States (MS) in the North Sea region for 2015

Report of the Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the North Sea and Eastern Arctic (RCM NS&EA) 2015

The RCM NS&EA met 31st August - 4th September 2015 at den Haag, Netherlands with 27 participants form 11 member states and autonomous regions attending, including representatives of ICES and the Commission. National correspondents from Spain, UK, Denmark, Lithuania, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands were present. The meeting was co-chaired by Katja Ringdahl (Sweden) and Alastair Pout (Scotland). The RCM N&SEA considered the recommendations from the 11th Liasion meeting and summaries were presented of the work of expert groups and end users for the 2014-15 period to the plenary session of the meeting. The expert groups included WGCATCH, PGDATA, WKISCON2, WKRDB 2014-01, RDB–SC, STECF and the Zagreb meeting on transversal variables. ICES, as a main end user, provided feedback. A summary was presented of the progress in the regional coordination project (fishPi). This project involves over 40 participants from 12 members states from NS&EA, NA and Baltic regions, two external statistical experts, and ICES. The project has a wide scope of regional cooperation issues including sampling designs, data formats, code lists, PETS, stomach sampling, small scale and recreational sampling, and data quality software production. It has a budget of €400,000, and a one year time line and with a planned completion date of April 2016. A project with identical aims is running in paralleled in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions The majority of the ToRs of the RCM NS&EA were addressed by three subgroups: one concerned with data analysis, one with the landing obligation, and one with issues particularly related to role and work of national correspondents

Report of the Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the North Sea and Eastern Arctic (RCM NS&EA) 2013

Report of the Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the North Sea and Eastern Arctic (RCM NS&EA) 2013 final report European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) Vigo, Spain 09/09/2013-13/09/2013The Regional Coordination Meeting for the North Sea & Eastern Arctic (RCM NS&EA) was held in September 2013 in Vigo (Spain). The main task of the RCM’s is to coordinate the National Programmes (NP), which propose the national data collection to be carried out by the Member States (MS) under the EU Data Collection Framework (DCF). It was envisaged that, from 2104 onwards, data collection by the MS would be carried out under a new framework (DC-MAP). However, the legislation for this framework is not ready yet. Therefore the Commission has decided to extend the present DCF for the time being and the most recent NPs have been adopted for 2014. Since these NP have been adopted without any changes, there is no need for major coordinatio