Special Report The effectiveness of 
European Fisheries Fund 
support for aquacultureEN 2014  NO 10
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi  
1615 Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu  
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA  
YouTube: EUAuditorsECA
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014
ISBN 978-92-872-0637-4
doi:10.2865/27625
© European Union, 2014
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Luxembourg
EN 2014  NO 10
Special Report The effectiveness of 
European Fisheries Fund 
support for aquaculture
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)
02
 Contents
Paragraph
 Glossary and abbreviations
I–IX  Executive summary
1–14  Introduction
1–5 Aquaculture in the European Union
6–14  EU aquaculture policy
6 Aquaculture and the common fisheries policy (CFP)
7–8 The Commission’s aquaculture strategy
9–14  The European Fisheries Fund
15–17  Audit scope and approach
18–69  Observations
18–36  Measures to support the sustainable development of aquaculture  
have not always been well designed and monitored at EU level
18–19  The CFP and the EFF did not provide sufficient details on the content of the measures in support of the 
sustainable development of aquaculture
20–22  The Commission’s review of national strategic plans and operational programmes did not systematically 
ensure that they were designed to maximise the effectiveness of aquaculture policy
23–25  The Commission did not provide comprehensive aquaculture-related guidance on environmental matters
26–30  The Commission did not sufficiently ensure the comparability of data on the overall progress towards the 
aquaculture policy objectives
31–34  There were few relevant audits and evaluations by the Commission, and limited monitoring
35–36  Results of publicly funded innovative and research projects were not fully exploited
37–54  Measures to support the sustainable development of aquaculture have not been well designed 
and implemented by the Member States
37–38  There was a lack of initiatives to support aquaculture in the Member States audited
39–40  There were weak spatial planning and licensing procedures 
03 Contents
41–42  The financial and economic crisis had a significant impact on the aquacultural sector
43–45  National strategic plans did not provide clear objectives for aquaculture
46–48  Operational programmes had various weaknesses
49–52  Member States gave insufficient consideration to environmental and health policies
53–54  There were serious inaccuracies in the reporting of results by some Member States
55–69  The EFF measures have not delivered sufficient value for money to date in support of the 
sustainable development of aquaculture
55–56  The overall objectives at EU level were not met
57–58  The objectives at Member State level were not met
59-69  A significant number of projects audited were unlikely to contribute cost -effectively to objectives
60–64  There was limited support for sustainable development and poor targeting
65–66  Anticipated project results were not achieved or not verified
67-69  Insufficient value for money was obtained to date
70–71  The new common fisheries policy and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
(EMFF) (from 2014)
72–78  Conclusions and recommendations
 Annex I — Aquaculture turnover and EFF support
 Annex II — Sample of projects audited
 Annex III — Results of audited projects
 Reply of the Commission
04
 Glossary  
and abbreviations
Aquaculture : Aquaculture refers to all forms of rearing or cultivation of aquatic organisms using techniques 
designed to increase the production of the organisms in question beyond the natural capacity of the environment; 
the organisms remain the property of a natural or legal person throughout the rearing and cultivation stage, up to 
and including harvesting.
CFP : Common fisheries policy. This report deals with the CFP in the period up to 2013.
Convergence Objective : Regional objective for the development of EU regions with less than 75 % of the average 
EU gross domestic product per capita.
Deadweight : A situation where a subsidised operation would have been wholly or partly undertaken without the 
grant aid.
EFF : European Fisheries Fund
EMAS : The EU Eco‑Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) is a management instrument developed by the 
European Commission for companies and other organisations to evaluate, report and improve their environmental 
performance ( http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/ ).
EMFF : European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
FAO : Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
Fish : For the purpose of this report, fish is defined as finfish, crustaceans and molluscs.
FP: Framework Programme
Integrated coastal zone management : Aims to coordinate the application of different policies (such as 
aquaculture, tourism and wind energy) in coastal areas, so as to contribute to sustainable coastal development.
LIFE : L’Instrument Financier pour l’Environnement (Financial Instrument for the Environment)
NSP : National strategic plan
OP: Operational programme
STECF : Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
SWOT : Strengths/weaknesses/opportunities/threats
Spatial planning, and marine spatial planning in particular, is a public process for analysing and planning the 
spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in sea areas to achieve economic, environmental and 
social objectives. It has a key role to play in providing guidance and reliable data for the location of an economic 
activity — including aquaculture — giving certainty to investors, avoiding conflicts and finding synergies between 
activities and environments with the ultimate aim of sustainable development.
05
 Executive  
summary
I
Each year the EU produces about 1,3 million tonnes of 
fish from aquaculture, and the sector has a turnover of 
4 billion euro. One of the aims of the common fisheries 
policy (CFP) in the period up to 2013, and its funding 
instrument, the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), was 
to encourage the sustainable development of aqua ‑
culture. Consequently, by May 2013, the EFF provided 
over 400 million euro to fund measures for productive 
investments in aquaculture, as well as environmental 
and health measures.
II
The Court examined whether EFF measures were 
well designed and implemented, and whether they 
delivered value for money. This entailed an audit of 
the Commission’s and Member States’ design and 
implementation of support measures, and projects in 
Member States.
III
Overall, the Court found that the EFF did not offer 
effective support for the sustainable development of 
aquaculture.
IV
The Court found that at EU level, measures to support 
the sustainable development of aquaculture have not 
been well designed and monitored. The CFP and EFF 
did not provide a sufficiently clear framework for the 
development of aquaculture in the period up to 2013. 
Concerning guidance on environmental sustainability, 
the Court found that sufficient guidance was given 
for Natura 2000 but not for issues related to the water 
framework directive, the marine strategy framework 
directive and the environment impact assessment 
directive. This contributed to the lack of actions taken 
by Member States to address this important issue. 
There was insufficient comparability between data on 
aquaculture from different EU sources, which makes 
the results of aquaculture measures difficult to assess. 
The EFF monitoring committees did not play a sig ‑
nificant role in monitoring aquaculture, management 
information was deficient, and the results of relevant 
publicly funded research projects were not fully 
exploited.V
At the level of the Member States, measures to sup ‑
port the sustainable development of aquaculture have 
not been well designed and implemented. Member 
States’ national strategic plans and operational pro ‑
grammes did not provide a sufficiently clear basis for 
the support of aquaculture, and there was no coherent 
strategy for the sector. The lack of appropriate spatial 
planning, coupled with complicated licensing proce ‑
dures, acted as a brake on sustainable development. 
There were also significant inaccuracies and methodo ‑
logical weaknesses in the production data of some 
annual implementation reports.
VI
The Court found that the main objectives for growth 
of the aquaculture sector have not been met to date, 
and the sector has stagnated for many years. The 
financial and economic crisis undoubtedly contributed 
significantly to this stagnation at least in the main 
producing Member States. The Court also found that 
the projects audited in the Member States visited were 
often poorly selected. With some exceptions, audited 
projects often did not provide the expected results, or 
value for money, and contributed little to growth and 
employment.
VII
In conclusion, for the period up to 2013, there was an 
inadequate framework at EU and Member State level 
to translate the EU’s objectives for the sustainable 
development of aquaculture into reality and the meas ‑
ures actually taken did not provide sufficient results.
VIII
The Court therefore recommends that the Commis ‑
sion, in its implementation of measures to support 
aquaculture under the new European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund:
(a) when approving Member States’ operational 
programmes, consider whether objectives for 
the sustainable development of aquaculture are 
realistic and appropriate, and whether support is 
targeted at measures which are likely to address 
those objectives;
Executive summary 06
(b) establish guidelines for the consideration of 
relevant environmental factors when determining 
public funding;
(c) ensure, where relevant, that Member States’ 
operational programmes are only approved if ap ‑
propriate national strategies for the development 
of the aquaculture sector are prepared;
(d) encourage Member States to implement relevant 
spatial planning and to simplify the licensing and 
administrative procedures to support the develop ‑
ment of the aquaculture sector;
(e) improve the comparability of the statistical 
data on aquaculture compiled from its differ ‑
ent sources, in order to enhance its accuracy and 
completeness.IX
 The Court recommends that the Member States, 
in their implementation of measures to support 
aquaculture under the new European Maritime 
and Fisheries Fund:
(a) prepare and apply coherent national strategies for 
the development of the aquaculture sector;
(b) implement relevant spatial planning, and sim ‑
plify the licencing and administrative procedures 
to support the development of the aquaculture 
sector;
(c) ensure that public funding is prioritised towards 
projects which best contribute to the sustainable 
development of aquaculture and provide value for 
money;
(d) monitor project results more closely by setting 
and applying relevant indicators.
Source:  ECA .
07
 Introduction
Aquaculture in the 
European Union
01 
Aquaculture refers to all forms of rear ‑
ing or cultivation of aquatic organisms 
using techniques designed to increase 
the production of the organisms in 
question beyond the natural capac ‑
ity of the environment; the organisms 
remain the property of a natural or 
legal person throughout the rearing 
or culture stage, up to and including 
harvesting1.02 
Aquaculture is one component activity 
of fish production2, the other being 
the capture of wild fish. For 2011, the 
most recent year for which informa ‑
tion is available, the EU produced 
approximately 6 million tonnes of fish, 
of which 1,3 million tonnes came from 
aquaculture. As shown by Figure 1 , 
annual fish production in the EU has 
been in decline for many years, due 
to a decline in fish captures coupled 
with the stagnation of aquaculture. 
65 % of the fish consumed in the EU is 
imported.1 Article 3(d) of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 
of 27 July 2006 on the 
European Fisheries Fund 
(OJ L 223, 15.8.2006, p. 1).
2 In this report ‘fish production’ 
is used to designate the 
production of finfish, 
crustaceans and molluscs.
EU fish production (tonnes)
Source:  Eurostat.Figure 110 000 000
9 000 000
4 000 000
3 000 0008 000 000
7 000 000
6 000 0005 000 000
2 000 000
1 000 000
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Catches
Aquac ultur e
08 Introduction
03 
Finfish account for three quarters of 
EU aquaculture production in value3. 
The sector supports approximately 
80 000 jobs with an annual turnover of 
4 billion  euro4. In Europe, consumer at ‑
titudes to farmed fish vary from coun ‑
try to country, with many consumers 
having a preference for captured fish 
which command a premium market 
price.
04 
Although many species are farmed in 
the EU, just a few make up the bulk of 
aquaculture production. The main pro ‑
ducing countries are France, the UK, 
Greece, Spain and Italy, which together 
represent 77 % of turnover value, as 
shown in Table 1 .05 
In contrast with the stagnation of aq ‑
uaculture in the EU, world aquaculture 
production has been increasing for 
many years. Between 2000 and 2011, 
global production almost doubled 
from 32 million to 63 million tonnes 
(see Figure 2 ), with almost 90 % of 
production now based in Asia. Aqua ‑
culture already provides around 40 % 
of the world supply of fish for human 
consumption5.3 FAO, The State of World Fisheries 
and Aquaculture , Rome, 2012.
4 Joint Research Centre of the 
European Commission, The 
economic performance of the 
EU Aquaculture Sector  (STECF 
13–29), Brussels, 2013 (data for 
2011).
5 FAO, Global Aquaculture 
Production Statistics , 2011  
(ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/news/
GlobalAquacultureProduc ‑
tionStatistics2011.pdf).Table 1Main aquaculture -producing Member States and species
Turnover value (million euro) 2011
Member State TotalSeabream 
and 
SeabassSalmon Trout Oyster Mussel Clam CarpOther 
species
France 22 % 898 35 0 120 502 164 0 5 72
UK 18 % 740 2 678 35 1 21 0 1 2
Greece 13 % 523 485 0 4 0 9 0 0 25
Spain 12 % 501 199 0 51 2 102 14 1 132
Italy 11 % 423 61 0 140 0 40 106 3 73
Total 77 % 3 085 782 678 350 505 336 120 10 304
Other Member States 23 % 933 65 80 265 38 90 27 134 234
Total EU 4 018 847 758 615 543 426 147 144 538
21 % 19 % 15 % 14 % 11 % 4 % 4 % 13 %
Source:  JRC Report ‘The economic performance of the EU aquaculture sector’ ( STECF 13–29), 2013. (differences due to rounding)
09 Introduction
Worldwide trend in aquaculture production
Source:  Eurostat (EU ‑27); FAO (world).
Source:  ECA.Figure 2EU compared with world aquaculture production (1998 = 100 %)
140 %
120 %
100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0 %
- 20 %
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011World
EU-27

10 Introduction
EU aquaculture policy
Aquaculture and the com -
mon fisheries policy (CFP)
06 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/20026 
set out the objectives of the CFP for 
the period 2002–13. The main objec ‑
tive of the CFP , which also applies to 
aquaculture, is stated in Article 2 of the 
regulation. It is to ‘ensure exploitation 
of living aquatic resources that pro ‑
vides sustainable economic, environ ‑
mental and social conditions’.
The Commission’s aquacul -
ture strategy
07 
In September 2002 the Commission 
published a strategy for the sustain ‑
able development of European aqua ‑
culture7. The strategy had three main 
objectives:
(a) To create secure long‑term em ‑
ployment and sustainable growth.
(b) To provide good quality prod ‑
ucts to consumers and promote 
high animal health and welfare 
standards.
(c) To ensure an environmentally 
sound industry.08 
In 2009, the Commission recognised8 
that EU aquaculture production had 
stagnated since 2002, in stark contrast 
with the high growth rate in the rest of 
the world, and that important actions 
were needed in order to improve com ‑
petitiveness and encourage sustain ‑
able growth and governance. It revised 
its strategy, but retained similar objec ‑
tives to those of 2002:
(a) To encourage economic viability.
(b) To guarantee food safety, animal 
health and welfare.
(c) To address the environmental ef ‑
fects of aquaculture.
The European Fisheries Fund
09 
The European Fisheries Fund (EFF)9 was 
the financial instrument of the CFP for 
2007–13. The EFF had five priority axes 
and a total budget of 4,3 billion euro. 
Each axis comprised several measures. 
Funding was available from the EFF as 
follows:
 οPriority Axis 1: adapting the Com ‑
munity fleet (1,2 billion euro).
 οPriority Axis 2: aquaculture , inland 
fishing, processing and marketing 
of products (1,2 billion euro).
 οPriority Axis 3: measures of com ‑
mon interest (1,1  billion  euro).
 οPriority Axis 4: sustainable de ‑
velopment of fisheries areas 
(0,6 billion  euro).
 οPriority Axis 5: technical assistance 
(0,2  billion  euro).6 Council Regulation (EC) 
No 2371/2002 of 
20 December 2002 on the 
conservation and sustainable 
exploitation of fisheries 
resources under the Common 
Fisheries Policy (OJ L 358, 
31.12.2002, p. 59).
7 COM(2002) 511 final of 
19 September  2002.
8 COM(2009) 162 final 
of 8 April 2009.
9 Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006. 
The EFF replaced the Financial 
Instrument for Fisheries 
Guidance (FIFG).
11 Introduction
10 
Thus, there is not a dedicated axis 
specifically for aquaculture. However, 
axes 2 and 3 provided some funds 
for aquaculture and within Axis 2, the 
aquaculture measure (measure 2.1) 
specifically targeted the economic, 
environmental and social sustainability 
of the sector and could also be used to 
support competitiveness. Annex I  indi ‑
cates planned expenditure for Axis 2, 
and an amount of 438 million euro of 
EFF commitments on measure 2.1 (aq ‑
uaculture) up to end of May of 2013 for 
5 826 projects of measure 2.1, based 
on data submitted by the Member 
States to the Commission.
11 
The maximum EFF contribution to an 
approved project was 75 % of total 
public expenditure in convergence 
regions10, and 50 % elsewhere. So EU 
funds had to be complemented by 
other public funding by the Member 
States. The percentage of the public 
(EU and Member States’) contribution 
to micro, small and medium‑sized en ‑
terprises in the relevant sectors could 
attain 60 % of the investment cost 
for regions covered by the conver ‑
gence objective, and 40 % for regions 
not covered by the convergence 
objective11.12 
The aquaculture measures provided 
EFF support for the following actions12:
(a) measures for productive invest ‑
ments in aquaculture;
(b) aqua‑environmental measures;
(c) public health measures;
(d) animal health measures.
13 
For the EFF as a whole the priorities of 
axes and measures were defined by 
Member States in national strategic 
plans, after a process of dialogue and 
consultation with the Commission. Na ‑
tional operational programmes based 
on these plans were then submitted 
by the Member States to the Commis ‑
sion for examination and approval in 
the form of a Commission decision. 
For each operational programme 
a Monitoring Committee is established 
to monitor implementation of the 
programme.
14 
Member States were also required by 
the EFF implementing regulation to re ‑
cord the following statistics in relation 
to aquaculture supported from Axis 2:
 — Tonnage produced by aquaculture, 
processing and inland fisheries;
 — Percentage of projects with envi ‑
ronmentally‑friendly production 
(reduction of negative impacts or 
enhancement of positive effects);
 — Increase in turnover (million euro).10 Regions with less than 75 % of 
the average EU GDP per 
capita.
11 Annex II to Regulation (EC) 
No 1198/2006.
12 Article 28 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1198/2006.
12
 Audit scope  
and approach
Source:  ECA.15 
The objective of the audit was to 
answer the question ‘ Did the European 
Fisheries Fund offer effective support for 
the sustainable development of aqua -
culture? ’ This was done by addressing 
sub‑questions relating to the design 
and implementation of EU measures to 
support aquaculture, and the results of 
public funding:
(a) Have EFF measures, in supporting 
the sustainable development of 
aquaculture, been well designed 
and monitored at EU level?  In order 
to answer this question, the Court 
examined how the measures were 
designed, and the Commission’s 
role in their implementation.
(b) Have EFF measures, in supporting 
the sustainable development of 
aquaculture, been well designed and 
implemented by the Member States?  
In order to answer this question, 
the Court examined Member 
States’ national strategic plans, op ‑
erational programmes and related 
issues (including spatial planning 
and licensing), and how measures 
were implemented.
(c) Has the EFF delivered value for 
money and supported the sustain -
able development of aquaculture?  In 
order to answer this question, the 
Court considered whether overall 
objectives have been achieved; 
examined the contribution of 
selected projects to sustainable 
development and how they were 
targeted; considered growth, em ‑
ployment and actual results; and 
examined evidence for value for 
money.16 
The audit focused on projects funded 
between 2007 and 2011. It was per ‑
formed at the relevant Commission 
departments and in six Member States 
(Spain, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal 
and Romania) accounting for over 50 % 
of aquaculture production and related 
EFF budgetary support in the EU, as 
shown in Annex I .
17 
Documentation relating to 60 projects 
was examined in the Member States 
(see Annex II ), and 31 of these were 
visited in the field. Project selection 
procedures and actual project results 
were examined and compared against 
the EFF objectives. Particular attention 
was given to Member States’ proce ‑
dures to ensure value for money in the 
use of public funds and the sustainable 
development of aquaculture.

13
 Observations
Measures to support the 
sustainable development 
of aquaculture have not 
always been well 
designed and monitored 
at EU level
The CFP and the EFF did not 
provide sufficient details on 
the content of measures in 
support of the sustainable 
development of aquaculture
18 
The Treaty gives the EU exclusive com ‑
petence for fisheries policy, but not 
specifically for aquaculture. Neverthe ‑
less, one of the aims of the CFP is to 
provide coherent measures to support 
aquaculture13. The EFF aimed ‘to sup ‑
port the common fisheries policy so as 
to ensure exploitation of living aquatic 
resources and support aquaculture 
in order to provide sustainability in 
economic, environmental and social 
terms’14. Priority Axis 2 of the EFF pro ‑
vided a funding envelope for aquacul ‑
ture, inland fishing and processing and 
marketing of fishery and aquaculture 
products.
19 
The CFP and the EFF regulations did 
not provide further details concern ‑
ing the content of coherent measures 
for aquaculture. In particular, high 
level objectives for aquaculture were 
not translated into specific measures; 
Member States were not required to 
prepare specific plans detailing how 
to best use available funding for the 
sustainable development of aquacul ‑
ture; and there was a lack of a rigorous 
monitoring and evaluation framework 
with common indicators to monitor 
progress or performance. Neither these regulations nor the na ‑
tional strategic plans and operational 
programmes discussed below (see 
paragraphs 43 to 48) set out a suffi ‑
ciently clear framework for the sustain ‑
able development of aquaculture in 
the period up to 2013.
The Commission’s review of 
national strategic plans and 
operational programmes did 
not systematically ensure 
that they were designed to 
maximise the effectiveness 
of aquaculture policy
20 
The NSPs cover the entire fisheries sec ‑
tor and contain a summary description 
of all aspects of the common fisheries 
policy, including priorities and objec ‑
tives. NSPs are therefore required to 
contain, where relevant to the Member 
State, the priorities, objectives and 
estimated public financial resources 
required with particular regard to 
the strategy for sustainable develop ‑
ment of the aquaculture sector15. The 
Commission was required to appraise16 
the Member States’ proposed opera ‑
tional programmes (OPs) to determine 
whether they were consistent with the 
NSPs and the requirements of the EFF, 
including with regard to aquaculture.
21 
The Court found that the Commission 
made an extensive assessment of the 
consistency between OPs, NSPs and 
the EFF requirements  — including the 
requirements for aquaculture. In gen ‑
eral this assessment was thorough and 
served as a basis for negotiations with 
Member States leading to the final 
adoption of OPs.13 Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) 
No 2371/2002.
14 Article 4 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1198/2006.
15 Article 15 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1198/2006.
16 Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1198/2006.
14 Observations
22 
However, the Court’s audit findings 
in Member States found weaknesses 
with the design of NSPs and OPs (see 
paragraphs 43 to 47). While the Court 
acknowledges that, under shared 
management, the Commission and the 
Member States have specific respon ‑
sibilities, the Commission’s review of 
NSPs and OPs did not sufficiently ad ‑
dress these weaknesses, partly due to 
the generic nature of NSPs.
The Commission did not pro -
vide comprehensive aqua -
culture-related guidance on 
environmental matters
23 
Environmental sustainability is one 
of the objectives of EFF funding of 
aquaculture measures, and it is also an 
objective of the Commission’s aqua ‑
culture strategy. Aqua‑environmental 
measures are listed as an action eligi ‑
ble for EFF funding (see paragraph 12). 
In addition to the CFP and EFF, the en ‑
vironmental sustainability of measures 
to support aquaculture is measured 
by compliance with EU environmental 
policy. The main relevant policy areas 
are set out in the EU’s water framework 
directive17, marine strategy framework 
directive18, environmental impact 
assessment directive19 and habitats 
(‘Natura 2000’) directive20. In the con ‑
text of such wide ranging EU legisla ‑
tion, guidance to Member States and 
industry from the Commission would 
be important.24 
For example, Member States are 
required by the habitats directive to 
take appropriate steps to avoid, at 
Natura 2000 special areas of conserva ‑
tion, the deterioration of natural and 
species‑specific habitats, as well as 
disturbance of the species for which 
the areas have been designated.
25 
The Court found that the Commission 
had indeed prepared guidelines for 
use by Member States for the support 
of aquaculture on Natura 2000 sites. 
However, similar guidelines were not 
developed for any of the other direc ‑
tives mentioned in paragraph 23. In 
addition, the Commission did not give 
specific guidance on aqua‑environ ‑
mental measures in the EFF. This lack 
of guidance was not consistent with 
the EFF’s environmental sustainability 
objective, and furthermore the audit 
found that the EFF did not provide 
significant support for environmen ‑
tal sustainability in practice (see 
paragraphs 50 and 51).
The Commission did not suf -
ficiently ensure the compa -
rability of data on the overall 
progress towards the aqua -
culture policy objectives
26 
Member States are required to send 
annual aquaculture production statis ‑
tics (volumes and values) to the Com ‑
mission21. Statistics on the structure of 
the aquaculture sector are sent every 
3 years. These statistics are collated 
and checked by Eurostat. The Commis ‑
sion monitors, rather than validates, 
these statistics.17 Directive 2000/60/EC of 
23 October 2000 of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council establishing 
a framework for Community 
action in the field of water 
policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, 
p. 1).
18 Directive 2008/56/EC of 
17 June 2008 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council 
establishing a framework for 
Community action in the field 
of marine environmental 
policy (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, 
p. 19).
19 Council Directive 85/337/EEC 
of 27 June 1985 on the 
assessment of the effects of 
certain public and private 
projects on the environment 
(OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40). 
Article 28 of the EFF regulation 
provides that aid shall be 
granted only when certain 
environmental impact 
assessment rules are complied 
with.
20 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 
21 May 1992 on the 
conservation of natural 
habitats and of wild fauna and 
flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7).
21 Regulation (EC) No 762/2008 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
9 July 2008 on the submission 
by Member States of statistics 
on aquaculture and repealing 
Council Regulation (EC) No 
788/96 (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p.  
1).
15 Observations
22 Article 6 of Regulation (EC) 
No 762/2008.
23 Greece, France and Austria.27 
The Commission considers the produc ‑
tion statistics to be generally reliable. 
However, there are inconsistencies in 
the data reported by some Member 
States on the structure of the aquacul ‑
ture sector. The total size of facilities is 
reported in hectares and cubic metres. 
According to Eurostat, the need to re ‑
port in cubic metres causes difficulties 
in some countries and may limit the 
comparability of statistics expressed 
in this unit. For example, the two main 
aquaculture producers in terms of vol ‑
ume, France and Spain, reported that 
the total size of their aquaculture facili ‑
ties in 2011 was 2 532 m3 and 10 611 m3 
respectively, and reported volumes 
of turnover (see Annex I ) as 283 and 
277 thousand tonnes respectively. 
Portugal, with a turnover of eight 
thousand tonnes, reported a total size 
of 22 529 m3.
28 
Member States are required22 to send 
the Commission an annual methodo ‑
logical report on data collection. The 
Court noted that most Member States 
did not send these reports each year. 
This delays the validation of statistical 
information by Eurostat and creates 
uncertainty about the quality of the 
underlying statistics. In addition, three 
Member States23 provided data for 
2011 with 3 to 5 months delay after the 
deadline of 31 December 2012.29 
Some Member States qualify aqua ‑
culture production data by specific 
fish species as ‘confidential’, due to 
the concentration of the aquaculture 
sector and the possibility of identify ‑
ing market‑sensitive information for 
specific producers. The following table 
shows that eight Member States had 
provided aquaculture production data 
(nurseries and hatcheries excluded) 
in confidential form for the year 2011 
and some Member States had not yet 
provided data. This situation prevents 
Eurostat from publishing aggregate 
data for the EU ‑27 and thus reduces 
the publicly available information on 
trends and developments in the sector 
(see Table 2 ).
16 Observations
Value of aquaculture production in the EU
Euro
GEO/YEAR 2008 2009 2010 2011
EU-27 3 407 134 614 3 219 102 127 N/A N/A
EU-25 3 372 465 092 3 182 599 297 N/A N/A
EU-15 3 114 534 138 2 988 571 787 N/A N/A
Belgium 667 767 4 034 596 Confidential Confidential
Bulgaria 16 538 094 19 512 878 19 576 101 17 113 825
Czech Republic 41 537 574 39 266 665 37 108 186 39 865 313
Denmark 98 276  272 88 240 305 Confidential Confidential
Germany 97 080 122 94 240 346 94 739 574 Confidential
Estonia 1 771 650 2 235 436 2 028  836 1 684 752
Ireland 92 442 829 104 271  122 113 132  438 124 900 818
Greece 369 913 151 397 790 833 N/A 453 062  003
Spain 410 808 739 396 337 342 412 166 215 445 462 460
France 691 603 892 697 964 760 Confidential N/A
Italy 465 600 684 474 862 750 333 238  932 402 822 356
Cyprus 33 144  550 16 463 500 20 319 860 N/A
Latvia 1 528 601 1 114 894 1 195 864 1 253 766
Lithuania 6 635 949 6 654 996 Confidential Confidential
Hungary 30 324 26 451 27 164 30 293
Malta 93 763 138 47 057 424 82 217 002 45 109 193
Netherlands 96 600 777 84 109 496 105 703 231 73 959  895
Austria 12 741 113 13 878 544 20 355 963 Confidential
Poland 73 284 926 76 372  905 N/A Confidential
Portugal 40 175 003 34 063 945 47 264  269 58 278 930
Romania 18 131 429 16 989 952 5 691 110 15 890 132
Slovenia 3 485 097 3 069 400 2 167 330 Confidential
Slovakia 2 749  143 1 765  838 Confidential 2 420 531
Finland 36 844 618 39 581 700 41 141 158 Confidential
Sweden 23 247 950 18 435 879 29 040 710 42 442  468
United Kingdom 678 531  220 540 760 168 573 902 627 739 685 060
Source:  Eurostat.Table 2
17 Observations Table 324 Commission 
Decision 2005/629/EC of 
26 August 2005 establishing 
a Scientific, Technical and 
Economic Committee on 
Fisheries (OJ L 225, 31.8.2005, 
p. 18).30 
In addition to Eurostat, the Scientific, 
Technical and Economic Committee on 
Fisheries (STECF24) also examines data 
on aquaculture based on the Data Col ‑
lection Framework in which Member 
States collect socioeconomic informa ‑
tion on aquaculture companies. There 
are significant differences between the 
Eurostat and STECF data on aqua ‑
culture production. This is shown by 
Table 3 , which compares the amounts 
reported for 2009 for the Member 
States audited. These differences may 
be explained by different methodo ‑
logical approaches required by the 
different sets of legislation for the col ‑
lection of data but have not been fully 
reconciled by Eurostat or STECF.
Comparison of Eurostat and STECF data for 2009
Aquaculture production for 2009
 Eurostat STECF Report Difference Difference %
000  euro tonnes 000  euro tonnes 000  euro tonnes 000  euro tonnes
Spain 396 337 268 457 440  028 268 600 -43 691 -143 -11 % 0 %
France 697 965 236 439 760 067 265 399 -62 102 -28 960 -9 % -12 %
Italy 474 863 162 325 474 003 162 325 860 0 0 % 0 %
Poland 76 373 36 503 88 356 38 854 -11 983 -2 351 -16 % -6 %
Portugal 34 064 6 727 37 250 6 208 -3 186 519 -9 % 8 %
Romania 16 990 13 131 13 896 7 292 3 094 5 839 18 % 44 %
Sources:  Eurostat aquaculture production statistics. JRC report: ‘Economic Performance of the EU Aquaculture Sector’ (STECF ‑OWP ‑12‑03, 2012).
18 Observations
There were few relevant 
audits and evaluations by 
the Commission, and limited 
monitoring
31 
The EFF regulation required Member 
States to send interim evaluations25 of 
their OPs to the Commission. These 
evaluations could provide useful 
information on the implementation 
of aquaculture measures and enable 
corrective action to be taken. However 
the Court’s audit found that in prac ‑
tice, the level of information provided 
specifically for aquaculture was low.
32 
By the time of the Court’s audit, a total 
of only seven aquaculture projects had 
been included in the Commission’s 
on‑the‑spot audits required by the EFF 
regulation26. This low level of sampling 
does not enable conclusions to be 
drawn at Member State or EU level 
regarding the effective functioning of 
systems. These audits were of a com ‑
pliance nature and were not intended 
to provide information on the impact 
of EU support on the sustainable de ‑
velopment of aquaculture.
33 
The Member States’ interim evalua ‑
tions of their OPs were forwarded to 
the Commission, which hired an expert 
to produce a consolidated summary. 
While these interim evaluations and 
the consolidated summary refer to 
aquaculture, the Commission made no 
further assessment of the evaluations 
in order to determine whether the 
measures to support aquaculture were 
appropriate.34 
A representative of the Commission 
participates in the work of Member 
States’ EFF monitoring committees in 
an advisory capacity. However, these 
committees were able to devote little 
time to aquaculture matters.
Results of publicly funded 
innovative and research pro -
jects were not fully exploited
35 
Part 3.1 of the Commission’s 2009 
aquaculture strategy27 noted that sus ‑
tainable development of aquaculture 
should be supported by excellence in 
research and innovation, and that it 
was essential to continue and reinforce 
such support.
36 
While significant allocation of funds 
were dedicated to LIFE28 and research 
actions, as illustrated in Box 1 , the 
audit found that the Commission has 
not sufficiently exploited their results 
to prepare objectives and guidelines 
in relation to aquaculture (on mat ‑
ters such as the discharge of effluents 
and chemicals, the siting of farms 
and the impact of fish escapes) (see 
paragraphs 23 to 25).25 Article 49(3) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1198/2006.
26 Article 72 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1198/2006.
27 COM(2009) 162.
28 LIFE is the EU’s financial 
instrument for the 
environment. Under direct 
management by the 
Commission, it finances 
demonstrative environmental 
projects in diverse sectors of 
activity. It also finances nature 
protection.
19 Observations
Relevant research and LIFE projects
The Court noted that 14 million euro had been disbursed for 18 LIFE projects in the field of aquaculture. The 
main topics concerned were management of coastal zones, ecosystems, Natura 2000 sites and sustainable 
marine aquaculture.
The Court also noted that 77 research projects relating to aquaculture had received 158 million euro from 
the sixth framework programme (FP). Here the main topics were disease prevention, fish nutrition, selective 
breeding, fish welfare, the biological potential for new candidate species, the safety and quality of aquacul ‑
ture products, and environmental protection.
Projects dealing with spatial planning for aquaculture
One LIFE project concerned spatial planning via a GIS‑based system (350 000 euro funding). One FP‑funded 
project also dealt with this issue (705 000 euro funding), specifically in relation to deep sea aquaculture.
Projects dealing with control and eradication of diseases in aquaculture
Eight FP projects examined this issue (total funding 12 million euro). The main focus of these projects was 
pathogen and parasite control and disease prevention.
Projects dealing with environment monitoring systems and aqua -environmental measures
Two LIFE projects targeted this area (total funding 584 000 euro), with a focus on the establishment of recom ‑
mendations for water management, development of aquaculture and reducing the impacts of aquaculture. 
Eight FP projects (total funding 5 million euro) studied problems caused by intensive farming, water protec ‑
tion and clearing and habitat degradation.Box 1
20 Observations
Measures to support the 
sustainable development 
of aquaculture have not 
been well designed and 
implemented by the  
Member States
There was a lack of initiatives 
to support aquaculture in the 
Member States audited
37 
The Commission’s communication 
on building a sustainable future for 
aquaculture has recognised that 
Member States should take measures 
to facilitate business development 
and reduce the administrative burden 
imposed by national provisions, mainly 
by simplifying licensing procedures for 
aquaculture29. Simplification measures should ad ‑
dress the responsibilities, and coor ‑
dination, of the authorities charged 
with granting licences and monitoring 
compliance in aquaculture (e.g. in rela ‑
tion to the operation of aquaculture 
sites and the applicable environmental 
and veterinary requirements).
38 
The Court checked whether the 
Member States visited had established 
a strategy for the development of 
aquaculture which considered such 
measures. In all the Member States 
visited, the Court found that a coher ‑
ent strategy for development of the 
aquaculture sector was lacking. Devel ‑
opment was also hindered by complex 
administrative procedures at Member 
State level, including the involvement 
of multiple authorities in licensing and 
supervision of the sector (for example, 
in France and Italy). However, there 
were also examples of good practice, 
as illustrated in Box 2.29 Section 5.2 of 
COM(2009) 162 final.
Examples of different administrative practices concerning spatial planning and 
licensing
In Italy, a slow and complicated licensing process, and imprecise criteria for granting new concessions, con ‑
strains the development of aquaculture. As a result, the procedure for granting maritime concessions and 
other authorisations for aquaculture in Sicily should take 150 days but can last several years in practice, and 
actually took 5 years for two of the projects audited. A general problem with access to maritime concessions 
resulted in the Commission starting an infraction procedure against Italy on the grounds that existing holders 
of concessions had an unfair advantage over new applicants.
In France, due to the complexity of the preparation of files, times required for decisions are very long. For the 
projects included in the sample, decisions took more than 1 year, and up to 2 years for one of the cases.
A shellfish farming zone in Portugal was only partially used, as, in the absence of any condition to the con ‑
trary, the licence holders maintained their licences without actually exploiting the concessions. This prevented 
the development of such zones.
In Andalusia (Spain), the authorities had created a ‘one‑stop shop’ for aquaculture businesses. Project promot ‑
ers were accompanied through the process of applying for EFF funding and obtaining licences from the vari ‑
ous national and local agencies. For the projects included in the sample, decisions took on average 5 months.Box 2
21 Observations
There were weak spatial 
planning and licensing 
procedures
39 
Aquaculture takes place in coastal 
and inland waters throughout the 
EU. Typically, public authorities own 
these waters and allocate concessions 
or licences to aquaculture operators. 
There is very often competition for the 
use of these water areas with other us ‑
ers — for example, the tourist industry 
and the traditional capture fisheries 
sector. Analysing and planning the 
use of sea areas is essential to achieve 
economic, environmental and social 
objectives. The issue of appropriate 
spatial planning and licensing, which 
are Member State responsibilities, is 
therefore a key factor in the sustain ‑
able development of aquaculture and 
also in the effectiveness of the EFF 
spending to support that develop ‑
ment. The Commission recognised this 
in its 2009 aquaculture strategy and its 
strategic guidelines30 for the sustain ‑
able development of aquaculture and 
invited Member States to develop ma ‑
rine spatial planning systems in which 
they fully recognised the strategic 
importance of aquaculture. Systems of 
this kind would help potential promot ‑
ers to develop their projects. Licences 
granted by Member State authorities 
to aquaculture operators specify key 
parameters such as:
 — the water area concerned;
 — the duration and beneficiary of the 
licence;
 — what kind of aquaculture activity 
is allowed (species of fish, type of 
installation); — environmental and public health 
restrictions (maximum stocking 
density, restrictions on feeding 
and veterinary treatments, water 
quality requirements).
40 
Generally, the Court found that the 
spatial planning necessary for aqua ‑
culture was insufficient in the Member 
States and regions visited at the time 
of the audit. Maritime spatial planning 
to support aquaculture was not per ‑
formed in Romania and Poland, and 
was still being developed in Galicia 
(Spain) and Portugal. The absence of 
planning for access to space leads to 
reduced business development op ‑
portunities for the aquaculture sector 
and does nothing to resolve conflicts 
with other activities. Poor spatial plan ‑
ning, especially when combined with 
complicated licensing procedures, 
hinders the sustainable development 
of aquaculture. Box 2  illustrated some 
of the consequences.30 COM(2013) 229 final of 
29 April 2013.
22 Observations
31 Recital 17 to Regulation (EC) 
No 1198/2006.
32 Article 15 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1198/20 0 6.The financial and economic 
crisis had a significant impact 
on the aquaculture sector
41 
Member States’ national strategic 
plans and operational programmes 
were drafted before the financial and 
economic crisis started to seriously 
affect the European business environ ‑
ment. As with other business activi ‑
ties, (based on the reports from the 
authorities and project promoters) the 
crisis has had a significant impact on 
investment and financing decisions in 
the aquaculture sector. Since poten ‑
tial beneficiaries of the EFF are often 
small businesses and have to furnish 
between 40 % and 60 % of the total 
investment cost, the difficulties in ac ‑
cessing finance and bank guarantees 
have complicated the development 
of projects (from the Member States 
selected for the audit, Spain, Portugal 
and Romania in particular have been 
affected). One characteristic of the 
aquaculture sector creates additional 
need for finance: there is usually a high 
demand for working capital to fund 
the acquisition of young fish stock and 
the subsequent costs of feeding and 
maintenance before the fish attain 
a marketable size.42 
The financial crisis may have exacer ‑
bated the tendency of Member States 
to direct EFF aid towards existing 
aquaculture businesses and at projects 
which were operational before the aid 
decision was made (for example, in 
Italy and Poland) (see paragraph 62). 
Such projects have a greater chance 
of success, which minimises the risk of 
decommitment of EU funding for the 
Member State concerned. However, 
this practice provided restricted fund ‑
ing for new or innovative projects.
National strategic plans did 
not provide clear objectives 
for aquaculture
43 
Member States’ national strategic 
plans (NSPs) set out the priorities and 
objectives of the EFF for the imple ‑
mentation of CFP policy31. Each NSP 
should estimate the public financial 
resources required or expected for 
those objectives, which include sus ‑
tainable development of the aquacul ‑
ture sector32. In the Court’s view, NSPs 
with clear objectives and an indication 
of required financial resources would 
provide a good basis for measures to 
support aquaculture.
44 
However none of the audited NSPs 
estimated how much public financial 
resources were necessary for measures 
to support aquaculture.
23 Observations
45 
The Court found that the NSPs includ ‑
ed a description of the national aqua ‑
culture sector and set objectives for 
the development of the sector. These 
objectives varied by Member State, but 
were general in nature and covered 
such objectives as diversification and 
increased production, environmen ‑
tal and public health protection, and 
market development. The combination 
of non‑specific objectives and the ab ‑
sence of an estimate of the necessary 
public resources resulted in a lack of 
clarity in the audited NSPs’ strategies 
for aquaculture.Operational programmes 
had various weaknesses
46 
Member States’ operational pro ‑
grammes allocated the financial 
resources available from the EFF 
among the priority axes and outlined 
(in greater detail than the NSPs) what 
measures were to be taken to achieve 
the objectives. Targets were set, in ‑
cluding specific goals for the develop ‑
ment of the aquaculture sector. Mem ‑
ber States could propose revisions to 
OPs in order to adapt objectives in the 
light of changing circumstances facing 
the fishing or aquaculture sector (see 
paragraph 58 for problems found with 
these targets).
47 
Although the OPs provided a frame ‑
work for the overall implementation of 
the EFF, the Court found weaknesses 
in all Member States visited relating 
to actions to support aquaculture, as 
illustrated in Box 3 .
Examples of weaknesses in operational programmes in relation to aquaculture
In Romania, marine aquaculture was not addressed in the implementation of the OP , even though it was 
identified as a priority in the NSP . Thus, although problems with marine aquaculture were known before the 
OP was drawn up, they were not addressed during the programming period. In addition, there was a lack of 
prioritisation between measures to support aquaculture.
Although the Italian NSP and OP identified important obstacles to the development of aquaculture (including 
a lack of coastal management plans and uncertainty regarding concessions), the OP did not specify actions 
with which to address them. There are no targets for improving the quality of products in terms of environ ‑
ment, food safety and trade, such as environmental certification and EMAS registration, promoting new mar ‑
ket outlets, and facilitating the consolidation and development of micro and small companies.
In Poland, although the OP was revised in 2011, the indicators were not changed. However, it was known that 
none of the objectives set in the OP for aquaculture had been achieved, but the OP was not modified to adapt 
the over ‑optimistic estimates to reality.Box 3 
24 Observations
48 
While there were specific objectives 
for employment and production, other 
objectives of the EFF were sometimes 
not addressed. Moreover, there was 
little attempt to prioritise spending, 
or to ensure value for money at the 
project level. Systems for monitoring 
effects of the spending and correct ‑
ing any negative trends were minimal. 
Sometimes the principal financial 
measure was simply that funds had 
been distributed.
Member States gave  
insufficient consideration to 
environmental and health 
policies
49 
Aquaculture involves the risk of animal 
diseases and infections and interac ‑
tion with the marine environment. 
Fish kept in confined areas need to 
be fed, and this can result in certain 
discharges of excess feed, and effluent. 
The fact that fish are kept in relatively 
close proximity to each other increases 
the prevalence of infections and 
disease and the need for veterinary 
treatments. The spread of infections or 
disease can cause losses to farmed fish 
stock while also endangering wild fish. 
Losses to farmed fish stock can also oc ‑
cur when fish escape; and subsequent 
breeding with wild fish causes a trans ‑
fer of genetic composition which may 
alter the characteristics of the wild 
population.50 
In order for aquaculture to be de ‑
veloped in a sustainable way while 
safeguarding the marine environment, 
these risks need to be assessed and 
managed. There are detailed legisla ‑
tive requirements governing the veter ‑
inary control of aquaculture activities33. 
While the EFF could provide funding 
for the protection of the environment 
and of public and animal health, apart 
from Poland none of the Member 
States visited had approved projects in 
these areas. Moreover, there is a lack 
of guidance on environmental matters 
(see paragraphs 23 to 25).
51 
Member States are required by the 
EFF implementing regulation34 to 
record the percentage of projects with 
environmentally friendly production 
(reduction of negative impacts or 
enhancement of positive effects). The 
Court found that EFF‑funded aquacul ‑
ture measures in the Member States 
visited did not show sufficient consid ‑
eration for these aspects. The bulk of 
funding was directed at measures to 
maintain production. Little use was 
made of selection criteria regarding 
environmental and health risks in or ‑
der to be eligible for funding. Further ‑
more, there were insufficient measur ‑
able indicators (relating, for example, 
to the discharge of effluents and 
chemicals, siting of farms and impact 
of fish escapes) based on reliable data 
for the impact of specific aquaculture 
practices on the aquatic environment.
52 
Consequently, it was not possible to 
determine whether environmental im ‑
pacts were real and significant relative 
to the public investment concerned, as 
illustrated in Box 4 .33 For example Council 
Directive 2006/88/EC of 
24 October 2006 on animal 
health requirements for 
aquaculture animals and 
products thereof, and on the 
prevention and control of 
certain diseases in aquatic 
animals (OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, 
p. 14).
34 Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 498/2007 of 26 March 2007 
laying down detailed rules for 
the implementation of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 
on the European Fisheries 
Fund (OJ L 120, 10.5.2007, p. 1).
25 Observations
There were serious  
inaccuracies in the reporting 
of results by some Member 
States
53 
The annual EFF implementation re ‑
ports prepared by Member States were 
to include monitoring statistics and 
to be discussed and approved by the 
monitoring committee35 before being 
submitted to the Commission. They 
contained the latest financial data on 
project implementation and, typically, 
indicators for production and employ ‑
ment. To obtain an accurate picture of 
the results of EFF aquaculture sup ‑
port measures at Member State and 
EU level, it was essential that these 
reports be accurate.54 
The Court found significant inaccura ‑
cies and methodological weaknesses 
in some annual implementation re ‑
ports, which prevented the implemen ‑
tation of EFF support for aquaculture 
from being reliably assessed, as shown 
in Box 5 .35 Article 59(i) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1198/2006.Examples of lack of focus on environmental issues
According to the Spanish EFF implementation report for 2011, only four of the 604 projects approved under 
measure 2.1 were applying certified environmental management systems. Environmental impact studies, 
or simply declarations of no impact, had been prepared by the promoters and examined by the competent 
authorities. However, given the low number of applications, environmental management was not used as 
a selection criterion for EFF funding decisions.
The Italian OP included as an objective the application of procedures for environmental certification and 
EMAS registration. However, environmental certification was not targeted as part of the selection procedure, 
and environmental impacts were not adequately assessed in advance. Moreover, there were weaknesses in 
monitoring the actual environmental impact of projects. In Sicily, verification that an environmental impact 
assessment had been carried out as required was not a precondition for the approval of EFF funding.
In Romania, only three points out of 100 were awarded for the environmental criterion at the selection stage. 
32,5 % of EFF‑funded projects were considered to have environmentally friendly production. However, there 
was no definition of an ‘environmentally friendly’ project. Projects applying ‘the usual good aquaculture prac ‑
tice’ were also considered environmentally friendly. In addition, with the exception of projects from organic 
producers, no projects had applied for environmental certification.Box 4
26 Observations
Inaccuracies and methodological weaknesses in annual implementation reports 
and other statistical sources
In France, the authorities focus on the rate of reply of aquaculture businesses to aquaculture statistical surveys 
(60 %) without ensuring that these businesses represent at least 90 % of the total production in volume as 
foreseen by the relevant regulation36. This affected the accuracy of the annual production indicators. The main 
indicator used by the French authorities for the implementation of aquaculture support measures was the use 
of budget allocations rather than results achieved.
In Spain and Romania, the aquaculture production presented in annual implementation reports were based 
on beneficiaries’ forecasts at the time of the initial aid applications. The amounts reported as being actual 
output figures were not in fact based on any real measure of production and were therefore unreliable.
In Italy, actual figures were included for the first time in the Annual Implementation Report (AIR) only for 2012. 
In addition, there were very significant differences between the annual aquaculture production reported in 
EFF implementation reports and by Eurostat. For example, for 2011, aquaculture production was reported in 
the AIR as 424 905 tonnes, and by Eurostat as 164 127 tonnes.
In Poland, result indicators included by beneficiaries in the final project implementation reports were not 
monitored by the national authorities. The result indicators for aquaculture presented in the EFF annual imple ‑
mentation reports were therefore not sufficiently verified.
36 Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 762/2008.Box 5
27 Observations
The EFF measures have 
not delivered sufficient 
value for money to date in 
support of the sustainable 
development of 
aquaculture
The overall objectives at EU 
level were not met
55 
The Commission strategy of 200237 
aimed to create secure long‑term 
employment (an additional 
8 000 to 10 000 jobs) over the period 
2003 to 2008, in particular in fisher ‑
ies‑dependent areas. This objective 
had four main components: increas ‑
ing the EU’s aquaculture production 
growth rate to 4 % per year, improv ‑
ing spatial planning, promoting 
market development and improving 
governance.
56 
The Court found that these objectives 
had largely not been achieved by 2012. 
EU production has remained at around 
1,3 million tonnes for many years, 
while worldwide aquaculture produc ‑
tion has continued to grow (see Fig-
ure 2 ). Accurate employment figures 
are not available, but these are also as ‑
sessed by the Commission as stable38. 
While there were no quantified objec ‑
tives concerning spatial planning and 
governance, the audit in the Member 
States found significant problems with 
both areas (see paragraphs 37 to 40).The objectives at Member 
State level were not met
57 
The OPs of the Member States visited 
all set specific objectives in terms 
of production and jobs, and more 
general objectives in terms of envi ‑
ronmental protection, animal health, 
diversification, etc.39 The Court found 
that the main objectives for aquacul ‑
ture in the Member States visited were 
not met and that very high targets had 
been set without a sound basis. The 
Commission’s impact assessment of 
2009 also identified growth targets as 
one of the weaknesses of the strategy 
for aquaculture40.
58 
In the six Member States audited, the 
total interim41 production target was 
683 000 tonnes. However, accord ‑
ing to the annual implementation 
reports (AIR), and notwithstanding 
the problems with data accuracy (see 
paragraph 54) actual production at the 
interim stage was reported to be only 
485 000 tonnes. As with other sectors, 
the financial crisis had a significant 
impact on aquaculture (see para ‑
graphs 41 and 42) and contributed to 
lower production than planned. How ‑
ever, while operational programmes 
were revised by the Member States, 
targets were not updated to reflect 
actual decreases in production since 
the preparation of the operational 
programme. Production targets are 
compared with actual results in Box 6 .37 COM(2002) 511 final.
38 COM(2012) 747 final of 
12 December  2012.
39 Article 20(1)(c) of Regulation 
(EC) No 1198/2006.
40 SEC(2009) 453 of 8 April 2009, 
section 2.4.2.
41 Member States set interim 
production targets for 
2010  or 2011.
28 Observations
Risk that operational programme objectives will not be achieved
Member State000 tonnes
Baseline 
productionReference 
yearPlanned 
productionActual interim 
productionReference 
yearDifference 
between 
planned and 
actualProduction 
planned at 
end of EFF 
programme
France 242 2007 253 209 2010 -44 264
Italy 242 2006 254 165 2011 -89 278
Poland 35 2006 43 29 2010 -14 52
Portugal 7 2005 10 9 2010 -1 15
Romania 7 2005 10 9 2010 -1 14
Spain 63 2005 113 64 2010 -49 80
Total 596 683 485 -198 703
Source:  Operational Programmes, Annual Implementation Reports, Eurostat.
French production includes oysters. The OP estimated that oyster production would increase from 
115 000 tonnes at the start of the programme to 121 000 tonnes by 2010, and 127 000 tonnes by the end of 
the programme. The production of oysters had fallen to 84 000 tonnes in 2010 due to a mortality crisis. The 
OP was last revised in 2012, but the production target for oysters was not revised although by then it was 
unrealistic.
When revised in 2011, the Italian OP maintained a production target of 278 000 tonnes for the end of the pro ‑
gramme, although by that time actual production was 165 000 tonnes according to Eurostat.
When last revised in 2011, the Polish OP maintained a production target of 52 000 tonnes for the end of the 
programme, although actual production was only 29 000 tonnes in 2010.
The Portuguese targets for aquaculture production at the end of the programme were also unrealistic. The 
OP estimated that production would increase from 7 000 tonnes in 2005 to 15 000 tonnes in 2013 (+214 %). 
However, actual reported production for 2011 was only 9 000 tonnes.
When last revised in 2012, the Romanian OP increased the production target to over 14 000 tonnes for the end 
of the programme, although actual production for 2010 was only 9 000 tonnes.
The Spanish OP’s production targets for the end of the programme were unrealistic. They were reduced in 
2012 from 113 000 tonnes to 80 000 tonnes (excluding mussels), compared to actual reported production for 
2010 of 64 000 tonnes.Box 6
29 Observations
A significant number of  
projects audited were 
unlikely to contribute 
cost -effectively to objectives
59 
During the period 2007–13, the EFF 
provided over 400  million  euro for 
approximately 5  800 projects under 
measure 2.1 for the sustainable devel ‑
opment of aquaculture. The audit ex ‑
amined whether the selected projects 
contributed effectively to this objec ‑
tive. This involved considering whether 
projects were selected to deliver sus ‑
tainable development and well target ‑
ed, especially on achieving growth and 
employment; whether planned results 
were actually achieved; and whether 
value for money was obtained.There was limited support for 
sustainable development and 
poor targeting
60 
The EFF regulation set a number of ob ‑
jectives for the funding of aquaculture 
projects. Funding could be provided 
for projects for traditional aquacul ‑
ture activities or which improved the 
environment42, for diversification to 
species with good market prospects43, 
and for the sustainable development 
of employment and the market44.
61 
In practice, existing and traditional aq ‑
uaculture activities received the bulk 
of funding. This was facilitated by the 
selection criteria set in Member States’ 
operational programmes and national 
rules, and by controls on access to sites 
suitable for aquaculture. The result was 
that only limited funding was provided 
for new or innovative projects which 
might lead to high added value or in ‑
crease overall production targeting the 
sustainable development of aquacul ‑
ture, as illustrated by Box 7 .42 Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) 
No 1198/20 0 6.
43 Article 10 of Regulation (EC) 
No 498/20 07.
44 Article 19 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1198/20 0 6.
Examples of limitations on the sustainable development of aquaculture
In Galicia (Spain), no new concessions have been granted for access to marine sites to develop aquaculture 
since 1985, despite demand from applicants. While at the time of the audit, marine spatial planning did not 
exist and the Galician authorities had requested a survey on the suitability of other marine sites for the devel ‑
opment of aquaculture, in practice the possibility of new entrances gaining access has been very limited.
In Italy, the deadlines for submitting tenders, combined with the length of the licensing process and the 
specific points awarded in the selection process for existing projects, resulted in a predominance of aid for 
existing aquaculture businesses.Box 7
30 Observations
Examples of poor targeting
In Spain (Andalusia and Galicia) and France, as the available budget for measures to support aquaculture was 
greater than the total value of the applications received, all projects which met the basic eligibility criteria 
were awarded funding. Thus there was no prioritisation of projects, increasing the risk that value for money 
is not achieved. The audit found that six of the 10 projects examined in Spain showed weaknesses that sug ‑
gested they were poorly selected. For example, five of these cases refer to the acquisition of service vessels 
without improvements in production or employment.
In Poland, while selection criteria were established, they were not related to the objectives of the aquacul ‑
ture support measure. In practice, as long as the basic eligibility criteria were met, including the provision of 
a 3‑year business plan, applications for funding were approved on a ‘first ‑come, first‑served’ basis. As a result 
aid did not necessarily flow to the best projects, and projects submitted later in the programming period 
were rejected out of hand because the budget had been exhausted. The audit found that three of the 10 pro ‑
jects examined were poorly selected.
In Romania, the selection criteria referring to the objectives set in the EFF regulation had a low weighting, 
were not sufficiently assessed, and partly overlapped. The audit found that several of the 10 projects exam ‑
ined were poorly selected.
In Poland, Portugal and Italy, the selection procedure did not take into account the degree of project imple ‑
mentation at the date of application, and some projects were already completed when the aid decision was 
made. This did not provide sufficient controls against project deadweight. The audit found that about one 
third of the 30 projects audited in these Member States showed weaknesses that suggested that they were 
poorly selected.Box 862 
The selection of good projects requires 
the prioritisation of eligible projects 
using selection criteria which focus 
on the objectives of the operational 
programme. The Court found that the 
projects audited in the Member States 
visited were often poorly selected, and 
aid was granted for projects which had 
already commenced at the time of the 
selection, as described in Box 8 . About 
one third of the 60 projects examined 
showed weaknesses that suggest they 
were poorly targeted.63 
Member States’ operational pro ‑
grammes set interim and final aquacul ‑
ture production targets for the pro ‑
gramming period, all of which entailed 
production gains. In order for the 
production and employment growth 
targets for aquaculture to be met (see 
paragraph 55), there should be a clear 
link between the selection of projects 
for EFF funding and the overall objec ‑
tive of increasing production.
31 Observations
64 
The Court found that, while the opera ‑
tional programmes targeted increased 
production, the selection procedures 
in the Member States visited often 
did not give the necessary priority to 
achieving those targets, as illustrated 
in Box 9 .
Anticipated project results were 
not achieved or not verified
65 
In order to contribute effectively to 
the impact of the funded measures, 
projects should largely meet the 
targets set when approved for aid. The 
competent authorities should monitor 
project implementation and results 
and take corrective action where 
appropriate (see also paragraphs 53 
and 54).
Examples of projects not targeting growth
In Spain, France and Poland, selected projects did not specifically target increases in employment or produc ‑
tion but mostly aimed at modernising existing activities, which was considered by the Member States to have 
a beneficial effect on employment and production. However, due to the lack of targeting, projects did not 
focus on achieving growth, as demonstrated in paragraph 66.
In Sicily (Italy), projects were selected on the basis of weighted selection criteria. This score included a maxi ‑
mum of 20 points for maintaining employment, 10 points for increasing employment per employee hired with 
a maximum of 30 points, and 10 points for hiring at least one woman. The audit found that project promot ‑
ers often declared the minimum required in order to optimise the selection score. For example, one project 
promoter declared that the project would mean taking on a female employee, thus increasing the size of the 
workforce from 90 to 91, through the hiring of a woman, and consequently received 20 points (10+10) for this 
action and a further 20 points for maintaining two jobs.Box 9
32 Observations
66 
Of the 31 projects audited on the spot, 
and 2545 of which that were fore ‑
seen to increase employment and/or 
production, at the time of the audit 
there was evidence that only three 
had achieved their objectives (see 
Annex III ). Even though a number of 
projects are still ongoing, the rate of 
achievement is low. This is illustrated 
in Box 10 .
Insufficient value for money 
was obtained to date
67 
Public funds spent on aquaculture pro ‑
jects should provide value for money. 
This implies that public funding should 
be proportional to the expected 
results, and that funding for excessive 
investment and project deadweight 
is avoided. Furthermore, the funds 
should provide a real incentive for the 
investment, and the granting of aid to 
investments which would have been 
implemented without public funding 
should be avoided.Some of the audited projects 
showed real potential and 
indicated good practice …
68 
The Court identified three successful 
projects which contributed to the sus ‑
tainable development of aquaculture, 
as illustrated in Box 11 .45 Out of these 25 cases, 11 did 
not specifically target 
increases as part of the project 
selection procedure.
Examples of project results not achieved or not verified
In Poland, despite the fact that all five beneficiaries visited during the audit reported in their final project 
implementation reports to the national authorities that they had achieved the quantified production targets, 
four confirmed to the Court that in reality the objectives had not been met. Beneficiaries reported significant 
stock losses (sometimes approaching 80 %) due to predation.
In France, all beneficiaries visited reported that quantified production targets had not been met. Anomalies in 
the reported amounts had not been checked by the competent authorities.
Italy started monitoring activities in 2012 and reporting on their results in 2013.Box 10
33 Observations
Examples of success stories
In Poland, a project costing 7,8 million euro received EFF funding of 3,4 million euro for the creation of a sus ‑
tainable tilapia farm in a closed system of fish tanks using technologies which protected the surrounding 
environment. The project aimed at producing 200 tonnes of fish per year and creating 13 jobs. However on 
completion, the project was producing 1 000 tonnes annually and had created 19 jobs.
In Spain, a project received EFF funding of 742 000 euro for the construction of ponds to rear sea bass and sea 
bream in an area covering 600 ha. The beneficiary had significant expertise in the aquaculture sector, with 
access to finance and working capital. The entire area has now been developed through several EU‑financed 
projects. The ponds were stocked with small fish in 2011 and, given a growth period of 3 years, full produc ‑
tion of around 600 tonnes was expected to occur from 2014. The beneficiary’s ability to finance the significant 
working capital entailed by this long growth period (over 5 million euro) was crucial to the success of the 
project. Employment was projected to increase from 30 to 50 by 2014, but had already reached 52 in 2013.
In Portugal, a project received EFF funding of 35 000 euro for the modernisation and expansion of an oyster 
farm. The project manager had a university diploma in oyster farming. The project aimed to increase produc ‑
tion from 120 tonnes in 2011 to 150 tonnes in 2013, to reduce oyster mortality, and to increase the workforce 
from four to nine. At the time of the Court’s visit in 2013, the project had not yet been fully completed, but 
production had already increased to 135 tonnes, and eight people were employed at the farm.Box 11
Source:  ECA .
34 Observations
… but many did not
69 
Of the 31 projects visited, the audit 
identified 16 cases where there was 
insufficient evidence that value for 
money was achieved.
 — In 11 cases, all in Italy and Poland, 
the beneficiary started the invest ‑
ment before the aid decision was 
granted. In these Member States, 
most of the investments associated 
with EFF projects had already been 
carried out by the beneficiaries 
before the funding was approved. 
This reduced the real investment 
incentive provided by the funds 
and demonstrates that public 
money was granted to beneficiar ‑
ies who did not need it. In addi ‑
tion, the estimated investment 
costs to be co‑financed were not 
justified by reference to expected 
project results. — In five cases the scale of public 
funding compared to results was 
not well justified and there was 
insufficient evidence of value for 
money, as illustrated in Box 12 .
Examples of EFF-funded projects which represented poor value for money
In Andalusia (Spain), a project to farm prawns using heated water provided by a local power company re ‑
ceived EFF funding of 358 000 euro. While the project was expected to create eight new jobs, the competent 
authorities did not take into account the fact that a similar number of jobs were lost when the beneficiary 
transferred activities from two other sites to the project site.
In France, EFF funding of 108 000 euro was paid for a project for the construction of a two‑storey building to 
develop a shellfish business. One of the floors of the building was not used for the planned activity, but for 
tourist ‑related services.
In Portugal, EFF funding of 838 000 euro was paid for a project to capture, keep and feed fish, including tuna, 
for subsequent sale. By the time of the audit, while tuna had been captured and sold, there was insufficient 
evidence they had been kept in the facility and fed before being sold. The process was therefore closer to 
a form of capture‑based fishing rather than aquaculture.Box 12
35
 The new common fisheries policy and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) (from 2014)
70 
In December 2013, the European 
Parliament and the Council adopted 
a regulation46 to reform the common 
fisheries policy from 1 January 2014. 
Unlike the CFP regulation for the 
period ending 2013, this new regula ‑
tion contains a specific section on 
aquaculture, and requires Member 
States to prepare multiannual national 
strategic plans, based on EU strategic 
guidelines, with the aim of removing 
administrative barriers (e.g. in rela ‑
tion to licensing), facilitating access 
to waters and space and applying 
environmental, social and economic 
indicators for aquaculture. Operational 
programmes will have to be consist ‑
ent with these strategic plans. A new 
Aquaculture Advisory Council will be 
established to give advice on manage ‑
ment of the sector.
71 
The new aquaculture policy will be 
implemented through the European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)47. 
Unlike the EFF, the EMFF has a specific 
section defining how funding would 
be used to support the sustainable de ‑
velopment of aquaculture. It provides 
a clearer framework than the EFF for 
funding aquaculture, including the 
possibility to fund environmental and 
health measures, the development of 
spatial planning, business innovation, 
entrepreneurship, and stock insur ‑
ance. Funding will be consistent with 
Member States’ multiannual national 
strategic plans.46 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
11 December 2013 on the 
Common Fisheries Policy, 
amending Council Regulations 
(EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) 
No 1224/2009 and repealing 
Council Regulations (EC) 
No 2371/2002 and (EC) 
No 639/2004 and Council 
Decision No 2004/585/EC (OJ 
L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22).
47 Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
15 May 2014 on the European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
and repealing Council 
Regulations (EC) 
No 2328/2003, (EC) 
No 861/2006, (EC) 
No 1198/2006 and (EC) 
No 791/2007 and Regulation 
(EU) No 1255/2011 of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council (OJ L 149, 
20.5.2014, p. 1).
36
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
72 
In the context of declining EU produc ‑
tion from traditional capture fisheries, 
and the example of significant world ‑
wide growth of aquaculture produc ‑
tion, the reformed CFP intends to 
further develop measures to support 
aquaculture from 2014. The Court ex ‑
amined whether the funding provided 
by the EFF for the previous period 
offered effective support for the sus ‑
tainable development of aquaculture, 
so that lessons can be learned for the 
new measures.
73 
The audit considered whether meas ‑
ures to support aquaculture had been 
well designed and implemented at EU 
and Member State level, and whether 
the EFF delivered value for money and 
supported the sustainable develop ‑
ment of aquaculture.
74 
Overall, the Court found that the 
EFF did not offer effective support 
for the sustainable development of 
aquaculture. At EU level, measures to 
support the sustainable development 
of aquaculture have not been well 
designed and monitored. The CFP and 
the EFF did not provide an adequate 
framework for the sustainable devel ‑
opment of aquaculture up to 2013 
(paragraphs 18 to 19), and the Com ‑
mission’s review of Member States’ 
NSPs and OPs did not correct certain 
design problems (paragraphs 20 to 22). 
Environmental sustainability of aqua ‑
culture development is an objective 
of the EFF. The Court found sufficient 
guidance was given for Natura 2000 
but not for issues related to the water 
framework directive, the marine 
strategy framework directive and the 
environment impact assessment direc ‑
tive (paragraphs 23 to 25). There were problems with the com ‑
pleteness and reliability of data on 
aquaculture production reported by 
Member States and collated at EU level 
(paragraphs 26 to 30), which makes 
the results of aquaculture measures 
difficult to assess. The EFF monitoring 
committees and interim evaluations, 
and the Commission’s inspections, 
had little impact (paragraphs 31 to 34) 
in terms of the implementation of 
aquaculture measures. The results 
of publicly funded research and LIFE 
projects were not fully exploited 
(paragraphs 35 to 36).
75 
At the level of the Member States, 
measures to support the sustainable 
development of aquaculture have not 
been well designed and implemented. 
There were significant problems 
with spatial planning and compli ‑
cated licensing requirements (para ‑
graphs 39 and 40), and the financial 
crisis had a significant impact (para ‑
graphs 41 and 42). For the Member 
States visited, national strategic plans 
and operational programmes, required 
by the EFF, generally did not provide 
a sufficiently clear basis for the sus ‑
tainable development of aquaculture 
(paragraphs 43 to 48). Furthermore, 
the Member States did not implement 
a coherent strategy for the develop ‑
ment of the aquaculture sector (para ‑
graphs 37 and 38). In particular, there 
was insufficient consideration given 
to environmental and health policies 
(paragraphs 49 to 52). There were inac ‑
curacies and methodological weak ‑
nesses in the annual reporting of pro ‑
duction data (paragraphs 53 and 54).
37 Conclusions and recommendations
76 
In terms of the value for money pro ‑
vided by EFF support for aquaculture, 
the Court noted that the objectives 
for the sustainable development 
of aquaculture were not achieved 
at EU nor at Member State level 
(paragraphs 55 to 58).
77 
The Court found that many EFF‑fi ‑
nanced projects did not deliver value 
for money or support the sustainable 
development of aquaculture. Projects 
were often poorly targeted, contrib ‑
uted little to growth and employment, 
and did not achieve expected results 
(paragraphs 59 to 66). While the audit 
found some success stories, there was 
also significant evidence of project 
deadweight and poor value for money, 
underfunding of new developments 
and low return on public investment 
(paragraphs 67 to 69).
78 
In conclusion, for the period up to 
2013, there was an inadequate frame ‑
work at EU and Member State level to 
translate the EU’s objectives for the 
sustainable development of aqua ‑
culture into reality and the measures 
actually taken did not provide suffi ‑
cient results. In light of this, the reform 
of the CFP and the introduction of the 
EMFF from 2014 (paragraphs 70 to 71), 
the Court makes the following 
recommendations.Recommendation 1
In its implementation of measures to 
support aquaculture under the Euro ‑
pean Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the 
Commission should:
(a) when approving Member States’ 
operational programmes, consider 
whether objectives for the sustain ‑
able development of aquaculture 
are realistic and appropriate, and 
whether support is targeted at 
measures which are likely to meet 
those objectives;
(b) establish guidelines for the consid ‑
eration of relevant environmental 
factors when determining public 
funding;
(c) ensure, where relevant, that 
Member States’ operational 
programmes are only approved if 
appropriate national strategies for 
the development of the aquacul ‑
ture sector are prepared;
(d) encourage Member States to 
implement relevant spatial plan ‑
ning and to simplify the licensing 
and administrative procedures to 
support the development of the 
aquaculture sector;
(e) improve the comparability of the 
statistical data on aquaculture 
compiled from its different sourc ‑
es, in order to enhance its accuracy 
and completeness.
38 Conclusions and recommendations
Recommendation 2
In their implementation of measures 
to support aquaculture under the 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, 
Member States should:
(a) prepare and apply coherent 
national strategies for the develop ‑
ment of the aquaculture sector;
(b) implement relevant spatial plan ‑
ning, and simplify the licensing 
and administrative procedures to 
support the development of the 
aquaculture sector;
(c) ensure that public funding is 
prioritised towards projects which 
best contribute to the sustainable 
development of aquaculture and 
provide value for money;
(d) monitor project results more 
closely by setting and applying 
relevant indicators.
This report was adopted by Chamber I, headed by Ms Rasa BUDBERGYTĖ, 
Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 14 May 2014.
 For the Court of Auditors
 Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
 President

39
 Annexes Annex IAquaculture turnover and EFF support
Member StateTurnover (2011) EFF support (million euro)
Value (million euro) Volume (000 tonnes) EFF Axis 2 (planned)EFF Measure 2.1 
(actual)Number of Measure 
2.1 projects
Belgium 0,2 0,0 1,3 0,1 2
Bulgaria 10,0 4,1 36,0 39,3 101
Czech Republic 44,5 21,0 14,5 7, 2 327
Denmark* 145,8 40,5 37, 6 14,4 90
Germany 85,9 39,1 54,9 7,7 165
Estonia 1,6 0,4 24,6 20,7 44
Ireland 128,5 44,8 0,0 0,6 12
Greece 523,3 121,8 59,7 0,1 3
Spain 501,1 276,9 3 07,1 44,8 629
France 898,5 283,1 54,2 11,0 1 213
Italy 422,9 15 7, 0 106,1 21,7 327
Cyprus 30,6 4,7 3,2 0,8 12
Latvia* 1,1 0,5 49,3 25,7 366
Lithuania* 7, 2 3,3 28,1 8,2 25
Hungary 30,3 15,6 24,2 22,2 242
Malta 50,5 3,8 1,7 0,0 0
Netherlands 81,2 42,5 7, 4 3,2 56
Austria 19,3 2,2 5,1 2,8 239
Poland 61,6 29,0 162,9 91,0 1 272
Portugal 56,8 7,9 74,2 15,8 48
Romania 16,4 8,4 105,0 75,8 133
Slovenia 3,4 1,4 7,1 6,1 81
Slovakia 2,2 0,8 11,4 2,9 44
Finland 56,7 10,1 17, 0 5,2 177
Sweden 47, 5 14,5 10,9 4,5 131
United Kingdom 740,3 199,0 33,6 6,4 87
EU-27 3 967,4 1 332,4 1 237,1 438,2 5 826
Sources:
Aquaculture turnover: ‘The Economic Performance of the EU Aquaculture Sector (STECF 13–29)’ STECF November 2013. 
EFF Axis 2 (planned): approved Operational Programmes.
‘EFF Measure 2.1 (actual): information up to May 2013, and July 2012 for Member States indicated with *, provided by Commission services.’ 
‘Number of Projects: information up to May 2013, and July 2012 for Member States indicated with *, provided by Commission services.’
40 Annexes Annex IISample of projects audited
Member 
StateRegion Project description Type of productionAudited on 
the spotEligible 
project cost 
(000  euros)Total public 
contribution
(000  euros)Total EFF 
contribution
(000  euros)
SpainGaliciaInstallation of rafts and modernisa -
tion of service vesselsMussels Yes 401 241 180 
Acquisition of service vessels Mussels Yes 523 314 235 
Acquisition of service vessels Mussels 523 314 235 
Acquisition of service vessels Mussels 447 268 201 
Acquisition of service vessels Mussels 380 228 171 
AndaluciaInstallation of rafts and channels Seabream, seabass Yes 1 978 989 742 
Installation of rafts Mussels Yes 1 807 904 678 
Modernisation of hatchery Langoustines Yes 954 477 358 
Aqua environmental measures Seabream, seabass 2 493 1 247 935 
Modernisation of cages Seabream, seabass 2 495 1 247 935 
FranceAquitaineConstruction of sturgeon hatchery Esturgeon Yes 927 187 93 
Construction of oyster basins Oysters Yes 90 31 16 
Languedoc-
RoussillonExpansion and modernisation of 
production and delivery processOysters + mussels Yes 4 071 1 009 303 
Languedoc-
RoussillonExpansion and modernisation of 
production and delivery processOysters + mussels Yes 1 589 397 191 
Expansion and modernisation of 
production and delivery processOysters + mussels Yes 717 215 108 
AquitaineProduction materials Oysters + mussels 110 30 15 
Production materials Oysters + mussels 85 26 13 
Languedoc-
RoussillonExpansion and modernisation of 
production and delivery processOysters + mussels 297 89 45 
Expansion and modernisation of 
production and delivery processOysters + mussels 639 160 38 
Aquitaine Production materials Oysters + mussels 69 21 10 
41 Annexes Annex IIMember 
StateRegion Project description Type of productionAudited on 
the spotEligible 
project cost 
(000  euros)Total public 
contribution
(000  euros)Total EFF 
contribution
(000  euros)
ItalyProvincia 
autonoma 
di Trento Installation of hatchery and tanks Trout Yes 1 327 531 265 
Extension and modernisation of the 
fish tanksTrout Yes 280 113 56 
Infrastructure works on existing 
premisesTrout 155 62 31 
Infrastructure works on existing 
premisesTrout 183 73 37 
Emilia 
RomagnaPurchase of service vessels (clams 
repopulation) and purchase of 
a service dock/platformClams Yes 281 112 56 
Aquisition of service vessels Clams 220 88 44 
Aquisition of service vessels Clams 250 100 50 
SiciliaModernisation and extension of 
premisesSeabass, Seabream Yes 1 987 1 192 1 132 
Modernisation and extension of 
premisesTrout Yes 28 17 16 
Aquisition of service vessel and 
modernisationMussels Yes 667 400 380 
PolandMasoviaModernisation of breeding ponds Carp Yes 775 465 349 
Modernisation of ponds Carp Yes 478 287 215 
Construction of new installation Tilapia Yes 7 744 4 519 3 389 
Modernisation of installationCarp, trout, other 
fish516 309 232 
Modernisation of installation Carp 224 134 101 
PoznańConstruction of new installation Sturgeon Yes 2 780 1 644 1 233 
Modernisation, and construction, of 
fish pondsCarp, trout Yes 1 220 732 549 
Modernisation of the ponds Sturgeon 725 435 326 
Modernisation of ponds and 
purchasing of the equipmentOther fish 382 229 172 
Modernisation of ponds and 
purchase of equipmentCarp, other fish 881 528 396 
42 Annexes Annex IIMember 
StateRegion Project description Type of productionAudited on 
the spotEligible 
project cost 
(000  euros)Total public 
contribution
(000  euros)Total EFF 
contribution
(000  euros)
PortugalAlgarveModernisation of productionSeabass, seabream, 
huitres, clamsYes 2 502 1 501 1 126 
Installation of shellfish production 
site Instalação de uma aquicultura 
offshore para bivalves — FinisterraHuitres, Saint 
Jaques, moules1 893 1 136 852 
Installation of tuna cages Tuna 2 032 1 117 838 
Installation of tuna cages Tuna Yes 2 032 1 117 838 
Installation of shellfish production 
siteOysters, scallops, 
musselsYes 1 572 943 708 
CentroInstallation of eel production site Eels 7 941 3 970 2 978 
Modernisation of installation Sole, Turbot 3 507 1 754 1 315 
Modernisation of installation Sole, Turbot Yes 2 217 1 109 831 
Modernisation of installationSeabass, seabream, 
eel, sole193 87 65 
Modernisatio of installation Oysters Yes 84 46 35 
43 Annexes
Member 
StateRegion Project description Type of productionAudited on 
the spotEligible 
project cost 
(000  euros)Total public 
contribution
(000  euros)Total EFF 
contribution
(000  euros)
RomaniaConstanta Construction of new installation Turbot Yes 2 941 1 765 1 323 
Tulcea Modernisation of premises Carp and other fish Yes 2 444 1 466 1 100 
VranceaModernisation and expansion of 
premisesCarp and other fish 1 916 1 150 862 
TulceaOrganic conversion of an aquacul -
ture farmCarp 548 548 411 
Braila Modernisation of premisesCarp, trout and other 
fish1 237 742 557 
GiurgiuDiversification of production and 
modernisation of current activityCarp and other fish Yes 2 424 1 454 1 091 
Calarasi Intensive sturgeon rearing farm Sturgeon Yes 3 946 2 367 1 776 
IalomitaOrganic conversion of an aquacul -
ture farmCarp and other fish Yes 1 000 1 000 750 
Prahova Modernisation of installation Carp and other fish 1 036 622 466 
Arges Construction of new installation Trout 1 823 1 094 820 
31 84 986 45 353 33 274 Annex II
44 Annexes Annex IIIResults of audited projects
Member 
StateTypeAnnual 
produc -
tion 
before 
the 
project 
(tonnes)Annual 
produc -
tion 
planned 
after the 
project 
(tonnes)Actual 
annual 
produc -
tion 
(tonnes)Employ -
ment 
before the 
projectEmploy -
ment 
planned 
after the 
projectActual 
employ -
mentObjectives 
not yet 
achievedInvest -
ment 
started 
before 
grant 
decisionInsuf -
ficient evi -
dence of 
value for 
moneyExample 
of success -
ful project
SpainModernisation 8 000 8 000 4 900 33 33 38
Modernisation 70 70 70 16 16 16
New 0 200 200 30 50 52
New 0 900 600 0 15 8
Modernisation 41 45 30 17 25 22
FranceNew 0 90 000 90 000 0 2 1
New 0 15 15 1 1 0
Modernisation 120 500 170 35 50 47
Modernisation NA NA 80 15 30 26
Modernisation 80 160 99 NA NA NA
ItalyModernisation 830 1 240 1 000 6 6 6
Modernisation 1 240 1 350 1 000 6 6 6
Modernisation 10 468 10 733 10 5005 employees
570 members  
of 
cooperative5 employees
570 members  
of 
cooperative
Modernisation 1 800 2 200 2 500 90 91 100
Modernisation 5 11 8 2 2 2
Modernisation 540 1 120 1 000 23 24 24
45 Annexes Annex III
Member 
StateTypeAnnual 
produc -
tion 
before 
the 
project 
(tonnes)Annual 
produc -
tion 
planned 
after the 
project 
(tonnes)Actual 
annual 
produc -
tion 
(tonnes)Employ -
ment 
before the 
projectEmploy -
ment 
planned 
after the 
projectActual 
employ -
mentObjectives 
not yet 
achievedInvest -
ment 
started 
before 
grant 
decisionInsuf -
ficient evi -
dence of 
value for 
moneyExample 
of success -
ful project
PolandModernisation 0 40 - 2 4 -
Reconstruction 0 10 - 1 1 1
New 0 200 1 000 0 13 19
New 0 32 0 0 1 3
Modernisation 5 7 5 10 10 10
PortugalModernisation 120 150 135 4 9 8
Modernisation 120 392 20 7 9 14
New 0 1 555 0 0 3 8
New 0 2 380 10 0 16 21
Modernisation 175 810 50 6 6 6
RomaniaNew 0 150 0 2 7 NA
Modernisation 112 467 400 NA NA NA
Modernisation 100 428 NA 10 22 NA
Modernisation 6 132 0 2 9 NA
Organic NA NA NA NA NA NA
no increase in production or employment planned planned increase not achieved objectives achieved
46
Executive Summary
I
Member States will be able to spend EFF funds until 
the end of 2015. Thus, the final overall allocation of 
EFF funds to aquaculture measures for the 2007–13 
is not yet known.
III
The Commission recognises that, up to the end of 
2013, EFF support to the sustainable development 
of aquaculture may not have necessarily achieved 
all the expected or desired results. However, despite 
the financial and economic crisis the Commission 
would like to underline that production has been 
stable in terms of volume and has recorded a slight 
increase in terms of value. Employment level has 
been maintained in the sector. The lessons learned 
from the 2007–13 period have been incorporated 
in the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
(EMFF) for the 2014–20 period.
IV
The Commission is of the view that some, but not 
all measures financed by the EFF to support the 
sustainable development of aquaculture have been 
well designed and monitored notwithstanding 
the difficulty to assess the effectiveness of these 
measures.
The Commission recognises that the CFP did not 
provide a sufficiently clear framework for the devel ‑
opment of aquaculture in the previous program ‑
ming period. This has been addressed with the 
adoption of the reformed common fisheries policy 
and new strategic guidelines on aquaculture in 
2013.
However, the onset of first the fuel crisis in 2008, 
and then a global economic and financial crisis, 
meant that aquaculture firms faced entirely new 
challenges that could not have been foreseen at the 
onset of the 2007–13 programming period. This had 
a profound effect on the targets and objectives set 
for EFF ‑funded aquaculture measures at the start of 
the programming period.Reply of the  
Commission
The Commission produced a comprehensive 
vademecum and guidance on monitoring and in 
particular the use of indicators in the EFF: ( http://
ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/eff/official_documents/
updated_eff_workingpaper_on_indicators_en.pdf ). 
At no stage have Member States indicated a lack of 
guidance from the Commission.
The Commission takes note that there was insuf ‑
ficient comparability between data on aquaculture 
from different EU sources. This was partly due to 
the fact that aquaculture data come from different 
sources at EU level responding to different uses 
(production trends and socioeconomic perfor ‑
mance). These databases are essentially aligned 
but differences do occur due to different coverage, 
missing data or confidentiality reasons. The upcom ‑
ing revision of the Data Collection Framework will 
provide the Commission with the opportunity to 
address these data shortcomings.
The Monitoring Committee, in which the Com ‑
mission only has an observer status, follows the 
implementation of the whole Operational Pro ‑
gramme (OP) and not just for aquaculture. It should 
be recalled that the OPs included 16 measures, and 
aquaculture was not the most important in terms 
of EFF resources. The Commission considers that 
the time devoted by the Monitoring Committees to 
aquaculture was proportionate to the importance 
of these measures.
V
For the future, the Commission has established an 
open method of coordination, in the context of 
the CFP reform, with the objective of supporting 
Member States’ efforts to develop sustainable aqua ‑
culture and to strongly encourage them to reinforce 
the link between policy objectives and funding 
priorities. Under the EMFF and the new CFP , each 
Member State must adopt a multiannual national 
strategy for aquaculture to be able to support aqua ‑
culture within the framework of its EMFF OP .
Reply of the Commission 47
VIII (b)
The Commission has developed guidelines for the 
development of sustainable aquaculture, including 
relevant environmental factors:  http://ec.europa.
eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/official_documents/
com_2013_229_en.pdf
It has also prepared guidance on how the ex 
ante  conditionality for the multiannual national 
strategic plan on aquaculture should be ful ‑
filled: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/emff/
doc/10 ‑guidance‑emff‑specific‑eacs_en.pdf
The Commission has prepared guidance, as an 
annex to the guideline on the ex ante  evalua ‑
tions, on how the conclusions of the Strategic 
Environmental Assessments are integrated in 
the design of their operational programmes: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/emff/
doc/08 ‑strategic‑environmental‑assessment_en.pdf
The Commission developed guidance on the nature 
of the derogations allowed under Article 9 of the 
wild birds directive. This document aims at clarify ‑
ing the key concepts within Article 9 of the birds 
directive as they relate to preventing serious dam ‑
age by cormorants or protecting flora and fauna, 
and offers practical advice on how to implement 
these concepts: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
nature/cormorants/files/guidance_cormorants.pdf
In addition, the Commission is currently support ‑
ing the development of specific guidance for the 
implementation of the water framework directive 
and the marine strategy framework directive under 
preparation. All documents relating to this project 
are available at:  https://circabc.europa.eu/w/
browse/4eda1 1 16 ‑2b76 ‑4a0c‑b4ed‑b3ec2616b013
This exercise builds on the sustainable aquaculture 
guidance in the context of the Natura 2000 Network: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/
management/docs/Aqua‑N2000%20guide.pdf
VIII (c)
In line with the ex ante  conditionality on the multi ‑
annual national strategic plan for aquaculture, the 
Commission will not adopt the EMFF operational 
programmes unless Member States have submitted 
appropriate multiannual national strategic plans for 
the promotion of sustainable aquaculture, where 
relevant.VI
The Commission stresses that the impact of the 
economic and financial crisis critically affected the 
achievement of objectives for growth and employ ‑
ment in the aquaculture sector.
Through the principle of shared management on 
which the EFF is based, selection of projects is made 
at Member State level. Indeed, Member States were 
faced with ever decreasing numbers of projects 
emanating from the sector, due to worsening eco ‑
nomic conditions.
VII
Although the Commission acknowledges that the 
regulatory framework and in particular, the moni ‑
toring of EFF‑ funded measures did not generate 
the expected results, it is important to note that the 
2008 fuel crisis and ensuing economic and financial 
crisis had a critical impact on the sector.
The new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
(EMFF) provides a clearer policy framework, based 
on the establishment of six Union priorities and 
a set of specific objectives. The EMFF thus has 
a stronger intervention logic, a reinforced result‑ori ‑
entation and a strengthened monitoring and evalu ‑
ation system which will ensure a greater contribu ‑
tion to the objectives of the CFP , particularly to the 
sustainable development of EU aquaculture.
VIII (a)
The Commission will carefully analyse the ration ‑
ale for the support proposed to aquaculture in the 
new EMFF operational programmes expected to be 
submitted in the second half of 2014. The Com ‑
mission will also carefully analyse the coherence 
between the measures of the OP and the measures 
announced in the multiannual national strategic 
plan for aquaculture.
It can also be expected that the establishment of 
quantified targets and milestones and procedures 
for monitoring and collecting the data necessary to 
carry out evaluations, will facilitate checking that 
those objectives are met.
Reply of the Commission 48
IX (b)
The Commission takes note of this recommendation 
which is the main focus of the Commission’s current 
initiatives on maritime spatial planning. Please see 
the comment above paragraph VIII (d).
IX (c)
The Commission emphasises that the EMFF includes 
a number of new elements designed to help focus 
EMFF funding on those projects which best con ‑
tribute to the sustainable development of aquacul ‑
ture and provide value for money. These elements 
include: 1) reinforced monitoring system with 
annual reporting on the measures being financed; 
2) more complete annual implementation report; 
3) reinforced result‑orientation including the new 
performance framework; and 4) ex ante  condition ‑
alities to ensure that measures to be financed under 
aquaculture are coherent with the multiannual 
national strategic plan on aquaculture.
IX (d)
For the 2014–20 period, the EMFF will promote 
a stronger result orientation (use of common result 
indicators), including the application of the perfor ‑
mance framework (use of common output indica ‑
tors) than the previous EFF. The EMFF regulation 
foresees a delegated act on common indicators.
The new monitoring system in the EMFF proposal 
will be composed of the following elements:
 — A database at Member State level (INFOSYS) in 
which information on each operation is stored, 
following a common structure and using com ‑
mon indicators.
 — A report sent to the Commission presenting key 
information in an aggregated form. The infor ‑
mation should be cumulative in order to reflect 
the evolution of the implementation.
The EMFF common indicators will serve as the basis 
for monitoring and evaluation and to review the 
performance of the programmes. They will allow 
the aggregation of data at EU level, measuring the 
progress made towards the objectives of the Europe 
2020 strategy.A part of this recommendation is to be addressed to 
the Member States because under the principle of 
shared management, it is up to the Member States 
to prepare and apply coherent national strategies 
for the development of the aquaculture sector. The 
Commission cannot apply any sanctions or bring 
infringement procedures if Member States do not 
prepare or apply these strategies in line with Com ‑
mission guidelines.
VIII (d)
Although administrative simplification and spatial 
planning remain in substance the competence of 
Member States, the Commission has identified the 
lack of spatial planning and the need for admin ‑
istrative simplification amongst the objectives to 
be pursued, in the Strategic Guidelines for aqua ‑
culture (COM(2013) 229). The Commission will also 
encourage the Member States to apply the recently 
adopted directive on maritime spatial planning to 
improve the development of aquaculture.
VIII (e)
The Commission underlines that since 1996, a legal 
framework covering statistics on aquaculture pro ‑
duction (Regulation 788/96 repealed by Regulation 
762/2008) has been established. The Commission 
will continue addressing these data issues in the 
appropriate fora and processes (e.g. extending the 
collection of DCF data to freshwater aquaculture 
and harmonisation of methodologies).
IX (a)
Following the adoption of the EU Strategic Guide ‑
lines on aquaculture in April 2013, the Member 
States have started setting up their multiannual 
national strategic plans for the promotion of sus ‑
tainable aquaculture. The Commission will moni ‑
tor the implementation of these plans which will 
include Member States’ objectives and the meas ‑
ures to achieve them. In particular, this will include 
compliance with the ex ante  conditionality on the 
multiannual national strategic plan on aquaculture, 
without which the Commission will not be able to 
approve the EMFF Operational Programme.
Reply of the Commission 49
14
The Commission underlines that these statistics 
only refer to EFF‑funded projects of aquaculture.
Observations
21
The Commission did provide feedback about 
actions covered by the national strategic plan when 
negotiating the operational programmes with the 
Member States in conformity with Articles 15 and 17 
of the EFF regulation (No 1198/2006).
This finding confirms that Commission services did 
conduct the necessary OP appraisal in particular 
with respect to the sustainable development of 
aquaculture and consistency with the NSPs.
22
The Commission considers that it fulfilled its regula ‑
tory obligations as regards the review of NSPs and 
OPs. The purpose of the NSPs was to provide an 
overarching framework of the objectives for Mem ‑
ber States. Their purpose was not to be as specific 
as the Member States’ OPs.
23
In order to promote the application of the EIA (envi ‑
ronmental impact assessment) directive, the Com ‑
mission has published a number of studies, reports 
and guidance documents1. These are beneficial 
to a wide range of stakeholders such as national 
authorities, developers, consultants, researchers, 
non‑governmental organisations and the public. 
The Commission ensures that such documents are 
updated taking into account Court’s case‑law.
Please also see the Commission reply related to 
Recommendation 1 (b).
24
This reply addresses paragraphs 24 and 25.
1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia‑support.htmIntroduction
02
Imports of fish are largely derived from capture 
fisheries and not aquaculture. As for imported 
aquaculture products they correspond essentially 
to tropical species which cannot be produced in 
significant quantities in the EU.
03
The Commission uses the Data Collection Frame ‑
work and Eurostat as data sources and this may 
result in differences compared with the data from 
the FAO which is mentioned by the Court in para ‑
graph 3.
06
Although aquaculture was included in the scope 
of Regulation No 2371/2002, and targeted by the 
2002 and 2009 Communications on a Strategy for 
the sustainable development of Aquaculture, it 
must be emphasised that the EU does not have 
exclusive competence in this domain.
07
This is a combined reply for paragraphs 7 to 8 (c).
Priority actions of the 2002 and 2009 communica ‑
tions were identified through consultations and 
impact assessment. Almost all actions included in 
these two complementary communications were 
implemented.
During the preparation of the 2013 Guidelines for 
aquaculture, the Commission together with stake ‑
holders and Member States recognised the need 
for further action in the same priority actions. The 
major difference with the previous two Commu ‑
nications is the setting up of a new governance 
mechanism in which the Commission will coordi ‑
nate Member States’ efforts and facilitate exchange 
of best practices.
Reply of the Commission 50
As stated in Article 6 of Regulation 762/2008, Mem ‑
ber States have to provide the Commission with 
a yearly report on the quality of the data submitted. 
The submission of a detailed methodological report 
shall describe how the data were collected and 
compiled. The Commission examines the data and 
the reports and discusses them bilaterally and/or at 
the relevant Working Group on fisheries statistics of 
the Standing Committee for Agricultural Statistics.
Because data on the size of aquaculture facilities 
reported in m3 may still be not fully reliable for 
some Member States, Eurostat continuously inves ‑
tigates on improving validation procedures. In the 
case of questionable data, Member States are asked 
for feedback and to correct, if needed.
There is no clear relationship between the total size 
of facilities in m3 and the total production in tonnes: 
the productivity in kg per m3 may vary consider ‑
ably depending on the production method (cages, 
tanks, etc.), the environment (fresh and salt water) 
and the fish species. And for some fish species and 
production methods, countries report according 
to Regulation 762/2008, the size of their facilities in 
hectares instead of m3.
Member States are required to send data together 
with detailed methodological reports describing 
how data were collected and compiled and provid ‑
ing the needed elements to allow the Commission 
to make a sound data quality assessment.The Commission provided Member States with fur ‑
ther guidance through the vademecum on the EFF 
and a number of interpretative notes on aqua‑envi ‑
ronmental measures in the EFF. Besides the guid ‑
ance document on Natura 2000, the Commission 
developed guidance on the nature of the deroga ‑
tions specific to aquaculture under Article 9 of the 
wild birds directive relating to the prevention of 
serious damage by cormorants or the protection of 
flora and fauna:  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
nature/cormorants/files/guidance_cormorants.pdf
With regard to the environment impact assessment 
(EIA) directive, please see the replies of the Commis ‑
sion under recommendation 1b). Detailed guidance 
on its implementation is also available online2.
The Commission and Member States launched 
a Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) for the 
water framework directive (WFD). The aquaculture 
sector became active in the implementation of 
the WFD and joined the CIS in 2010 (via industry 
associations FEAP and EMPA). The Commission is 
currently supporting the development of guidance 
on the implementation of the WFD and the MSFD 
(marine strategy framework directive) in relation to 
aquaculture.
26
This reply addresses paragraphs 26 to 30.
While data validation and quality lays primarily in 
the remit of the Member States, the Commission did 
take a number of measures to improve harmonisa ‑
tion and coverage of aquaculture data, both in the 
context of the implementation of the existing legal 
frameworks and in the context of the data collec ‑
tion framework revision. The Commission under ‑
lines the publication of a scientific annual economic 
report on the EU aquaculture as a result.
2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/interpretation_eia.pdf
Reply of the Commission 51
The Commission is taking measures to reduce these 
differences in the context of the revision of the DCF 
and implementing an Action Plan on fisheries and 
aquaculture statistics that includes the harmonising 
of statistical concepts between both datasets.
31
Although the Commission’s mid‑term evaluation 
of the EFF included an examination of aquacul ‑
ture measures, in terms of resources, aquaculture 
absorbs a relatively modest part of the EFF budget. 
The Commission considers that its evaluation 
efforts for aquaculture are proportionate to this 
level of support.
32
The Commission selects Member States for its ‘rep ‑
erformance’ audits on the basis of a risk assessment, 
and selects the operations to be audited from a rep ‑
resentative sample of cases previously selected and 
audited by the Member State’s Audit Authority. The 
Commission draws its sample from as many axes as 
possible; whether aquaculture projects are selected 
for review will depend largely on their number and 
financial allocation in the Operational Programme 
concerned.
The conclusions of both parties are then compared 
in each case. Findings are duly followed up; for the 
seven aquaculture cases in question there were no 
issues identified regarding sustainability.
33
The EFF legal framework does not include such 
additional assessment for any of the five priority 
axis of the EFF. Nevertheless, the Commission did 
conduct a similar assessment through the stake ‑
holder and Member States’ consultations in the 
framework of the CFP reform and the preparation of 
the aquaculture guidelines.The methodological report has now been fully inte ‑
grated into the Eurostat data reporting and moni ‑
toring environment (eDAMIS) similarly as for the 
datasets. Member States now provide their report 
annually. The data validation work can be done 
independently from the availability of the reports.
The Commission is aware of this situation and has 
acted upon it. Member States are now asked to 
justify the confidentiality and Eurostat has started 
to work on a confidentiality charter that aims 
limiting further the usage of confidentiality by 
Member States. As far as delays in delivering data 
are concerned, the Commission has reinforced 
its compliance monitoring and the follow up of 
non‑compliance cases. Member States that do not 
deliver correct data on time are reminded of their 
legal obligations with an escalation approach that 
may potentially lead to infringement procedures.
The Commission is aware of the data differences, 
which are largely due to the differences in the legal 
frameworks. An ex post  evaluation of the Data Col ‑
lection Framework (DCF) has identified the discrep ‑
ancies and overlaps between the various legislation, 
and the STECF3 has further analysed the datasets. 
Differences occur due to different coverage, missing 
data or confidentiality reasons.
3 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 
(STECF) — The Economic Performance Report on the EU 
Aquaculture sector (STECF ‑13‑29). 2013. Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26336 EN, JRC 86671, 383 pp.
Reply of the Commission 52
Although project results primarily addressed farmer 
needs, results have been used to prepare legislation 
and guidelines in relation to aquaculture. The Com ‑
mission also used relevant project results supported 
under other EU funding programmes such as ERDF, 
ENP and CIP , e.g. to prepare the Strategic Guidelines 
for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture 
(COM(2013) 229). Project results have been dissemi ‑
nated and communicated to stakeholders including 
advisory bodies, industry (e.g. European Aquacul ‑
ture Technology and Innovation Platforms (EATIP)) 
and policymakers.
Box 1
The Commission notes that only a small part of 
the 14 million euro representing the total amount 
disbursed for the 18 projects identified by the Court 
was of relevance for aquaculture. Most LIFE pro ‑
jects which mention aquaculture deal with it only 
in a wider context (typical example: LIFE97 ENV IRL 
209 — Development of consensus based integrated 
coastal zone management strategy for Bantry Bay, 
which included existing aquaculture developments 
as part of the strategic planning, but only as a very 
small component of a much bigger project).
Among the 77 research projects relating to aquacul ‑
ture funded under the sixth framework programme 
(FP), two projects dealt with the issue of communi ‑
cation, dissemination and technology transfer, and 
had a strong impact on stakeholders and the public 
at large:
1) The project ‘PROFET POLICY: A European Platform 
for the Communication of European RTD results 
to Stakeholders in Fisheries and Aquaculture’  
(€764 144 EU funding) developed a platform for 
communication and dissemination of the results 
of EU‑funded research projects in fisheries and aq ‑
uaculture of the fifth and sixth framework research 
programmes. Web‑based structure for publishing 
technical leaflets, seminars on thematic and regional 
basis devoted to aquaculture producers, fishermen, 
scientists, national and European policymakers and 
other stakeholders were put in place. Workshops for 
the presentation of FP6 projects under the area of 
scientific support to policy were also organised to 
provide valuable exposure to policy‑oriented stake ‑
holders and fisheries and aquaculture organisations 
and networks.34
The Monitoring Committee follows the implemen ‑
tation of the whole Operational Programme and not 
just for aquaculture. It should be recalled that the 
OPs included 16 measures, and aquaculture was not 
the most important in terms of EFF resources.
The Commission considers that the time devoted 
by the Monitoring Committees to aquaculture was 
proportionate to the importance of these measures.
35
The research projects funded under FP6 to support 
aquaculture focused on three key objectives:
(i) solving policy problems via pragmatic and applied 
research (Scientific Support to Policy — SSP);
(ii) promoting excellence in science on food quality and 
safety (priority 5); and
(iii) developing specific research activities for SMEs.
36
Target No 4 ‘Better management of fish stocks’ of 
the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy has been trans ‑
lated into the new LIFE Regulation 2014–20. As this 
target is a thematic priority under the Nature and 
Biodiversity area, objectives in relation to aquacul ‑
ture have been set in the Strategy based among 
others on results of LIFE projects. The main topics 
covered by research projects were disease preven ‑
tion, fish nutrition, selective breeding, fish welfare, 
biological potential for new candidate species, 
safety and quality of aquaculture products, and 
environmental protection. These reflect the main 
needs of the aquaculture industry, and the results 
are of direct use primarily to aquaculture farmers. 
Overall, research projects funded under FP6 have 
made an important contribution to environmental 
issues, genomics, fish nutrition, fish disease, and 
public health. 
Reply of the Commission 53
Box 2
The Commission is well aware of the fact that prac ‑
tices concerning spatial planning and licensing dif ‑
fer widely in the EU. This is however an area where 
Member States’ competence prevails. For this rea ‑
son, as already announced in the 2011 Commission’s 
proposal for a new regulation of the European Par ‑
liament and of the Council on the common fisheries 
policy, the Commission is promoting ‘exchanges of 
know‑how and best practices’.
These exchanges will be facilitated by Member 
States’ publication of their multi annual strategic 
plans for aquaculture.
Moreover, these multiannual strategic plans should 
address explicitly issues such as time to grant 
concessions.
As to the specific cases mentioned, the Commission 
will inform the concerned Member States of the 
Court’s findings.
Common reply to paragraphs 39 and 
40
The new Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning will 
contribute to better integration in this field.
In the Strategic Guidelines (COM(2013) 229), the 
Commission identified the lack of spatial plan ‑
ning and the need for administrative simplification 
amongst the hindering factors that prevent further 
development of aquaculture. Because administra ‑
tive simplification and spatial planning remain the 
competence of Member States, the Commission 
will address these issues in the context of the open 
method of coordination through best practice 
exchange seminars. Moreover, the new directive on 
maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal 
management provides for a framework for Member 
States to apply a comprehensive and coordinated 
planning process across sectors and between Mem ‑
ber States.2) The project ‘FEUFAR: The future of European fisher ‑
ies and aquaculture research’ (€499 680 EU funding) 
carried out a foresight analysis and provided recom ‑
mendations for future directions that had important 
implications for EU competitiveness in the aquacul ‑
ture industry as well as for protection of the environ ‑
ment. It looked to identify future research needs in 
particular for aquaculture, based on an integrative 
and interactive foresight methodology including: 
(i) describing the system; (ii) detecting the driving 
forces in the system and (iii) constructing hypoth ‑
eses about the driving forces leading to potential 
scenarios for the future. These different scenarios 
provided the basis, notably regarding aquaculture, 
for the identification of issues from an economical, 
ecological, societal and managerial (governance) 
perspective. Based on the analysis, some of the key 
future needs for research in capture fisheries and 
aquaculture were identified.
37
The Commission will address, amongst others, 
the topics identified in the Court’s observations 
through exchange of best practices within the 
open method of coordination. The Commission will 
also support Member States’ efforts in addressing 
administrative simplification with the help of the 
High Level Group for administrative simplification.
38
The Commission underlines that there was no such 
obligation for the Member States under relevant EU 
law (CFP and EFF). The multiannual national plans 
for aquaculture cover now this need (Article 34 
of the 2013 basic regulation on the CFP and one 
of the ex ante  conditionalities). It will need to be 
transmitted to the Commission at the latest by the 
day of transmission of the Operational Programme. 
The Guidelines adopted by the Commission on 
29 April 2013 (COM(2013) 229) should guide the 
Member States in the preparation of the multian ‑
nual national strategy plan.
Reply of the Commission 54
45
Member States have opted for presenting finan ‑
cial resources only at the level of the Operational 
Programme, in the financial tables required in 
part B, Annex I to the Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 498/2007 obliging Member States to provide 
financial resources per axis and not per measure 
(and aquaculture is only a measure).
46
The Commission has now promoted a result‑ori ‑
ented approach in the EMFF Operational Pro ‑
gramme and recommends the use of common indi ‑
cators with realistic targets to address the identified 
weaknesses.
The initial targets have been established seven 
years ago when the economic situation was com ‑
pletely different. The Commission considers that 
a change of targets should lead to the reallocation 
of budgets.
The Commission’s experience is that Member States 
might over ‑ or underestimate when setting objec ‑
tives or targets. This weakness is addressed under 
the EMFF by setting amongst others common 
indicators and providing more emphasis on evalu ‑
ation and monitoring including an evaluation plan 
which will ensure that Member States undertake 
ongoing evaluation activities to monitor progress 
and performance.
47
Please see the Commission reply in Box 3.
48
In some Member States, it was common practice 
to request a business plan among the documents 
to be presented by potential beneficiaries, allow ‑
ing clearly economically unviable projects to be 
excluded and promoting value for money.41
The Commission acknowledges that the financial 
and economic crisis had a significant impact on 
the aquaculture sector as a whole and in particular 
the financing of aquaculture measures through the 
EFF. It impacted consumers demand, thus reducing 
investment risk taking by producers. In addition, 
the reduction in public spending also considerably 
weakened public co‑funding capability in most 
Member States.
For Romania the financial crisis created serious dif ‑
ficulties for beneficiaries to implement EFF funded 
projects. This is also reflected in the intense usage 
of the Guarantee Fund — which provided until 
the end of 2013, financial guarantees amounting 
to approx. 7,5 million euro. The main beneficiaries 
were projects related to investments in aquaculture 
farms.
42
The Commission notes that:
 — the financial crisis made it almost impossible to 
find the remaining funds that would have been 
necessary to start a new business in the sector;
 — the crisis had a serious effect on the demand 
side, thus increasing significantly the financial 
risks for new operators.
The Commission considers that the risk of de‑com ‑
mitment did potentially act as a driver for decisions 
but it is only one among many other factors.
44
Article 15(2) of EFF Regulation No 1198/2006 indi ‑
cates that a national strategic plan shall contain, 
where relevant to the Member State, a summary 
description of all aspects of the CFP , and set out the 
priorities, objectives, the estimated public financial 
resources required and deadlines. Member States 
are thus not obliged to do so in all circumstances.
Reply of the Commission 55
50
Projects are presented by private operators and the 
EFF funds only part of the investment. As a conse ‑
quence, in times of crisis, there was not always suf ‑
ficient incentive for private operators to go beyond 
legally binding requirements. There was guidance 
on environmental matters (see the Commission 
reply to paragraphs 23 to 25).
51
In the context of the financial and economic crisis, 
fewer projects were submitted by private operators. 
Although environmentally friendly production was 
identified as a selection criterion, this incentive was 
not sufficient to ensure a high number of projects 
in this area. The question is rather to ensure that 
consumers perceive an added value for environ ‑
mentally friendly production.
Box 4  
The fact that, in Spain, all projects respected the 
legislation but that only few projects applied 
voluntary certified environmental management 
systems does not indicate that Member States 
gave insufficient consideration to environment and 
health issues. However it does demonstrate that, in 
a context of financial and economic crisis, benefi ‑
ciaries often did not consider that the application 
of voluntary certified environmental management 
systems would give them a competitive advantage. 
Only a few such projects were presented and con ‑
sequently a limited number of these projects were 
approved.
The above comment is also relevant for Italy.
It is important to outline that the selection criteria 
for EFF‑ funded projects in Romania are approved 
by the Monitoring Committee, where DG Maritime 
Affairs and Fisheries is an observer.Box 3
Romania has a limited potential for marine 
aquaculture in the Black Sea, mostly related to 
mussels’ aquaculture. In compliance with Direc ‑
tive 79/923/EEC on shellfish water quality, four areas 
along the Romanian Black Sea coast were identified 
as suitable for mussel culture. Therefore the Roma ‑
nian Operational Programme does not put any 
restriction in supporting marine aquaculture.
Actions to improve the Coastal Zone Management 
and the Italian legislation on aquaculture conces ‑
sions lies outside the scope of the EFF and could not 
be included in the OP .
The Commission will strongly encourage Member 
States to exploit the opportunities offered by the 
EMFF to help public authorities identify the most 
suitable areas for developing aquaculture in the 
context of the spatial planning process.
In order to simplify target indicators, only few 
aggregated indicators have been considered to be 
relevant for achieving the objective of the OP . For 
the EMFF OP the Commission proposes specific 
indicators which take better into account environ ‑
mental and market issues.
The OP of PL was revised in 2011 and change of 
aquaculture indicators was not requested by PL. 
This finding is not an example of weakness in rela ‑
tion to the OP .
49
EU aquaculture has to respect the highest envi ‑
ronmental and health standards. The Commission 
monitors the compliance with EU law and controls 
its correct implementation.
The Natura 2000 guidelines recommend strategic 
spatial planning as an effective means to address 
and mitigate at an early stage potential impacts at 
local level.
Reply of the Commission 56
The EFF OP in Spain and in Romania started de facto 
in 2010 and many of the projects on aquaculture 
were selected in 2010–11, while their implementa ‑
tion started in 2011–12. In this respect and depend ‑
ing on the fish species, the aquaculture farms do 
not start producing for the market immediately 
after the finalisation of the investment. Usually 
there is a period of breeding and nurturing that in 
some cases can take up to 5 years after the invest ‑
ment was made (e.g. sturgeon).
The above considerations also apply for Italy. It shall 
also be considered that the initial figures reported 
in the Annual Implementation Report (AIR) up 
to 2011 were a reference to the planned produc ‑
tions. The Commission had already identified this 
discrepancy with the figures provided by Eurostat, 
which refers to current productions. The issue was 
brought to the attention of the Italian Managing 
Authority which then modified the AIR and the OP 
to report current productions by using the same 
methodology applied by Eurostat.
The project implementation report is drawn up by 
the beneficiary. Actual production figures men ‑
tioned are not checked by the national authorities. 
It is the Managing Authority’s task to verify that 
the co‑financed products and services are deliv ‑
ered; this does not include the results the projects 
have yielded. The Managing Authority collects all 
the data, aggregates and uses them in the Annual 
Implementation Reports. If at later stages the 
results require updating, the Managing Author ‑
ity informs the Commission in consecutive Annual 
Implementation Reports and will do so in the final 
report which is due in March 2017.
55
The Commission Communication ‘A strategy for the 
sustainable development of European aquaculture’ 
laid down a number of objectives. It highlighted 
the fact that ensuring the long‑term competitive ‑
ness and sustainability of the industry required the 
active participation and leadership of the private 
sector. It set a number of priorities for public sup ‑
port in the aquaculture industry but the scope of 
the communication did not cover the assessment of 
the national strategic plans under the EFF.The Commission has outlined whenever neces ‑
sary — in its observer quality — in the Monitoring 
Committees in Romania the importance of having 
a clearly defined process of selection and moni ‑
toring of environmentally friendly projects (e.g. 
this included the need for more clarity related to 
‘organic aquaculture’, avoiding overcompensations 
for aquaculture farms in NATURA 2000, obligation 
to avoid fraud by means of approving ineligible 
expenditures, etc.).
54
The Commission acknowledges that although there 
were indicators in the EFF operational programmes 
to measure progress in programming, they were 
neither common nor comparable across Member 
States. In this context, OPs used different types of 
indicators and their aggregation at EU level was not 
possible. This is why the EMFF foresees the utilisa ‑
tion of a limited number of common indicators to 
assess progress of programme implementation 
towards achievement of objectives. These common 
indicators will be reported annually in the EMFF 
annual implementation reports.
The Commission takes note of this finding and is 
working to establish a set of common indicators 
based on reliable statistical sources for the forth ‑
coming programmes 2014–20.
Box 5
This comment refers to two unrelated issues, one 
being the quality of statistics, the other the choice 
of indicators for the monitoring of the EFF.
Regarding the indicator for monitoring the EFF, 
the Commission takes note of the observation and 
agrees that result indicators are more adequate. The 
issue has been raised with the Member State.
Account should be taken of the relatively long 
period needed between project approval and 
actual increase in production.
Reply of the Commission 57
Box 6
Box 6 shows that the objectives for the sector, as 
included in the Operational Programme (OP) in order 
to illustrate the general context in which EFF meas ‑
ures are implemented, may not be reached. The Com ‑
mission considers that a distinction must be made 
between matters within the control of the Member 
States and those outside their control when evaluat ‑
ing the achievement of objectives. The principle fac ‑
tors beyond the control of Member States include the 
impact of the economic and financial crisis and spe ‑
cifically in the case of France the occurrence of a virus 
leading to a dramatic increase of oyster mortality.
The volume of production of oysters in the coming 
years will depend mainly on the capacity to tackle 
the issue of increased mortality. The 120 000 tons 
thresholds had been reached in 2008 but then 
the production has fallen. The French authorities 
remained optimistic about the overall production 
targets for the programming period.
The production targets were set at the beginning 
of the programming period. In 2011 there were still 
4 years for implementing aquaculture measures. 
In addition, given the investment nature of the 
projects, 2011 was definitely too early to forecast 
the final performance of the measures. In the last 
proposal of OP modification of 2013, the target has 
been adjusted to 208 068, and has been calculated 
with the methodology applied by Eurostat.
For Poland, initial targets were impacted by:
 — the late adoption of the OP (only October 2008) 
that shortens time of reaching targets (the year 
2015 should be assumed for any comparisons);
 — the time gap between investment and increase 
in production (it is minimum 3 years); 
 — growth in the population of protected, predato ‑
ry species e.g. cormorants (in some cases dam ‑
ages are evaluated for 80 % of the production);
 — periodical problems with lack of or low quality 
of water;
 — price increase of feeding;
 — lack of control of some diseases;56
While the EU aquaculture has not grown as in other 
regions, the activity and employment has been 
maintained.
The Commission stresses that a comparison of 
aquaculture growth rates in the EU and in other 
regions of the world should be treated with caution, 
due to the very different conditions under which 
firms have to operate, e.g. in relation to the level of 
social and environmental protection.
In the light of the latest available data, the STECF4 
points out that after the impact of the financial and 
economic crisis, the EU aquaculture shows a recent 
economic improvement.
57
The Commission underlines that the initial targets 
have been established in a very different economic 
context. Although the EU aquaculture has not 
increased in volume, the activity and employment 
have been maintained. Latest available data show 
an improvement in the economic performance of 
the aquaculture sector in several Member States.
As for paragraph 46, the initial targets were estab ‑
lished 7 years ago when the economic situation was 
completely different.
Support of the EFF is only one element aimed at 
increasing the long‑term production. Other ele ‑
ments have a much greater impact. The economic 
and financial crisis reduced consumer demand, 
increased competition from third countries and 
adversely affected consumer confidence in aquacul ‑
ture products.
4 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 
(STECF) — The Economic Performance Report on the EU 
Aquaculture sector (STECF ‑13‑29). 2013. Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26336 EN, JRC 86671, 383 pp.
Reply of the Commission 58
Traditional activities which are relatively less risky 
received the bulk of funding.
Box 7
Access to space is a well‑known issue and the Com ‑
mission took several initiatives to address this, in 
particular by proposing a directive on maritime 
spatial planning (now adopted) and the request 
made to Member States to draw up multiannual 
national plans for the development of sustainable 
aquaculture.
The impact of the economic and financial cri ‑
sis on the sector as recognised by the Court in 
paragraph 41 discouraged new investments. The 
maintenance of the competitiveness of a European 
aquaculture sector capable of securing employ ‑
ment and productions in challenging circumstances 
should also be considered a success.
62
The Commission recalls that the financing of pro ‑
jects which have already commenced is entirely in 
line with the applicable legislation.
Box 8
Due to the economic and financial crisis, less appli ‑
cants have applied for funding than expected at 
the time of programming on the basis of intense 
stakeholders’ consultations.
The competent authorities then checked that they 
fulfilled the criteria including economic and financial 
capacity. As regards the selection of six projects in 
Spain, the Spanish authorities have confirmed that 
these projects all fulfilled their selection criteria.
As for the acquisition of service vessels which may 
not have improved production or employment, it 
may have conditioned the continuation of the aqua ‑
culture activities in a time when economic uncer ‑
tainties would not have allowed such investments.
In the case of PL project selection: a 3 ‑year busi ‑
ness plan is requested. It allows for choosing only 
economically sustainable projects.
The selection criteria are approved by the Monitor ‑
ing Committee in Romania, where the Commission 
is only an observer.  — projects focusing on modernisation of existing 
aquaculture enterprises;
 — quite low demand on the PL market despite 
promoting campaigns and adding new species 
to the offer.
In the case of Portugal, the production targets 
in aquaculture took into account the potential 
increase in production induced by a major project 
implemented in 2009 with FIFG support. Because of 
technical problems this project never reached the 
expected production. Therefore the gap between 
the target and the actual production results mainly 
from the failure of one project.
The increase in production was related to the fact 
that Romania allocated an additional 25 million to 
Axis 2. The Managing Authority was asked by DG 
Maritime Affairs and Fisheries to revise the achieve ‑
ment indicators in line with the new, additional 
allocations.
The Spanish OP’s production targets were set in 2007 
when the Spanish economy was growing far above 
the EU average. Although, in 2014, these initial objec ‑
tives may appear unrealistic, they weren’t in 2007.
59
The Commission considers that in many projects the 
economic and financial crisis hindered a cost‑effec ‑
tive achievement of the objectives.
60
The Commission considers that the limited support 
to the sustainable development of aquaculture and 
poor targeting is mostly due to the time lag and 
very different economic context between the origi ‑
nal orientation for the development of aquaculture 
support and the time where the relevant project 
could be implemented.
61
In the context of the financial and economic crisis, 
fewer projects were submitted by private operators. 
Furthermore, the implementation of innovative pro ‑
jects (usually involving higher risk than traditional 
projects in aquaculture) was limited due to the risk 
adverse decisions taken by the operators in the 
wake of the economic and financial crisis. 
Reply of the Commission 59
65
Please see the Commission reply to Box 9: EFF 
implementation took place in the context of 
a severe economic and financial crisis for which it 
is logical that projects, often designed before the 
crisis, failed to reach all their objectives.
Criteria of eligibility must be checked (including by 
controls on the spot) before making a mid or final 
payment according to procedures that are defined 
at national level.
In the PL case, the relevant national regulation 
obliged intermediate bodies to make 100 % con ‑
trols on the spot before making final payments in 
case of aquaculture projects. This national regula ‑
tion has been, however, modified in November 2011 
and a sampling procedure adopted with a 20 % 
sampling rate. Apart from that a beneficiary can 
be controlled within 5 years starting from a date 
of a final payment and corrective actions can be 
launched in case of irregularities discovered.
Box 10
Written and signed final implementation reports 
by the beneficiaries are the basis for assessing 
the results of projects. In evaluating the achieve ‑
ments of project results account must be taken of 
all factors including those beyond the control of 
the beneficiary, in particular the effect of predators 
and other natural causes as well as the financial and 
economic crisis.
As indicated in the Commission reply to Box 9, 
EFF implementation took place in the context of 
a severe economic and financial crisis for which it 
is logical that projects, often designed before the 
crisis, failed to reach all their objectives.
67
There is a need, in practice, to find the right balance 
between these criteria. This is particularly true as 
regards ensuring that projects need public sup ‑
port to overcome financial and technical issues and 
ensuring technical and financial viability of projects. 
This last criterion became increasingly important as 
the impact of the crisis became clearer.In the case of the projects where the Romanian 
Audit Authority identified weaknesses in the selec ‑
tion procedure, the Commission used the tools at its 
disposal for ensuring compliance. In this regard the 
payments for Romania were interrupted in January 
2012 until mid ‑2013, when there was sufficient con ‑
firmation that the weaknesses of the management 
and control system were rectified.
The degree of implementation of a project is not 
a selection criterion. Given the unstable economic 
environment, projects implemented before the 
application but within the eligibility period and 
complying with the eligibility rules, it should be 
considered as a process of minimising the risk for 
the EU and national budget.
There is an improvement foreseen for the next 
programming period as the Common Provisions 
Regulation 1303/2013 foresees under Article 65(6) 
that operations shall not be selected for support 
by the European Structural and Investment (ESI) 
Funds where they have been physically completed 
or fully implemented before the application for 
funding under the programme is submitted by the 
beneficiary to the Managing Authority, irrespective 
of whether all related payments have been made by 
the beneficiary.
Box 9
The Commission recognises that improvement is 
possible as regards ex ante  evaluation of the impact 
of projects and as regards ex post  analysis of impact 
achieved. However, the Commission would like 
to recall that the EFF took place in the context of 
a severe economic and financial crisis. In this con ‑
text it is logical that projects, often designed before 
the crisis, failed to reach all their objectives.
Many PL projects aimed at modernisation in aqua ‑
culture due to outdated infrastructure.
Reply of the Commission 60
70
The formulation of these proposals reflects the 
high level of priority granted by the Commission 
to the sustainable development of aquaculture. 
The Strategic Guidelines identify the main barri ‑
ers currently hindering aquaculture’s development 
in the EU, and the Open Method of Coordination 
intends to help Member States addressing them. 
The overall coherence of the approach is ensured 
by the consistency between the EMFF operational 
programmes and the Multiannual National Plans 
(ex‑ante conditionality).
71
The Commission underlines that the EMFF includes 
the possibility to finance projects aimed at iden ‑
tifying and mapping the most suitable areas for 
developing aquaculture as well as the identification 
and mapping of areas where aquaculture should be 
excluded.
Conclusions and  recommendations
74
Empirical evidence from the implementation of 
EFF programmes has shown that the impact of the 
financial crisis and the economic downturn in the 
main EU producing countries has been significant. 
It impacted consumers demand, thus reducing 
investment risk taking by producers. In addition, 
the reduction in public spending also considerably 
weakened public co‑funding capability in most 
Member States.
The Commission recognises however that, up to 
now, the EFF support for the sustainable devel ‑
opment of aquaculture did not fully achieve the 
expected results. Lessons learned have been incor ‑
porated into the Commission’s proposals for the 
revised CFP and the new EMFF, which were adopted 
in 2013 and 2014 respectively.69
See the Commission reply to Box 8.
Projects started before the application are eligible 
provided that the expenditure is within the eligibil ‑
ity period and that selection criteria and eligibility 
rules are met.
Beneficiaries were aware of funding possibilities 
under the EFF since 2007 but had to wait until end 
2009 to apply to call for applications for aquacul ‑
ture measures.
There is an improvement foreseen for the next 
programming period as the Common Provisions 
Regulation 1303/2013 foresees under Article 65(6) 
that operations shall not be selected for support by 
the ESI funds where they have been physically com ‑
pleted or fully implemented before the application 
for funding under the programme is submitted by 
the beneficiary to the Managing Authority, irrespec ‑
tive of whether all related payments have been 
made by the beneficiary.
Nevertheless some of them took the risk to start 
investment before.
The Commission takes note and will ensure appro ‑
priate follow up.
Box 12  
The Commission will follow up with the Member 
States.
The Commission notes that some projects, although 
apparently promising, could not reach the initial 
objectives. The economic and financial crisis as well 
as other factors affected negatively these projects 
and this was difficult to foresee from the outset. 
The Commission notes that striking the right bal ‑
ance between taking risks to fund projects that will 
not reach the expected objectives and projects that 
would be successful anyway even without EU sup ‑
port is difficult. The economic and financial crisis 
further increases this difficulty.
The Commission will follow up with the Member 
States and will in particular check that the eligibility 
conditions were fulfilled.
Reply of the Commission 61
76
The Commission takes note of the Court’s observa ‑
tion but stresses that the economic and financial 
crisis has hindered the achievement of objectives 
for growth and employment in the aquaculture sec ‑
tor at EU level. Furthermore objectives at Member 
State level were established in a period with a very 
different economic context.
The Commission underlines that although the EU 
aquaculture has not increased in volume, the activ ‑
ity and employment has been maintained. Further ‑
more, latest available data and analysis5 show an 
improvement in the economic performance of the 
aquaculture in the EU.
77
The Commission recognises that, up to now, the EFF 
support for the sustainable development of aqua ‑
culture did not fully achieve the expected results 
and for this reason, it has already adopted appropri ‑
ate measures.
78
The Commission emphasises that the new CFP and 
EMFF provide a clearer framework to support the 
sustainable development of the EU aquaculture.
Recommendation 1 (a)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
The Commission will carefully analyse the ration ‑
ale for the support proposed to aquaculture in the 
new EMFF operational programmes expected to be 
submitted in the second half of 2014. The Com ‑
mission will also carefully analyse the coherence 
between the measures of the OP and the measures 
announced in the multiannual national strategic 
plan for aquaculture.
The new EMFF programing and monitoring mecha ‑
nisms will allow for the adoption of more realistic 
and appropriate targets, and will also facilitate 
reporting with accurate and comparable indicators 
on the sustainable development of EU aquaculture.
5 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 
(STECF) — The Economic Performance Report on the EU 
Aquaculture sector (STECF ‑13‑29). 2013. Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26336 EN, JRC 86671, 383 pp.Notwithstanding the difficulties to assess the aqua ‑
culture measures, as acknowledged by the Court, 
the Commission recognises that the CFP did not 
provide a sufficiently clear framework for the devel ‑
opment of sustainable aquaculture in the period up 
to 2013. This has been addressed with the new com ‑
mon fisheries policy and the strategic guidelines on 
aquaculture which were adopted in 2013.
The EFF vademecum as well as numerous guidance 
documents were issued through the EFF Commit ‑
tee. Furthermore, regular interactions with Member 
States took place through annual review meetings 
or the EFF Committee. At no time during the pro ‑
gramming period did the Commission receive any 
feedback from the Member States that this guid ‑
ance was considered insufficient.
The Commission acknowledges that differences 
in data sources at EU level are being dealt with to 
a large extent thanks to ongoing revision of the 
data collection framework.
75
This recommendation is addressed to the Member 
States.
The economic and financial crisis had a significant 
impact on the uptake of EFF resources for the 
sustainable development of aquaculture in the EU. 
The crisis hindered the achievements of targets 
and reduced the demand for innovative projects in 
favour of relatively less risky aquaculture projects.
The Commission acknowledges that there were 
methodological weaknesses in the annual report ‑
ing of indicators by Member States. This is why the 
EMFF foresees the utilisation of a limited number 
of common and comparable indicators based on 
sound methodologies to assess progress of pro ‑
gramme implementation towards achievement of 
the objectives.
Reply of the Commission 62
Recommendation 1 (c)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
In line with the ex ante  conditionality on the multi ‑
annual national strategic plan for aquaculture, the 
Commission will not adopt the EMFF operational 
programmes unless Member States have submitted 
appropriate multiannual national strategic plans for 
the promotion of sustainable aquaculture, where 
relevant.
A part of this recommendation is to be addressed to 
the Member States because under the principle of 
shared management, it is up to the Member States 
to prepare and apply coherent national strategies 
for the development of the aquaculture sector. The 
Commission cannot apply any sanctions or bring 
infringement procedures if Member States do not 
prepare or apply these strategies in line with Com ‑
mission guidelines.
Recommendation 1 (d)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
Although administrative simplification and spatial 
planning remain in substance the competence of 
Member States, the Commission has identified the 
lack of spatial planning and the need for admin ‑
istrative simplification amongst the objectives to 
be pursued, in the Strategic Guidelines for aqua ‑
culture (COM(2013) 229). The Commission will also 
encourage the Member States to apply the recently 
adopted directive on maritime spatial planning to 
improve the development of aquaculture.Recommendation 1 (b)
The Commission accepts this recommendation and 
considers that this part of the recommendation is 
already largely implemented through the following 
guidelines:
The Commission has developed guidelines for the 
development of sustainable aquaculture, including 
relevant environmental factors: http://ec.europa.
eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/official_documents/
com_2013_229_en.pdf
It has also prepared guidance on how the ex 
ante  conditionality for the multiannual national 
strategic plan on aquaculture should be ful ‑
filled: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/emff/
doc/10 ‑guidance‑emff‑specific‑eacs_en.pdf
The Commission has prepared guidance, as an 
annex to the guideline on the ex ante  evalua ‑
tions, on how the conclusions of the Strategic 
Environmental Assessments are integrated in 
the design of their operational programmes: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/emff/
doc/08 ‑strategic‑environmental‑assessment_en.pdf
The Commission developed guidance on the nature 
of the derogations allowed under Article 9 of the 
wild birds directive. This document aims at clarify ‑
ing the key concepts within Article 9 of the birds 
directive as they relate to preventing serious dam ‑
age by cormorants or protecting flora and fauna, 
and offers practical advice on how to implement 
these concepts: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
nature/cormorants/files/guidance_cormorants.pdf
In addition, the Commission is currently support ‑
ing the development of specific guidance for the 
implementation of the water framework directive 
and the marine strategy framework directive under 
preparation. All documents relating to this pro ‑
ject are available at: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/
browse/4eda1 1 16 ‑2b76 ‑4a0c‑b4ed‑b3ec2616b013 . 
This exercise builds on the sustainable aquaculture 
guidance in the context of the Natura 2000 Net ‑
work: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/
natura2000/management/docs/Aqua‑N2000%20
guide.pdf
Reply of the Commission 63
Recommendation 2 (d)
For the 2014–20 period, the EMFF will promote 
a stronger result orientation (use of common result 
indicators), including the application of the perfor ‑
mance framework (use of common output indica ‑
tors) than the previous EFF. The EMFF regulation 
foresees a delegated act on common indicators.
The new monitoring system under the EMFF will be 
composed of the following elements:
 — A database at Member State level (INFOSYS) in 
which information on each operation is stored, 
following a common structure and using com ‑
mon indicators.
 — A report sent to the Commission presenting key 
information in an aggregated form. The infor ‑
mation should be cumulative in order to reflect 
the evolution of the implementation.
The EMFF common indicators will serve as the basis 
for monitoring and evaluation and to review the 
performance of the programmes. They will allow 
the aggregation of data at EU level, measuring the 
progress made towards the objectives of the Europe 
2020 strategy.Recommendation 1 (e)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
The Commission underlines that since 1996, a legal 
framework covering statistics on aquaculture pro ‑
duction (Regulation 788/96 repealed by Regulation 
762/2008) has been established. The Commission 
will continue addressing these data issues in the 
appropriate fora and processes (e.g. extending the 
collection of DCF data to freshwater aquaculture 
and harmonisation of methodologies).
Recommendation 2
This recommendation (from paragraphs a) to d)) is 
exclusively addressed to the Member States.
Recommendation 2 (a)
Following the adoption of the EU strategic guide ‑
lines on aquaculture in April 2013, the Member 
States have started setting up their multiannual 
national strategic plans for the promotion of sus ‑
tainable aquaculture. The Commission will moni ‑
tor the implementation of these plans which will 
include Member States’ objectives and the meas ‑
ures to achieve them. In particular, this will include 
compliance with the ex ante  conditionality on the 
multiannual national strategic plan on aquaculture, 
without which the Commission will not be able to 
approve the EMFF Operational Programme.
Recommendation 2 (b)
The Commission takes note of this recommendation 
which is the main focus of the Commission current 
initiatives on marine spatial planning.
Recommendation 2 (c)
The Commission emphasises that the EMFF includes 
a number of new elements designed to help focus 
EMFF funding on those projects which best con ‑
tribute to the sustainable development of aquacul ‑
ture and provide value for money. These elements 
include: 1) reinforced monitoring system with 
annual reporting on the measures being financed; 
2) more complete annual implementation report; 
3) reinforced result‑orientation including the new 
performance framework; and 4) ex ante  condition ‑
alities to ensure that measures to be financed under 
aquaculture are coherent with the multiannual 
national strategic plan on aquaculture.

HOW  TO OBTAIN  EU PUBLICATIONS
Free  publications:
•  one copy:  
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
•  more than one copy  or posters/maps: 
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non‑EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or 
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may  charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions:
•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).nts/index_en.htm).
QJ‑AB‑14‑010‑EN‑C ISSN  1831 ‑0834
One of the aims of the common fisheries policy 
(CFP) in the period up to 2013, and its funding 
instrument, the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), 
was to encourage the sustainable development 
of aquaculture. The Court examined whether EFF 
measures to develop aquaculture were well 
designed and implemented, and whether they 
delivered value for money. Overall, the Court 
found that effective support was not provided, 
as the framework to develop aquaculture at both 
EU and Member State level was relatively weak, 
and the measures actually taken did not provide 
sufficient results.
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS