General enquiries on this form should be made to:
General Enquiries on the form should be made to:
Defra, Procurements and Commercial Function (Evidence
Procurement Team)E-mail: [email protected]
Evidence Project Final Report
EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11)Page 1 of 1
Note
In line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to
place the results of its completed research projects in the public
domain wherever possible. The Evidence Project Final Report is
designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of
Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable
through the Defra websiteAn Evidence Project Final Report must be
completed for all projects.
This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded, as
appropriate.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
The information collected on this form will be stored
electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to
individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the
purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the
information to any outside organisation acting as an agent
authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its
behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless
there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions
under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.
Defra may be required to release information, including personal
data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental
Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of
confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under
the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use
the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in
connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the
processes through which Defra works with its contractors.
Project identification
1.Defra Project code
MF1226
2.Project title
Under-10m automated shellfish data collection pilot study
3.Contractororganisation(s)
The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture
Science
Lowestoft Laboratory
Pakefield Road
Lowestoft
NR33 0HT
54.Total Defra project costs
56,500
(agreed fixed price)
5.Project:start date
01/03/2012
end date
31/3/2013
EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11)Page 13 of
15
6.It is Defras intention to publish this form.
Please confirm your agreement to do so.YES |X| NO |_|
(a)When preparing Evidence Project Final Reports contractors
should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public.
They should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent
a full account of the research project which someone not closely
associated with the project can follow.
Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be
information, such as intellectual property or commercially
confidential data, used in or generated by the research project,
which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information
should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so
that the Evidence Project Final Report can be placed in the public
domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without
including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the
information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only
in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give
a "No" answer.
In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully
in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information
Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
(b)If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report
should not be released into public domain
Executive Summary
7.The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4
and should be understandable to the intelligent non-scientist. It
should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the
research, together with any other significant events and options
for new work.
The current system of reporting shellfish activity (catches and
effort) for the under 10m fleet in England results in triplicate
copies of handwritten forms being sent to IFCAs MMO and Cefas.
Transcription of these paper forms result in duplication by the
different agencies as well as potentially introducing errors
through mis-reading of handwriting and the requirement to interpret
data when forms are incomplete.
A centralised database fed by a combination of computer-readable
forms and direct entry via web-interface was proposed. This would
simplify and harmonise the data collation whilst maintaining or
improving data quality.
Members of the South Devon and Channel Shellfishermen's
Association were approached to for a Pilot Group to test the
alternative data reporting structures.
Their cooperation throughout the project was critical for the
successful running of the scheme and their participation is greatly
appreciated.
The paper forms using Optical Mark Recognition techniques were
trialled.
Although the concept worked in the laboratory, testing with
fishers was unsucessful.
The forms run to several pages
The forms are visually challenging.
Negative initial impressions from Pilot Group and the IFCAS were
borne out in testing.
The forms were difficult to look at and complete.
Some refused to participate in the trial.
The Group concluded that even when filling in the forms
conscientiously, inadvertent and significant mistakes were
inevitable and that the quality of data from these forms would be
very low.
Computer readable paper forms are not recommended as a viable
method of data collection.
The on-line system was successfully trialled.
The system was secure and individual fishers only had access to
the data for their boat.
Each month's returns were locked after submission to prevent
accidental data revision.
Two styles of input screen were trialled, a calendar style and
table style.
Calendar style input is unrestricted in the number of potential
species to enter.
Calendar style was too far removed from the MSAR paper form to
be acceptable
Fishers found it difficult to check for typing errors with the
calendar style.
Table style data entry where the table matches the current MSAR
sheet was preferred
After some initial testing, modifications were suggested by the
Group to improve the layout.
Once the modifications were in place, the Group had no problems
or complaints regarding the system.
Only one sheet out of 19 had to be unlocked due to inputting
errors.
Computer entry took longer than just completing the paper form
as fishers tended to compile the monthly figures onto paper MSAR
first.
The Pilot Group did not object to the notion that an on-line
system might become an official data entry method following their
testing.
An on-line data entry system is therefore recommended as a
potential method of data entry that will help reduce duplication of
data entry, reduce transcription/reading errors and consequently
reduce costs of administering and managing the data.
Some outstanding issues surrounding data ownership and agency
access will need to be resolved.
Project Report to Defra
8.As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of
A4. This report is to provide Defra with details of the outputs of
the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of
the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs
to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of
Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not
preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal
scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other
journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such
publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra
should include:
the objectives as set out in the contract;
the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have
been met;
details of methods used and the results obtained, including
statistical analysis (if appropriate);
a discussion of the results and their reliability;
the main implications of the findings;
possible future work; and
any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge
Exchange).
Introduction.
The key data set for any stock assessment is a record of the
tonnage of removals by the fisheries. Since their inception in
2006, the Monthly Shellfish Activity Return (MSAR) has been the
vehicle for the reporting of catches and effort data for the under
10m shellfish sector. Fishing activity for the over 10m sector is
captured by the EU logbook scheme and, also since 2006, all
landings data are taken from the sales notes from merchants. Under
the "buyers and sellers" legislation, all sales of >25kg from
any one landing must be made to a registered buyer who is then
legally obliged to return a sales note to the MMO. Whilst this
covers the vast majority of fin-fish landings, there are
significant proportions of shellfish sales which fall under the
25kg limit, particularly for lobster and therefore the sales notes
are an under-estimate of true removals. In some areas animals are
caught and then transferred to large holding pens or store pots
prior to being officially landed. This is purely a marketing
practice and occasionally there can be significant mortality events
between capture and final landing. A recent example of this came
from the prolonged period of adverse weather in the 2012/2013
winter which caused heightened freshwater run-off in the South West
leading to mass mortalities in store-pots. The data held on the
MSAR forms should therefore be a more accurate representation of
true removals compared to the official landing data.
It is also a requirement of the MSAR forms to report fine scale
spatial data regarding the deployment of effort. The inshore
fisheries sector has limited mobility compared to the larger
vessels, and effort in some areas can be intensive. The spatial
information stipulated on the MSAR form is the ICES rectangle, the
sub-rectangle (1/9 of an ICES rectangle), plus the "belt" (a
distance from shore, 0-3, 3-6, 6-12 or >12 nautical miles).
Through understanding the relationship between landings and effort
on a fine scale, scientists can assess and managers control fishing
activity to ensure long term sustainability.
In 2010, Cefas, through specific funding from Defra, undertook
to investigate the quality and quantity of data being recorded and
entered the 2009 returns onto a bespoke database. These data
revealed considerable regional differences in the level of landings
recorded by the MSAR forms and appearing on the MMO's Fisheries
Activity Database (FAD). Some regions showed higher levels of
landings on FAD than the MSARS reported, indicating that the return
rate of MSAR forms in some regions was low, whilst in other areas
the landings reported on MSAR forms was significantly higher than
on FAD indicating that the Sales Notes system may be missing large
portions of landings. There were a significant number of forms
containing incorrect, ambiguous or illegible records which required
either informed interpretation or contact with the fisher to
determine what had been entered.
Three agencies receive copies of the MSAR form, the MMO, the
local IFCA and Cefas. Whilst the level of usage of the data varies
between the three agency types there is clearly the potential for
duplicated effort in terms of transcribing the data to an
electronic system. At present the IFCAs only receive information
regarding landings into their district whereas at the boundaries of
the districts, vessels may end up fishing in one district but
landing to another. A centralised recording system would therefore
enable IFCAs to track the activity of vessels operating across IFCA
boundaries and therefore improve their ability to predict potential
displacement effects of management actions and/or develop joint
management plans.
Following on from the 2010 project it was proposed that an
automated data capture system was devised which would provide a
single point of capture whilst providing all three agencies access
to the data required for enforcement, management and science. The
anticipated benefits of such a system included a reduction in
transcription errors, automatic validation and data screening
(leading to early error detection), and avoidance of duplication
across agencies. All of these anticipated benefits have the
additional benefit of a decrease in the cost of administering and
monitoring the MSAR scheme.
Two pathways for automated data capture were envisaged, a
computer-readable paper form and a web-based direct entry
system.
Objectives:
Specify and construct a database to house the monthly shellfish
data in conjunction with IFCAs and the MMO incorporating automated
reporting facilities for data owners and fishery managers.
Construct a web-based interface in conjunction with Industry
ensuring maximum data security to allow for industry to enter
monthly returns direct into the database.
Design a computer-readable paper form in conjunction with
Industry and to establish the most effective method of form
reading.
Measure the impact upon the fishers using metrics including
relative ease of form completion, time taken to complete each form,
frequency of completion and frequency of submission to
deadline.
Determine the accuracy and reliability of data, reporting on
error rates.
Pilot Group.
Unlike a significant proportion of the fin-fish fleets which are
organised into Producer Organisations and have representation at a
national level, the shellfish industry is generally much more
fragmented with a large number of vessels lacking membership of an
organisation. This presents challenges to both science and policy
in terms of interacting with the industry in that there are
relatively few focal points of contact. The South Devon and Channel
Shellfisherman's association is, however, one of the largest and
most active organisations which attracts membership from a wide
range of vessel owners, including significant numbers of
