Evaluation of European Fishery Statistics
Factual Summary of the Public Consultation
Contents
1.Introduction
2.Background1
3.Questionnaire1
4.Results2
4.1.
Overview of respondents
2
4.2.
Replies
3
5.Conclusions5
1.Introduction
The purpose of the public consultation was to collect evidence for the evaluation of European Fishery Statistics (EFS). Under the Commission’s ‘Better Regulation’ guidelines, this is a mandatory step for every evaluation.
2.Background
European Fishery Statistics are the official European statistics provided by Eurostat on the production volume and value of fisheries products caught from the sea and cultivated in aquaculture facilities across the EU. They support the sound management of fisheries resources and economic analysis of fisheries product markets, and they contribute to the management and further development of the Common Fisheries Policy.
The Commission (Eurostat) conducted the evaluation to assess the extent to which the statistics under the current regulations meet their original objectives and continue to be fit for purpose. The public consultation was one of the consultation activities for the evaluation.
The aim of the public consultation was to gather information on people’s professional and personal experience with EFS. It targeted private individuals and professional EFS users, producers and other stakeholders. It was preceded and complemented by other actions specifically targeting other stakeholders, such as national statistical institutes, international organisations and various EU institutional users.
The public consultation was conducted from 18 January to 12 April 2019 on the Have Your Say website for consultations (making use of the EU Survey tool) and in line with the Commission’s general principles and standards for consultation. The link was distributed through Eurostat’s website and Facebook account to the general public and specific groups linked to the fisheries sector (https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-3790936/public-consultation_en).
People were encouraged to respond to the questionnaire. Anyone with an interest in the topic was invited to express their views on the questions identified in the evaluation design, and to present their opinions on the current situation of EFS.
3.Questionnaire
The consultation sought to elicit opinions on EFS in general and more specifically the opinions of users and producers as to the quality of EFS, why they use them and the extent to which they meet their needs. A dynamic questionnaire was developed to allow tailored consultation. There were 38 questions in all, but respondents were routed depending on whether they were users or producers; as a result, each respondent had to answer at most 23 questions. Although only three languages are mandatory in such cases, but the Commission (Eurostat) decided to publish the questionnaire in English, French, German, Spanish and Italian in order to cover a majority of respondents in the sector.
4.Results
4.1.Overview of respondents
In total 24 respondents answered the questionnaire. Respondents were from 13 different countries: seven from Spain, three from Greece, two each from Latvia, Portugal and Germany and one each from Poland, Sweden, Italy, Estonia, France, Croatia, Netherlands and the United Kingdom. This is a relatively low response rate; therefore, all results should be interpreted and analysed with caution, as they are unlikely to be representative of the totality of stakeholders of EFS. Fisheries is a very specialised sector and statistics even more so, so the public has only a very limited interest in the field of fisheries statistics. Many fisheries stakeholders had also already been covered by other consultation activities during the evaluation. Nevertheless, a wide range of opinions was represented, in many cases by persons or organisations that were not reached by other consultation activities. Therefore, these inputs were considered useful.
Two thirds of respondents claimed to answer the questionnaire in their professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation, and one third provided responses in their personal capacity. Providing more detail, seven said they represented an academic or research institution, six answered as EU citizens, four as representatives of a company/business organisation, three as representatives of a public authority, and two as members of a business association.
Figure 1: Respondents to the public consultation
4.2.Replies
Out of 24 respondents, 16 identified themselves as users and 8 as producers of statistics. The users were asked for which purposes they use EFS. Most users referred to more than one purpose. The summarised results are shown in Figure 2. The most common purposes were linked to the Common Fisheries Policy at either national or international level and academic research. Fisheries management was the third most common use followed by environmental and commercial research and media use.
Figure 2: ‘For what purposes do you use EFS?’
Respondents who are users of EFS were asked to judge the relevance, accuracy and reliability, timeliness and punctuality, coherence and comparability as well as the accessibility and clarity of EFS on a five-point Likert scale. Weighted responses suggested that relevance was viewed most positively (with an average of 3.07 where 5 meant high quality and 1 no quality) closely followed by accuracy and reliability as well as timeliness and punctuality, both with an average of 3. Accessibility and clarity recorded a score of 2.86, and coherence and comparability were considered least good, receiving an average of 2.62.
Table 1: EFS users’ assessments
It is worth noting that users overall rated EFS higher than the four producers of statistics who answered the same questions. The five-point Likert scale means for producers’ answers were at 2.75 for relevance, accuracy and reliability, timeliness and punctuality and for accessibility and clarity. The coherence and comparability were judged at 2.5. The difference might stem from better perceptions of EFS among users than among producers overall, a trend seen in the analysis of the findings of another consultation activity during the evaluation.
Table 2: EFS producers’ assessments
Thirteen users claimed that they are aware of the existence of data sources of fisheries statistics other than EFS, three said otherwise. Out of the thirteen users, seven said they use an alternative international source, and two an alternative national source (two users indicated using both national and international sources). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) fisheries statistics were the most popular alternative source used, followed by International Council for the Exploration of the Sea’s (ICES) fisheries statistics and the European Commission’s Data Collection Framework (DCF).
Figure 3: ‘Do you use an alternative data source?’
Users also mentioned eight other sources of fisheries and/or aquaculture data they use. Most users thought the quality of EFS was similar to that of alternative sources, two respondents thought it was lower, and one thought it was much higher.
In their qualitative responses on how EFS differ from other sources, users said that EFS are often old and values are not always disaggregated to the desired level, e.g. one producer said that aquaculture statistics do not provide accurate figures for imports of species by country. Another respondent preferred FAO data, as they can be downloaded and interrogated with different queries.
5.Conclusions
The public consultation elicited only 24 replies. Although this is a low response rate, they came from individuals and organisations who were not reached by other consultation activities.
The 16 EFS users and 8 EFS producers rated the relevance, accuracy and reliability, timeliness and punctuality, coherence and comparability, and accessibility and clarity of the statistics between 2.50 and 3.07 on a five-point Likert scale. The majority use alternative data sources.
All respondents’ concerns, needs and preferences have been fully analysed and given due weight in the staff working document on the EFS evaluation, which is expected to be released in the last quarter 2019.
