22 June 2021 - Outcomes from the FAO internal seminar on GRSF¶
- Table of contents
- 22 June 2021 - Outcomes from the FAO internal seminar on GRSF
Meeting Notes¶
Participants:
RAM (Michael Melnychuk)
FishSource (Patricia Amorim, Merul Patel, Susana Segurado, Braddock Spears)
FAO (Marc Taconet, Bracken van Niekerk, Anne-Elise Nieblas, Aureliano Gentile)
FORTH (Yannis Marketakis)
Feedback collected at the GRSF seminar¶
Following internal exchanges with FAO colleagues on the coming operationalization of the GRSF in support to FAO activities, it was suggested to postpone the public FAO seminar on the GRSF in favor of an internal discussion first within the FAO Fisheries division.
Therefore, on Wednesday 9th of June, the discussion took place with the FAO colleagues in order to fine tune the kind of features and services the GRSF can offer in support of stock status and fisheries traceability.
The FAO NFISI Team is devoting many efforts to properly place the GRSF in the best position to serve specific needs of the FAO Fisheries Division, and to properly engage the key colleagues in charge of such needs.
The main outcomes include:
- The GRSF is a key innovative tool in support of transparency and more accurate granular data on stocks and fisheries.
- The new proposed standard on unique identifiers for stocks and fisheries need to be further promoted and tested.
- FAO, through it SOFIA flagship publication, needs to step into a revision of its methodology and an increased amount of data for reporting on stock status around the World. On going activities within the FAO NFI Division are verifying how and to what extent GRSF can support the new SOFIA.
- On this complex and sensitive topic of stock status, FAO needs cannot afford diverse and possibly diverging dissemination on stock status, therefore any alternative sources under the FAO umbrella which might contradict or produce conflicting messages should be avoided.
- Data gaps: additional sources such as the SDG 14.4.1 Questionnaire has the potential to feed the GRSF and increase its data coverage.
- The GRSF needs to offer a simple way to properly define and render the monitoring evolution and the uniqueness of identifiers (e.g. ICES stocks, Anchovy Med, Namibian hake, Mauritanian sardinella). Adequate definitions (biological stock, assessment unit, management units, others …) are required to properly aggregate stock status from the highest granular level.
- GRSF should prove also the capability to ingest up-to-date data in a timely manner, in particular when the biennial SOFIA is compiled.
- Fisheries/fishing units: to better test the standard, SFP is welcome to run pilot test cases. There could be synergies with FAO colleagues involved in traceability matters.
- FIRMS, RAM, GRSF, FishSource, SOFIA etc. should not be perceived as duplication of efforts, rather added values along the data value chain with no or minor overlapping.
- The dissemination of GRSF data and its underlying approach should progress step by step. GRSF should publish the identity of the stocks and fishery records (UUIDs). While associated data will be under restricted access – at least initially - thus ensuring FAO disseminates stock status analysis through a single SOFIA channel.
Discussion of the GRSF Team¶
The group recalled several updates in progress for the recent refresh of the GRSF KB. Including the new bounding box coordinates (RAM) and the use of the FAO 3-alpha code for matching species (instead of the scientific name)
The way the GRSF could help establish the SDG indicator 14.4.1 list of stocks would be done through limited access, where potential users would go through a vetting process before being allowed access to the data. It is noted that some stock status information could be sensitive.
FishSource
At this stage it would be difficult for SFP to commit to an increased coverage of stocks in relation to SOFIA. However, there is availability to conduct pilot tests for the Fishery UUIDS.
Complementarity among source providers can result in an increase of records because efforts can be redirected to new areas, for example if ICES feeds GRSF with required data / integrates UUIDs there is no more need for FishSource and RAM to dedicate efforts. It is more useful to look at the mappings and differences between the source databases to reveal areas that require more attention, identify data gaps and inconsistencies, and bring more data in.
The UUIDs could have value for countries reporting their list of stocks for SOFIA.
SFP is looking forward to receiving more information on the new SOFIA methodology.
RAM
SOFIA stock status data are not public information, what is currently disseminated publicly are aggregated values. Anytime an assessment is released, that is already outdated, however there is a lag which need to be shorten. But unlikely can be on a year-based real time.
An added value of the GRSF is the provision of long-standing data which can be used for reporting as well as for consistency cross-checks and trend analysis. Considering SOFIA, the GRSF is a way to validate across a different line of inputs.
Adding UUIDs to SOFIA list of stocks is certainly an added value.
The expert judgment (SOFIA) blended with GRSF data and findings, contributes to evidence and should reduce efforts.
There might be no value in creating a massive all inclusive datahub. "I would be cautious against having everything in one place SOFIA. Having different eyes would be better. SOFIA should be up to date with the latest data. It has a value putting out something complementary".
A strong value added from GRSF is that “without GRSF, RAM and FishSource were in discussion for years and never got anywhere, with GRSF despite being a lot of work resulted in bringing the data together and enabling comparisons and cross-referencing”.
RAM has temporarily lost one person during the COVID crisis and are not in a position to replace this person, therefore it will be difficult to increases inputs to GRSF.
Actions¶
The GRSF identity of the records stay public (uuid, semantic identifier, name, map, etc.), Partners are encouraged to use them.
Request CNR to modify the public GRSF VRE behavior, by restricting access to the data unless the user is granted access. The GRSF catalogue records pages need to be modified accordingly by displaying identity data only.
Clear directions for upcoming work and meetings (FIRMS FSC12 etc.) need to be prepared.
Review/Approval/merges of GRSF records should speed up toward its conclusion.
Moving on with pilots regarding:
- Support to SOFIA stocks indicator [FAO]
Use for Traceability:
- FAO NFIM Team testing of GRSF UUIDs as KDEs in Caribbean region with SFP and MSC
Further development of standards:
Geography: A GIS standard for national geo-references [FAO, SFP]
Geography: RAM provided updated bounding boxes and FAO will check.
Geography: FAO envisages to recruit a new GIS expert would could help moving on with the actions for national georeference systems. RAM informed that FAO could contact Christopher Free who compiled for RAM in the past national georeference systems such as for New Zealand.
Traceability: Maturing a new standard concept: traceability units [FAO, SFP]
Data Policy: adopting a Data Policy for GRSF for records validation, access, and dissemination [GRSF Team]
