EUROPEAN COMMISSION Strasbourg, 12.6.2018 SWD(2018) 295 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council

{COM(2018) 390 final}

{SEC(2018) 276 final}



Table of contents 1.Introduction: Political and legal context 2.THE OBJECTIVES 3.Programme structure and priorities 4.Delivery mechanisms of the intended funding 5.How will performance be monitored and evaluated? Annex 1: Procedural information Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation activities Annex 3: Evaluation Results Annex 4: Other intiatives and activities Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition AIR Annual Implementation Report CFP Common Fisheries Policy CLLD Community-led Local Development CMES Common Monitoring and Evaluation System CMO Common Organisation of the Markets CPR Common Provisions Regulation EFCA European Fisheries Control Agency EFF European Fisheries Fund EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds EUMSS European Maritime Security Strategy EUMOFA European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products ExAC Ex-Ante Conditionalities FLAG Fisheries Local Action Group FRONTEX European Border and Coast Guard Agency FTE Full Time Equivalent IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing MA Managing Authority MPA Marine Protected Areas MC Ministerial Conference MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield OP Operational Programme OR Outermost Regions PO Producer Organisation SDG Sustainable Development Goal SSCF Small Scale Coastal Fleet STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries TAC Total Allowable Catch Blue Economy Blue Economy refers to all sectoral and cross-sectoral economic activities related to oceans, seas and coasts including the Union's Outermost Regions and landlocked countries. The established sectors comprises bioeconomy, marine extraction of oil and gas, ports, warehousing and water projects, shipbuilding and repair, maritime transport and coastal tourism. This includes direct and indirect activities contributing to the sustainable functioning and development of these economic sectors throughout the single market. It also includes emerging sectors as well as economic value based on natural capital and non-market goods and services. Emerging sectors include renewable energy, blue biotechnology, deep-sea mining, desalination, coastal and environmental protection, defence and security, marine research and education and ecosystem services. Maritime Policy Maritime Policy refers to a Union policy whose aim is to foster integrated and coherent decision-making to maximise the sustainable development, economic growth and social cohesion of the Union, and notably the coastal, insular and outermost regions in the Union, as well as blue economy sectors, through coherent maritime-related policies and relevant international cooperation. Integrated maritime surveillance (IMS) Integrated maritime surveillance refers to a Union initiative aimed at enhancing effectiveness and efficiency in surveillance activities in respect of the European seas through information exchange and collaboration across sectors and borders. International Ocean Governance An EU initiative to improve the framework of international and regional processes, agreements, rules and institutions through a coherent cross-sectorial and rules based approach to ensure oceans are healthy, productive, safe, secure and resilient. Coast Guard Coast Guard refers to national authorities performing Coast Guard functions, which are: maritime safety (including vessel traffic management); maritime security; maritime customs activities; prevention and suppression of trafficking and smuggling and connected maritime law enforcement; maritime border control; maritime surveillance; protection of marine environment and response; search and rescue; accident and disaster response; fisheries control; and other activities related to the above functions. Common information sharing environment (CISE) Common information sharing environment means a network of systems with a decentralised set-up developed for the exchange of information between users in order to improve their situational awareness of activities at sea. European marine observation and data network (EMODNET) European marine observation and data network refers to a network that integrates relevant national marine observation and data programmes and make all data, metadata and products quality assured and standardised available, free of restrictions on use into a common and accessible European resource Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) Maritime Spatial Planning refers to a process by which the relevant Member State’s authorities analyse and organise human activities in marine areas in order to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives; working across borders. Sea Basin Strategy (SBS) Sea Basin Strategy refers to an integrated framework to address common marine and maritime challenges faced by Member States and where appropriate third countries located in a sea basin (or in one or more sub-sea basins) promoting cooperation and coordination amongst the relevant countries in order to achieve economic, social and territorial cohesion. It is developed with the initiative by the Commission in cooperation with the Countries concerned and their regions and other stakeholders as appropriate and it may be supported by the European Structural and Investment Funds among other financing sources. Sustainable management of marine resources Sustainable management of marine resources means management practices that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.



1.Introduction: Political and legal context

1.1.Scope and context This impact assessment covers future funding for fisheries, blue growth/maritime policies and international ocean governance. Such funding is a key enabler for implementing the CFP, for promoting an innovative and sustainable blue economy and for delivering on commitments on global processes. As a global ocean actor and the world's fifth largest producer of seafood, the European Union has a responsibility to protect, conserve and sustainably use the oceans and their resources. Reducing the pressure on our oceans would also be in our own socio-economic interest. In 2016 Europe's blue economy was estimated at EUR 174.2 billion of gross value added and 3.48 million jobs – with potential for further growth in the years to come. The European Parliament has issued a number of reports and opinions both on the EMFF and on how blue growth, maritime policy and the CFP should be financed through the EU’s budget and stresses that seas and oceans are powerful drivers of the European economy with significant potential as regard innovation, growth and jobs. Furthermore, Europeans consistently point to security and safety as a top priority for their Union. Leaders have also called for stronger external borders as a precondition for lifting internal borders taking into account the interagency cooperation on Boarder and Coast Guard set up in 2017. In addition, the Commission reflection paper on the future of EU finances points to the fact that security and safety threats also concern other areas, such as the protection of resilient food chains. During the 2014-2020 period funding for fisheries and maritime policies has been provided through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The EMFF is one of the European Investment and Structural Funds (ESIFs). The other ESIFs are the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) provides a common legal basis for all ESIFs in addition to fund-specific rules set out in fund-specific regulations. This IA report analyses various ways to address these challenges through future funding for fisheries, blue growth/maritime policies and international ocean governance. It satisfies the requirements of the Financial Regulation in respect of preparing an ex-ante evaluation. On 2 May 2018, the European Commission adopted its proposals for a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027. Under these proposals, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund will have a budget of EUR million 6.140 in current prices over this period. 1.2.Lessons learned from previous programmes During 2007-2013, European fisheries policy was supported through the European Fisheries Fund (EFF). The results of the EFF were mixed. First, and perhaps most importantly, it contributed to an important reduction in the capacity of the EU fleet. For example, between 2007 and 2015, the capacity of the EU fishing fleet decreased by 17.5% (in gross tonnage), of which more than half (53%) was removed with support from the EFF. Thus, nearly 10% of the EU fleet capacity was removed with the help of the EFF. This also resulted in a 9% decrease of engine power. This reduction in fleet capacity together with other measures contributed to a more sustainable exploitation of fish resources, although the main driver for that development are responsible fisheries management decisions. However, there were also challenges in the implementation and the ex-post evaluation of the EFF concluded that there was scope for improvement: EFF-ex post evaluation – key conclusions and recommendations ·It is necessary to improve the link between funding and policy objectives, the sustainable exploitation of fisheries as well as the protection and enhancement of the environment and natural resources (minimising the negative impacts on the marine environment). A key issue is to improve conditionalities for fleet measures so that conservation objectives are better achieved. Fleet measures in the EFF did not deliver good results because of low level of targeting. There was no proof that scrapping schemes were always applied to the fleet segments that were most unbalanced. There was also a lack of sufficient conditionality for granting the aid, which did not prevent re-introduction of capacity through vessel modernisation. Finally, there was no linkage between permanent cessation and fleet capacity objectives of the concerned segments. After scrapping, nothing prevented overcapacity to be rebuilt in a given fleet segment because national fleet capacity objectives were in some cases global, not segmented. ·EFF funding did increase the productivity of the EU aquaculture, but this must be seen in the light of the effects of the financial crisis on investment and modernisation during the funding period. There is a widespread view that EFF funding was essential during this difficult period from 2008 onwards that reduced investment and borrowing activity in the aquaculture sector. However, although the aquaculture measure was designed to foster innovation, EFF funding was rarely used for this purpose. Future support should maintain and increase the focus on innovation and environmentally sustainable solutions. ·Support to processing and marketing contributed to foster and accelerate the modernisation of the industry. The results in terms of innovation and the development of niche markets are less clear. Future support should maintain and increase the focus on innovation and environmentally sustainable solutions. ·The EFF included a measure specifically targeting the small scale coastal fleet (SSCF). However, this support only accounted for 2% of spending with only EE, PL and FI spending 10% or more of total fisheries on this measure while 16 Member States did not it at all, i.e. GR which has the highest share of SSCF in the EU. The EFF did help to maintain numbers and employment in the small-scale fleet, but overall the viability of the small-scale fleet worsened during the EFF period. SSCF are faced with the same issues and have the same needs as the wider catching sector, but their ability to access funds can be constrained by access to credit and/or lack of organisation. For the future public support should be revisited and alternatives sought to better support these fleets (specific measures, conditions with increased aid intensity). ·The administrative burden associated with the delivery of the EFF was too high. At the application stage it acted as a disincentive for applying for support. Moreover, the complexity of certain projects seemed to have created disincentives for potential beneficiaries, in particular in cases where a large network of partners where involved and where significant administrative and coordination capacity where needed. Delays in project selection and payment disbursement also impacted on the efficiency of programme delivery. Additionally, the level of co-financing required was perceived as an issue, in particular for the most fragile categories of stakeholders. Public support should be focussed to ensure greater effectiveness and efficiency ·The lack of context, result and output indicators in the EFF increased the difficulty of the analysis of its impacts. Comprehensive sets of relevant (meaningful and useful) context, results and output indicators should thus be identified to monitor progress and to measure the impacts of public support. To ensure consistency these indicators should be harmonised across Member States. In addition, evaluation of other financial tools in the area of fisheries (support to common market organisation and producer organisations, compensation schemes in outermost regions, funding of fisheries data collection and control) called for a rationalisation and streamlining of all funding aimed at supporting the CFP, and alleviating the administrative burden of programmes directly managed by the Commission. It also became clear that increased efforts were needed in order to better address the key CFP challenges related to environmental, economic and social sustainability. Support to the outermost regions was not part of the EFF. However, the recent Commission Communication on a stronger and renewed partnership with the EU's outermost regions concludes that the progress towards a sustainable blue economy in these regions is uneven and urges the outermost regions to set up strategic planning and investments in the form of blue economy strategies to improve synergies between public policies and investments. In 2013 the CFP was reformed. Most importantly, the reform took forward the concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield which should be reached at the latest by 2020. Moreover, an additional objective was included, the so-called landing obligation. Discarding is the practice of returning unwanted catches to the sea, either dead or alive, because they are undersized, due to market demand, the fisher has no quota or because catch composition rules impose this. The reform of the CFP aimed at gradually eliminating the wasteful practice of discarding through the introduction of the landing obligation. This radical change in fisheries management aims to improve fishing behaviour through more selective fishing practices. An additional part of the new CFP is the reformed Common Organisation of the Markets (CMO) which entered into force from 2014. It abolished previous financing mechanisms designed to stabilize fish markets (the intervention mechanisms), signalling an important shift in policy towards market-based instruments and structural support for competitiveness and sustainability in the sector. A directly managed programme to support the development of maritime policy was established in 2011 with a budget of EUR 40 million for the period 2011-2013. It aimed to develop cross-sectoral tools (Maritime Spatial Planning, the Common Information Sharing Environment and marine knowledge on the oceans, seas and coastal regions) and sea-basin strategies, to promote the protection of the marine environment, the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources including the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to support sustainable economic growth, employment, innovation and new technologies in maritime sectors and in coastal, insular and outermost regions of the Union and to improve and enhance external cooperation and coordination in relation to the objectives of maritime policy. As a result, a Maritime Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian Seas and an Atlantic Action Plan were adopted respectively in 2012 and 2013 while an MSP Directive was adopted in 2014. Adopted in May but entering into force with retroactive effect on 1 January 2014, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) worth EUR 6.4 billion over the 2014-2020 period was designed to respond to the shortcomings of the EFF, as structural support accompanying CFP reform and to boost the implementation of maritime policy. It introduced a number of novel features: New features of the EMFF 2014-2020: ·Many types of funding brought in under one single umbrella: The EMFF (complemented by the support provided under the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements) combines all different funding in support of the CFP in a single fund .This meant the inclusion of support for data collection, control, market policy, compensation for the Outermost regions and support to maritime policy/blue growth. ·Inclusion in the ESIF family: The EMFF is part of the ESIF framework and is covered by the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) applicable to all ESIFs. The CPR is complemented by fund-specific regulations such as the EMFF, delegated acts and implementing acts. In the CPR there is a requirement to put in place a performance framework and to release a performance reserve based on the achievement of milestones and targets. For this to function, a new monitoring and evaluation system was put in place consisting of common baseline, output and result indicators. ·Ex-ante conditionalities: To ensure that investments take place under optimal conditions a requirement to fulfil fund-specific ex-ante conditionalities (ExAC) was introduced (administrative capacity for data collection and control, submission of fleet reports in line with COM guidelines, national strategic plans for aquaculture). ·Compliance with the CFP: Moreover, a compliance mechanism was introduced by which both Member States and operators have to comply with the rules of the CFP from admissibility to implementation to be able to get support. In terms of support measures, the EMFF is more than ever before aligned with the objectives of the CFP and maritime policy. It supports the implementation of the landing obligation through financing of selective gear and the marketing and processing of unwanted catches and assigns a key role to producer organisations (POs) in its implementation. Investments into the cornerstones for sound fisheries management, scientific data collection and control have been substantially upgraded. Support for fleet measures such as permanent cessation of vessels or engine replacement has continued but under strict conditions that are in line with the CFP conservation component. It supports the protection of marine biodiversity and ecosystems, including through the management of Natura 2000 areas and other MPAs. ·Maritime policy: A good share of the EMFF allocation is geared towards maritime policy priorities, such as maritime spatial planning, maritime surveillance, marine knowledge, sea basin strategies (and relevant macro-regional strategies) and piloting the blue growth strategy in coastal, insular and outermost regions of the Union. Approximately EUR 275 million is managed directly by the Commission whilst more than EUR 70 million has been programmed in Operational programmes. ·Small-scale Coastal Fleet: The EMFF include elements that permit Member States to grant preferential treatment to the small scale coastal fishing fleet (SSCF), which makes up 74% of the active EU fleet. ·Community-led local development: The EMFF reinforces the local development of coastal areas through support through FLAGs (Fisheries Local Action Groups) which use the bottom-approach (CLLD) to implement local development strategies in their communities. ·Directly managed elements: The European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) has been one of the success stories of the EMFF. By gathering over 150 public and private organisations in a partnership to deliver marine data that is reliable, accessible and free of restrictions of use it has increased productivity, stimulated innovation and reduced risk for business, public authorities and civil society. These organisations are investing in processes and added-value services that are dependent on the continuation beyond 2020. ·Monitoring and evaluation: Development of a Common Monitoring and Evaluation System (CMES) with common indicators at EU-level

At this stage no evaluations have been completed of the EMFF at EU or Member State level. However, monitoring data from 2017 shows the following: ·For shared management the rate of implementation was generally low in the first years and the risk of decommitment is high. However, during 2017 the rate implementation increased considerably. The number of operations (excluding technical assistance) more than doubled, from 6 200 in 2016 to 15 500 in 2017. The number of commitments (European Maritime and Fisheries Fund + national public) increased from EUR 769 million to EUR 1.5 billion, the total public expenditure increased almost 10 times from EUR 58 million in 2016 to 534 million in 2017 and the EMFF expenditure increased from EUR 39 million in 2016 to EUR 375 million in 2017. The number of fishing vessels benefitting from support almost tripled from 3 600 in 2016 to over 9 600 in 2017. ·Despite the fact that the link between the CFP and the EMFF has been strengthened, Member States do not always invest in those areas where investments are mostly needed to achieve the objective of the CFP. For example, the implementation of the landing obligation has been given different priority in different Member States with the result that more investment is needed to support the adaptation of the fishing industry to these challenges. ·Administrative complexities at national level slow down the rate of implementation. In shared management this is for example the case within aquaculture, CLLD, innovation and to a certain extent maritime policy. On the contrary under direct management maritime policy innovation actions (Blue Careers, Blue Labs, Blue Technology calls for proposals) were highly oversubscribed, reaching about 100% budget implementation for the period 2014-2016. In addition to evaluations and monitoring data, stakeholder views on fisheries and maritime policies post-2020 were collected through a number of consultation activities (of which more details are provided in Annex 2). Stakeholder views – key issues: ·Many stakeholders and the European Parliament call for continuity and are strongly in favour of keeping dedicated funding for fisheries and maritime policies post-2020. Given the direct link to the fulfilment of CFP objectives, future support for fisheries and external funding strands are not suitable to be mainstreamed into other EU funds ·The achievement of CFP objectives was noted by the stakeholders as a priority for the future. ·For the future support should in particular aim to rebuild fish stocks above the MSY level. ·Many stakeholders argue that any kind of support leading to overfishing should be discontinued. ·A polarisation of opinion concerning the support to fishing fleets could be observed, with stakeholders split nearly equally between those in favour and those against the continuation of fleet measures, those against claiming that fleet measures are drivers for overfishing. ·There is a general consensus around continued support for data collection and control, SSCF, outermost regions, CLLD and professional organisations . ·Some stakeholders call for a differentiated support by sea-basin according to the specific challenges being faced, including by Brexit, and the need for cooperation with third countries. ·Many stakeholders highlight the fact that innovation is horizontal to all blue growth sectors including fisheries and recognise sea-basin and macro-regional strategies as an important driver for the territorial development of coastal regions and islands. They recognize the need to enable further policy development and to increase visibility and the political priority of blue growth across funds. ·For a number of stakeholders the next fund should give priority to the social dimension with the promotion of social dialogue, improvement of hygiene, health safety and working conditions, while investing in the training, education, awareness raising. ·Complex administrative delivery is seen as the biggest shortcoming and many stakeholders call for radical simplification and flexibility. The intervention logic is considered too rigid not allowing Member States to address their own specificities. This could be addressed by eliminating pre-defined measures and increase the use of financial instruments. ·NGOs, advisory councils and social partners stress that a conditional approach to any future spending should continue to be linked to the delivery of objectives the CFP and demonstration of results. In this regard, Member States should be more responsible for reporting how the funding has led to meeting the goals and objectives of the CFP. Moreover, a conditionality clause could be included linking the financial access to the implementation of the CFP regulation and the respect of basic social standards by operators. ·Stakeholders signal that the international framework for oceans is incomplete and needs further development. They also note there is little coordination between international organisations responsible for oceans, while agreed international rules and arrangements on oceans are often not implemented effectively or enforced uniformly. Stakeholders call for strengthening the safety and security of the maritime space. 2.THE OBJECTIVES 2.1.Challenges for the programme of the next MFF Compared to the time when the EMFF was drafted the EU fisheries sector has undergone a substantial restructuring and over the period 2008-2016 the economic performance of the EU fleet improved considerably. In 2015 it was generally profitable, generating EUR 7.2 billion in revenue and EUR 798 million in net profit. This represents significant progress taking into account that the EU fleet was barely breaking even in 2009. The positive trend is also reflected in improving positive expectations by the industry as shown by growing investmentsin recent years. The general improvement is driven by several factors. It coincides with an overall reduction in fleet capacity and low fuel prices but also with an increase in the number of fish stocks being fished at sustainable (or MSY) levels. But although the performance of the EU fleet has improved, the development has been uneven and considerable problems remain in certain fleet segments and geographical areas of the Union. Taking into consideration evaluation recommendation, monitoring data and stakeholder consultations the key challenges for the future can be summarised as follows: Key challenges for the future: For fisheries: ·Overcapacity is still a serious problem in many segments and across sea-basins In the Mediterranean, overfishing is broadly between two and three times MSY overall. For stocks such as hake, red mullet, black-bellied anglerfish and blue whiting, current fishing mortality rates have been up to six times higher than MSY. Despite recent improvements to the availability of data, the status of many stocks remains unknown. ·A successful implementation of the CFP will continue to require and depend on support for fisheries control and data collection as well as for supporting the fight against IUU both within the EU and internationally. Additionally, control and scientific data collection are areas in which the information collected needs to be used for a broader scope of purposes (surveillance and marine knowledge respectively) and requires more inter-operable systems. ·Representing 74% of all active vessels in the Union small scale coastal fisheries are fundamental for the viability and resilience of many coastal communities. Although the sector was profitable in 2015 and labour productivity is increasing, the situation is mixed at regional level, with 53 out 135 SSCF fleets with net losses. ·The lack of attractiveness of the fisheries sector calls for continued attention. Safety concerns and difficult working conditions aboard fishing vessels (health, hygiene etc.) make the sector unattractive to work in For aquaculture, marketing and processing: ·To increase the focus on innovation and environmentally sustainable solutions. · For the blue economy: ·The blue economy is still not delivering to its full potential and there is a need to remove bottlenecks and support enabling conditions to facilitate investment, innovation and market development. Continued support is needed for developing marine knowledge, maritime spatial planning, maritime security and cooperation between Member States within the framework of sea-basin strategies. In the blue economy increased efforts are necessary to address sustainability issues including marine litter, the shortage of skills, supply of labour, high development costs, commercialisation of research results and issues related to licensing and standards in emerging blue growth sectors. ·Community-led local development has a great potential to help developing the blue economy at local level and ways to strengthen this approach should be explored. Emerging policy issues: the international scene and maritime security ·The EMFF was set up in conjunction with the reform of the CFP, and marginally to support a nascent maritime policy. Since then, significant developments have taken place at international level. Besides the continued implementation of these two policies, its successor will have to take into account the objectives of the Paris Agreement, the effects of Brexit and the new Ocean Governance. To conclude, the main issue for the future is to further improve the policy in line with evaluation recommendations and stakeholder views, the focus is on evolution rather than radical changes. This means that future support for fisheries and maritime policies should be targeted to deliver on key CFP objectives, notably MSY in all sea-basins by 2020 and beyond, to address persisting market failures in particular related to enabling conditions to facilitate, innovation and market development in the blue economy (including the development of local economies in coastal communities) and to respond to emerging issues. We can group these challenges into four general objectives for the future: 1)1. For fisheries: Fostering sustainable fisheries and the conservation of marine biological resources; 2)2. For aquaculture, marketing and processing: Contributing to food security in the Union through competitive and sustainable aquaculture and markets; 3)3. For the blue economy: Enabling the growth of the sustainable blue economy and fostering prosperous coastal communities; 4)4. For emerging policy issues: Strengthening international ocean governance and enabling safe, secure, clean and sustainably managed oceans.

2.1.1 Fostering sustainable fisheries and the conservation of marine biological resources As we have seen, in terms of economic and environmental sustainability the situation today is very different from 2014 when the EMFF was designed. The status of fish stocks is improving and the majority of stocks in the North-East Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic are in a healthy state. In 2018, the EU fleet will operate in a financially stronger and more resilient position than ever over the last decade, leaving financial margin to face remaining challenges ahead. Public support is necessary to continue supporting the CFP objectives of achieving MSY and the implementation of the landing obligation. Despite progress in recent years and more than three decades of public support, overcapacity is still a serious problem in many segments and across sea-basins. In 2016, on the basis of biological, economic or technical indicators and/or supplementary information, 15 Member States identified a number of their fleet segments as not effectively balanced with their fishing opportunities, or showing latent signs of being imbalanced, and therefore requiring action plans under the Commission guidelines. Overcapacity is considered a leading cause of overfishing in the Mediterranean Sea, given the general lack of catch controls and the reliance on effort to regulate fishing mortality. That is why for the future the policy must be more targeted and more focussed in order to better address the issue of overcapacity and overfishing in those segments of the EU fisheries fleet which continue to fish stocks at unsustainable levels. The role of Producer Organisations as key actors in the implementation of the CFP for promoting and achieving sustainable fisheries and aquaculture activities is recognised and stakeholders plead for continuity in the support of their production and marketing plans. As regards small-scale fisheries the situation varies enormously across different sea-basins, with small-scale coastal fishers in the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas suffering the most difficulties in terms of operating losses. For the future, stakeholders signal that it is important to increase support to small-scale fisheries and although in many cases, the problems faced by the SSCF sector are beyond the scope of the EMFF, such as for example access to quota (which is largely determined by Member States). Socio-economic conditions in the fisheries sector In 2015 direct employment generated by the sector amounted to 152 700 fishers, corresponding to 114 863 FTEs. Despite the generally good economic outlook, employment in the EU fleet continues to decline. The decrease was on average 1% per year from 2008 to 2015 as a result of a reduction in the number of fishing vessels and the fact that labour is replaced by capital in many vessels. Average annual wage per FTE was estimated at EUR 24.8 thousand, ranging from EUR 1.4 thousand for Cypriot fishers to EUR 75 thousand for Belgian fishers. In the sector ancillary to marine fishing there were 35 000 FTE and EUR 2.8 billion of income in 2009, while in 2014 the corresponding values stood at 36 000 FTE and EUR 2.5 billion. Thus, employment numbers in the ancillary sector were essentially stable between 2009 and 2014. This is clear evidence that employment in the ancillary sector was quite resilient relative to the primary industry. Thus, in the catching sector wages have increased over time while employment has decreased. Safety concerns and difficult working conditions aboard fishing vessels make the catching sector unattractive to work in. Despite recent investments, the risk of an accident causing an injury or death is 2.4 times greater in the sea fisheries sector than the average of all EU industries. Labour gaps exist when local fishers leave the industry to get better paid jobs and less harsh working conditions elsewhere and due to the lack of interest of local labour filling the gaps. It is particularly difficult to get youth to work within the fisheries sector and securing the intergenerational turnover becomes a challenge. Thus, as fleets have increasing difficulties to complete crews with local, well qualified people it becomes necessary to resort to non-EU nationals and – in small scale fleets – use workers that continue working beyond the legal retirement age . At the same time a recent trend in some parts of the Union is that the local labour gap is decreasing and that fishers who had left the sector are coming back. All these trends have to be taken into account when designing future support for the sector. Coherence of the Common Fisheries Policy with EU environmental policy The main objective of the EMFF is to support the implementation of the CFP which aims to ensure that fishing and aquaculture contribute to long-term environmental, economic and social sustainability. The CFP contributes to the objectives of EU environmental legislation through the different measures aiming at the conservation of marine biological resources and minimising the negative impact of fishing on marine ecosystems. Through those measures it contributes in particular to the achievement of 'good environmental status' under the MSFD. The conclusions of the fitness check of the EU nature directives and the Court of Auditors report on Natura 2000 indicated the need to strengthen investment in Natura 2000, to improve synergies with EU funding instruments and to better ensure tracking of EU funds for Natura 2000. This is also one of the objectives of the “Action plan for nature, people and the economy” adopted by the Commission in 2016, which was supported by the resolution of the European Parliament and the Council conclusions. Under Action 11 of the Action Plan, the Commission has committed to develop cross-cutting indicators for all EU funds, to consider improvement to existing indicators and to explore the possibility to develop ex-ante conditionalities. The EMFF already has established specific indicators to measure the impact of funding on the Natura 2000 network. For the 2014-2020 period Member States allocated over EUR 635 million through the EMFF for biodiversity protection, including support to the management, restoration and monitoring of Natura 2000 sites and other MPAs, to promote more selective fishing gear, to avoid accidental by-catch of species (marine mammals and seabirds) and to support aquaculture providing environmental services. With regards to the collection of marine litter, approximately EUR 21 million was allocated by Member States in the 2014-2020 period for different projects. SSCF represent the overwhelming majority of the registered 4500 vessels in these regions. In the OR long distance fisheries are better managed than small scale fisheries, which lack scientific advice and adequate management measures to strengthen their sustainability. In addition these regions face challenges due to lack of staff with basic education and entrepreneurial capacity, insufficient infrastructure facilities, limited physical space for aquaculture projects, insufficient scientific knowledge about marine resources to carry out stock assessments. There is potential to develop blue growth sectors in the OR. However, development is hampered by the limited availability of adequately qualified and trained staff and the absence of links between the education systems and businesses involved in the blue economy. Other challenges include access to finance and coordination and governance for spatial planning, needs and gaps in knowledge of the OR marine ecosystems, which are very different from mainland Europe and for which scientific data, research and management of marine areas (including fisheries) are often weak or insufficient. Without strengthening this management capacity of often very fragile ecosystems the development of blue growth would not be sustainable. In the current period, EMFF support for the outermost regions consists of two separate envelopes, the regular structural measures that are the same as in other parts of the EU except that co-financing rates and aid intensities are higher, and a ring-fenced envelope to compensate OR operators (catch, aquaculture, processing and marketing sectors) for the difference in costs between ORs and mainland. The EMFF finances 100% of the compensation plans . 2.1.2 Contributing to food security in the Union through competitive and sustainable aquaculture and markets Aquaculture is a key sector that can contribute to supplying future generations with healthy protein in the face of declining fish stocks. With more than EUR 1.2 billion of EMFF resources under shared management in the 2014-2020 period, support for aquaculture is more significant than ever before. In addition, other actions such as support to Producer Organisations, marketing or local development can also help the aquaculture sector. Although in 2015 fish products farmed in the EU reached the highest values and volume ever registered, the aquaculture sector has been characterised by slow growth. Despite decades of support to investments in production, innovation, training, marketing and environmental improvements, the EU only accounts for 1.2% of the global aquaculture production and consumption is dominated by wild products. Key bottlenecks are lengthy licensing procedures and lack of spatial planning which leads to uncertainty and competition for space. These are issues under Member State competence where the contribution of the EMFF is limited although the Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) Directive and MSP cross-border projects could help to improve the situation. What needs to be addressed is the environmental impact of aquaculture through support to extensive and certain forms of intensive aquaculture based on closed recirculation systems with very limited or no environmental impacts. Another topical issue in aquaculture is risk management. Stock insurance is one of the tools used where demand is higher than current supply and where the gap between the two is widening. 2.1.3 Enabling the growth of the sustainable blue economy and fostering prosperous coastal communities

The total turnover of the EU blue economy was EUR 566.2 billion in 2016 and the blue economy sectors employed directly around 3.48 million persons. In relative terms, direct activities of the blue economy represents about 1.3% of the EU28 GDP and 0.5% of the total EU employment. However, these shares are significantly higher when indirect activities are considered. Blue economy based wages and salaries have grown steadily since reaching a low in 2011. Average salaries, at EUR 28.3 thousand in 2016, increased 15% compared to 2008 (EUR 24.7 thousand). Whilst public investment in the blue economy should be mainstreamed across different funding instruments, also by strengthening cooperation between countries within the framework of sea-basin strategies, future support though fisheries and maritime policies would need to concentrate on enabling conditions and on removing bottlenecks to facilitate investment and the development of new markets and technologies or services. Support would therefore need to focus on close-to-market innovation, supply of missing skills and qualifications, support to new inclusive business models, access to marine data to spur innovation and technology development, maritime security and maritime spatial planning to create opportunities that are compatible with marine ecosystems and the investment predictability necessary to leverage private sector capital/debt funding. Ensuring that blue growth opportunities can thrive in coastal communities, community-led local development (CLLD) should be extended. At just below 10% of the total EMFF budget, CLLD is implemented by 20 Member States who by the end of 2017 had selected a total of 368 FLAGs. Examples of current projects: ·Business development in marginalised and remote communities where a seaweed company has grown from one to four employees. ·The shells of mussels are no longer considered waste. With the help of the Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG), local students and teachers are using crushed shells to create useful objects of all sorts, from moulds created by 3D printing. ·Oyster farms are regularly affected by toxic phytoplankton, leading to economic losses. In search of a solution, shellfish farmers teamed up with a biotech start-up to test a new, quick and easy way to detect toxic marine microalgae and anticipate its proliferation. Based on available data (that currently does not cover all FLAGs) CLLD covers nearly 250 000 square km and a population of nearly 24 million. By the end of December 2017, the FLAGs had selected more than 1300 projects for implementation. Seven years of implementing bottom-up local development in fisheries areas has demonstrated that this form of support delivers results. It helps reaching target groups that are hard to reach through traditional, top-down funding schemes, it can foster partnerships and joint action between different stakeholder groups and the fact that decision-making happens at local level can encourage more flexible and innovative responses to local problems. It furthermore increases the visibility of EU funding at local level and is increasingly recognised as a valuable opportunity for blue growth sectors, including fisheries sectors to play an active role in local development and its governance issues. Moreover, FLAGs have a potential to help address the challenges faced by the SSCF. 2.1.4 Strengthening international ocean governance and enabling safe, secure, clean and sustainably managed oceans Over the last years, the European Union has made a number of new commitments at international level: New commitments at international level ·The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development, including Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14 "Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development" – it contains set goals on significantly reducing marine pollution by 2025, reaching 10% of coastal marine surface as MPAs, protecting access rights of small scale fisheries, sustainably manage marine eco-systems, increased scientific cooperation on ocean acidification, ending Illegal Unreported and Unregulated fishing, prohibit by 2020 certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation. ,. ·The FAO Port State Measures Agreement to prevent and eliminate IUU fishing that entered into force in June 2016. The EU is a party to the agreement, which calls under Article 21 of the agreement on measures to build capacity for Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States to aid them in taking adequate port state measures in order to close the net on illicit fishing activities. The EU has also been actively involved in the development of complementary Monitoring Control and Surveillance Operations, as well as complementary measures and tools that have been developed recently internationally, such as the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Catch Documentation Schemes and the Global Record of fishing vessels. ·The EU is a party to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and supports the work of the international bodies the convention and its two implementing agreements have created: The International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea and the International Seabed Authority. It is also a contracting party to a number of Regional Fisheries Bodies across the world and Regional Seas Conventions in its neighbouring seas. Meanwhile, the EU and its Member States are actively engaged in the negotiations on a third implementing agreement under the UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). ·The implementation of the Paris Agreement on climate change: which includes the protection of marine and coastal ecosystems including in the vulnerable polar areas, reducing risks resulting from climatic events, restoring and developing “green-blue infrastructure” and developing renewable marine energy. ·Strengthening cooperation with key ocean actors in key areas of ocean governance, such as the implementation of ocean-relevant SDGs, capacity building, promoting conservation and sustainable ‘blue growth’, international fisheries management, decent working conditions at sea, the fight against IUU fishing and maritime security. However, the current EMFF does not cover or provides very little funding for these activities and in order to deliver on all new international commitments additional funding is needed. If not delivered, not only the economic, environmental and security interests in relation to oceans, seas and marine resources are threatened but also the role of the Union as a key ocean actor would be undermined and its stated commitment to the delivery of the key global processes like the Agenda 2030, the Paris Agreement, the UN process on establishing a binding instrument for BBNJ, the FAO Port State Measures Agreement, its participation in various Regional Fisheries Bodies and Regional Seas Conventions and the WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies questioned. Maritime security is vital to the welfare and prosperity of the EU and the world. As much as 90% of international trade is seaborne, 50% of the EU population lives in maritime regions and 400 million passengers pass through EU ports and harbours each year. Europeans consistently point to security and safety as a top priority for their Union. At the same time, security risks and threats on our seas and oceans are becoming more and more complex over time and the deteriorating situation in many parts of the EU's neighbourhood in recent years has given rise to new challenges, notably an increased need for security as pre-condition to the development of the Blue Economy. The European Maritime Security Strategy (EUMSS) and its accompanying Action Plan were issued in 2014 in response to the growing need for maritime security in Europe and overseas. Cross sectoral cooperation between different maritime authorities at European level and increased cooperation at sea internationally, between the EU and its maritime partners, will remain a priority for the future. Particular attention will have to be given to maritime surveillance (CISE) and the protection of critical maritime infrastructure (as ports, lines of communication/transport, offshore installations), critical maritime routes and marine resources (including fisheries). Finally, the EU will need to continue to promote targeted responses to threats at sea, both in Europe and globally, and coordinate geographical and sectoral policies in the maritime domain. The interagency cooperation on coast guard functions, established following the revision of the mandates of the EFCA, EMSA and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX), in line with the EUMSS AP, will be key in this respect. 2.2.Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF The Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides the overall legal basis for the CFP. It contains the following provisions: ·Article 3(1) (d): the Union has exclusive competence in the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy. ·Article 4(2) (d): other aspects of fisheries and maritime policy are shared competence between the Union and the Member States. ·Article 43(2): The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, shall establish the common fisheries policy. The baseline scenario is the current EMFF for the 2014-2020 period (EUR 6.4 billion) excluding the resources allocated to the UK (EUR 230 million). This status quo would allow to address the challenges set out in this section. This IA report does not cover the impacts of Brexit. Such impacts will be considered at a later stage.

The objectives for fisheries and maritime policies post-2020 are of four types - policy, general, specific and cross-cutting - and are defined at two levels, policy objectives common to all ESI Funds and fund-specific general, specific and cross-cutting objectives Each specific objective is linked to a general objective and is presented as an indent under the general objectives below: 3.Programme structure and priorities 3.1 Necessity for EU action: The CFP is an area of exclusive competence to the EU. Union intervention is therefore necessary as this common policy imposes obligations on the Member States. Financial support to help them meet those obligations is crucial for the attainment of the Union's objectives of the policy – the sustainable use of the oceans. Support is needed in areas like adjusting the capacity of our fishing fleets, investing in health and safety on board, developing scientific knowledge and advice on the state of the fish stocks and improving controls and inspections at sea and in ports. 3.2 Added value of EU action: The overall aim of future support for fisheries and maritime policies is to help delivering the CFP objectives. Achieving sustainable fisheries may have social impacts for coastal communities in the short to medium term which needs mitigation through diversification both within and outside the fishing sector by for example encouraging fishers to find employment in expanding maritime economy sectors. This is of particular importance to coastal communities depending on fisheries, in particular in areas where the fishing sector still faces serious problems such as the Mediterranean and Black Seas where a policy at EU level can provide real added value, also given the EU exclusive competence on fisheries management. Individual Member States are not in a position to sufficiently address the problems themselves while EU action provides a secure source for stable growth-supporting investment. Many marine aquaculture sites operate in marine ecosystems which go beyond national borders and the planning of the maritime space requires coordinated planning efforts at EU-level. Control and enforcement as well as data collection and scientific advice are core elements for the effective implementation of the CFP. These activities co-ordinated and co-financed at EU-level represent significant savings and synergies in terms of costs and compliance compared to a model where these activities were to be carried out exclusively by the Member States. Maritime policy and the development of the blue economy is to its character cross-sectoral and transnational, e.g. through the development of sea-basin strategies that cover several Member States and appropriate partner countries, to gain efficiency in the use of funds, application of rules and involvement of bodies/institutions and reduce fragmentation and duplication of actions. Action at EU-level is likely to produce clear benefits compared to action only at Member State/regional level. Marine knowledge assembles data and makes it accessible across the EU, CISE provides a common European maritime surveillance environment, while sharing at EU or sea basin levels coast guard capacities between agencies and Member States increase effectiveness and efficiency of operations at sea. Maritime spatial planning is a way to better coordinate the common European maritime space and ensure coherence across borders (within and outside the EU). In blue growth areas such as ocean energy coordination of activities related to research but also other non-technological issues at European level accelerates the development of the sector (i.e. achieving the critical mass for investment and developing the market). Funding at EU-level supports the drivers of innovation enabling the European maritime industry to grow and thrive. In line with its international commitment to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, including the objectives under Sustainable Development Agenda 2030, the EU is well-placed to shape international ocean governance on the basis of its experience in developing a sustainable approach to ocean management, notably through its environment policy (in particular the MSFD), integrated maritime policy (in particular its MSP Directive), reformed common fisheries policy, action against illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, its maritime transport policy and the multiple bilateral partnerships and multilateral agreements it is a party to. The Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements with partner countries around the world are key for sustainable food supply, for developing a sustainable blue economy and help to address the issue of migration. The EU maritime security strategy and new border protection policy has identified CISE and the cooperation between EFCA, EMSA and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX) in the form of the European Border and Coast Guard Function as key to deliver on these aims. In all the areas set out above pooling resources at European level can deliver results that spending at national level cannot. 3.3 Prioritisation of actions: Below follows an account of the features to be retained by the future fisheries and maritime policies of the Union in view of identified challenges. A full account including discarded features is provided in Annex 4.2 to this IA report. General Objective 1: Fostering sustainable fisheries and the conservation of marine biological resources As shown in previous sections of this IA report, in terms of economic and environmental sustainability the situation facing the fisheries sector today is very different from when the EMFF was designed and although concerns remain for some stocks, segments (overcapacity) and sea-basins, mainly the Mediterranean, the general outlook for the future is positive. Nevertheless, the CFP needs a dedicated tool for delivering on its prime objectives. This is unlikely to be achieved by any other EU funding source. It will be necessary to focus support on key enablers for healthy oceans and prosperous coastal communities. The preferred model for the future is a more targeted system compared to the current one. Given the challenges to achieve a sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources in line with the conservation objectives of the CFP, future funding should support the management of fisheries and fishing fleets. In this context, fleet adaptation measures will remain necessary as regards certain fleet segments or certain sea basins (i.e. the Mediterranean). However, such support needs to be tightly targeted to the conservation and sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources and to a more effective fleet management by Member States. In this context, certain fleet measures may play a specific role. Past experience shows that on the one hand, they need to be carefully circumscribed to avoid negative impacts, and on the other hand, they must be better targeted at reaching EU conservation objectives. Fleet measures would be subject to horizontal conditions set out in the regulation. Given the remoteness and specific conditions of the outermost regions there are good reasons to continue compensation but it will be necessary to assess how the cost-effectiveness of the regime could be improved. It will also be necessary to reflect on how to better integrate the development of the fisheries sector into blue growth strategies. Specific objective Features SO 1:1 Sustainable, competitive and inclusive fisheries A targeted model introducing a new feature compared to the current period. Fleet adaptation measures will remain necessary as regards certain fleet segments or certain sea basins (e.g. Mediterranean). However, such support needs to be tightly linked to specific conservation objectives (especially as regional multiannual management plans enter into effect) and to a more effective fleet management by Member States. Modernisation of the fleet with regard to innovation, health and safety, energy efficiency and investments on board improving the quality of products. Maintaining higher co-financing rates and allow higher aid intensity for investments in outermost regions compared to the mainland. SO 1:2 Sustainable and competitive SSCF Higher intervention rates Differentiated areas of support (e.g. certain operations only for small-scale operators) Differentiated forms of support (e.g. access to grants only for small-scale operators and only financial instruments for other beneficiaries) SO 1:3 Implementation of the CFP (fisheries control, data) Continue financial support for fisheries control and link it with the revision of the Control regulation. Reinforce the link to maritime surveillance Strengthen the collection and processing of marine data in synergy with EMODNET and the MSFD. SO 1:4 Conservation of marine ecosystems Continue support for biodiversity protection, including support to the management, restoration and monitoring of Natura 2000 sites and other MPAs, to promote more selective fishing gear, to avoid accidental by-catch of species (marine mammals and seabirds) to continue addressing the issue of collection of marine litter and to support aquaculture providing environmental services. Develop cross-cutting indicators for all EU funds for Natura 2000, building on and adapting existing indicators developed under the EMFF.

General Objective 2: Contributing to food security in the Union through competitive and sustainable aquaculture and markets The sustainable production of farmed fish offers an alternative source of food security. Aquaculture is part of the Common Fisheries Policy, and while the EMFF has supported the EU's aquaculture sector with more than 1.2 billion euros of investment, a number of problems remain. The main problems in the aquaculture sector relate to unnecessary complexities in Member State procedures but also other obstacles remain such as access to funding, access to space and the ability of the sector to improve the image and competitiveness of farmed seafood. With regard to support for markets, continued financial support for the organisation of the sector and its structure through support to producer organisations (POs) could be justified on the basis of market failure (need to correct monopsony/oligopsony and increase producers' bargaining power vis-à-vis the processing industry and retailers). Such POs have a key role in the implementation of the CFP and the Common Market Organisation. Support should facilitate the creation and restructuring of professional organisations in the meaning of the CMO regulation, the implementation of Production and Marketing Plans, the improvement in market performance and the provision of market intelligence (EUMOFA). Specific objective Features SO 2:1 Sustainable, innovative and competitive aquaculture Target support to productive and innovative investments to growth. Support should be provided through financial instruments. Support on compensatory measures for less profitable aquaculture activities Grants for enabling conditions for aquaculture - including stock insurance schemes - could be considered as well in addition to covering aquaculture more prominently in local development strategies (CLLD) as an important area for diversification, jobs and growth. SO 2:2 Market organisation Financial support for the organisation of the sector and its structure through producer organisations (POs) SO 2:3 Quality and sustainability of products Keep support for processing but provide it only through financial instruments for all including for SMEs. General Objective 3: Enabling the growth of the sustainable blue economy and fostering prosperous coastal communities If the aim is to really unlock the full potential of the maritime economy, future support would need to be increased compared to current levels. One option could be to focus future funding almost entirely on maritime policy and blue growth and only keep a minor part for data, control and the CLLD-approach. The problem here is that available funding would still not to enough to provide sufficient funding for unlocking the potential of the maritime economy while key objectives of the CFP would risk not to be delivered. Another option would be a maritime policy with clear focus on providing funding for enabling conditions to facilitate innovation and market development in the blue economy by addressing market failures. Support in direct management could be centred on promoting clean oceans and a blue economy adapted to the consequences of climate change (eg. fight against marine pollution, reduce GHG emissions of maritime equipment, promotion of circular blue economy, reduction of marine litter, promotion of blue energy). More flexibility could be provided through a wider choice of support mechanisms including financial instruments. Given that Community-led Local Development is a powerful tool for creating employment and wealth and helps to deliver social and territorial cohesion and taking into account the call from stakeholders and the European Parliament to further strengthen the approach, there are good reasons to continue the approach. Specific objective Features SO 3:1 Enabling an innovative, sustainable and knowledge-based blue economy Focus on providing funding for enabling conditions to facilitate innovation and market development in the blue economy by addressing market failures for the sustainable development of economic activities, safeguard ecosystems and reinforce security at sea. It also includes enhancing marine and scientific knowledge (e.g. EMODNET and MSFD). Outermost regions would be encouraged to draw up maritime sustainable development strategies. SO 3:2 Prosperous blue coastal and inland communities Broaden the scope of the approach to include maritime policy/blue growth. Ensuring that a meaningful share of the post-2020 funding is delivered through CLLD. General Objective 4: Strengthening international ocean governance and enabling safe, secure, clean and sustainably managed oceans Besides voluntary contributions to international organisations (RFMOs, UN organisations), the current EMFF does not allow for interventions at international level and one option could be to keep it like this also for the future. However, not having any dedicated budget line(s) under the current EMFF could already negatively/seriously affect the implementation process. Moreover, if no specific allocations are provided, it would entail a major risk for its credibility and efficiency. In addition, the current EMFF is only partially reflecting the new ambitions on international ocean governance and notably its cross-sectoral and holistic scope with the objective to ensure a coordinated/integrated approach towards ocean policy making and implementation. The Action Plan of the European Maritime Security Strategy (EUMSS) is now under revision to align it with present and upcoming challenges and to continue promoting targeted responses to threats at sea, both in Europe and globally. Specific objective Features SO 4:1 International ocean governance Continue support for international and regional organizations (RFMOs, RSCs) Broaden scope of support for international ocean governance through ; development of ocean partnerships with key partners; building capacity for better ocean governance, conservation and restoration of marine biodiversity and sustainable blue economies with key partners, promote MSP worldwide and strengthening; international ocean research and data. Include support needed to effectively implement the external part of the EU policy to fight against IUU fishing in the form of technical assistance to third countries to implement international obligations (ex. revision of legal frameworks, MCS capacity trainings, correct implementation of the EU catch certification scheme) and operational maintenance/update/development of the IT tool for the EU IUU catch certification scheme. SO 4:2 Maritime surveillance and coastguards cooperation To promote, in line with the EUMSS Action Plan, enhanced international cooperation on maritime security (including on the fight against IUU), integrated maritime surveillance (particularly CISE), capability development and research & innovation, risk management and assessment as well as dedicated education and training activities in the field of maritime security. Include support for interagency cooperation on coast guard functions, established following the revision of the mandates of the EFCA, EMSA and FRONTEX

What is new content-wise in comparison with the 2014-2020 period? 2014-2020 Post-2020 Aid intensity for support to SSCF at 80% Aid intensity for support to SSCF (including operations related to control and enforcement) at 100% Member States with more than 1 000 SSCF vessels should prepare an action plan All MS should prepare an action plan that sets specific milestones and targets in relation to fund-specific indicators Aquaculture: Weak link to national strategic plans Aquaculture: Stronger link to national strategic plans Aid intensity for delivering on CFP objectives (landing obligation, gear selectivity) at 50% Aid intensity for delivering on CFP objectives (landing obligation, gear selectivity) at 75% Community-led local development only within fisheries/aquaculture Community-led local development extended to the whole blue economy Very limited support for international cooperation Support for international oceans governance included including coastguard cooperation No specific link between the EMFF and the development of the blue economy in outermost regions In outermost regions MS shall prepare an action plan for the sustainable development of the blue economy For maritime policy, only MFSD and CISE in shared management In addition to MSFD and CISE, also support for implementing the MSP Directive, EMODNET and coastguard cooperation covered by shared management Limited synergies in the field of data and control between fisheries and maritime purposes, data collected and control carried out independently Increased synergies Fisheries science and marine science: when collecting fisheries data also date for EMODET and the MSFD could be collected. Fisheries control and coast guard functions: Most surveillance operations at sea are multipurpose and should fit with actual control and security needs in order to gain efficiency and cost-effectiveness 4.Delivery mechanisms of the intended funding 4.1 What do the evaluations recommend? What conclusions can be drawn on the basis of implementation data? ·The administrative burden associated with the delivery of the EFF was too high. At the application stage it acted as a disincentive for applying for support and the level of co-financing required was perceived as an issue, in particular for the most fragile categories of stakeholders. ·Public support should be focussed to ensure greater effectiveness and efficiency. ·In the EMFF administrative complexities at national level slow down the rate of implementation. In shared management this is for example the case within aquaculture, CLLD, innovation and to a certain extent maritime policy. ·The lack of context, result and output indicators in the EFF increased the difficulty of the analysis of its impacts. This was rectified in the EMFF. For the future the common monitoring and evaluation system developed under the EMFF should be kept but simplified. 4.2 What do stakeholders propose? ·No need for radical changes of the 2014-2020 delivery mechanisms. Stakeholders ask for stability and continuity. ·However, current delivery mechanisms should be made simpler, more flexible and more focussed on performance and success. ·More specifically, the intervention logic is considered too rigid not allowing Member States to address their own specificities. This could be addressed by getting rid of pre-defined measures, reduce the number of objectives/priorities and increase the use of financial instruments and standard cost options. ·Continue the conditional approach by which spending is linked to the delivery of objectives the CFP. 4.3 What are the key features of proposed delivery mechanisms post-2020? (a) Key features at ESI-level ·For shared management, rules applicable to all ESI Funds will be moved to the CPR. Such rules are part of the CPR drafting and are dependent on the ongoing discussions between the ESIF-DGs. ·Common rules have to be defined in such a way that they fit the specificities of each ESIF. Given the small size of fisheries and maritime policies the principle of proportionality should be applied. For example there is no need for a detailed evaluation plan, no need for a specific network of information and communication officers and it should be possible to roll-over the designation of authorities from previous period if no substantial changes are made in the set-up

·The strong growth potential of the blue economy cannot be born exclusively by the small Fund for fisheries and maritime policy. The general principle could be that major investments are supported by larger funds such as the ERDF, whereas the EMFF could fund smaller, innovative, added value projects and cooperation not taken on by the other funds (e.g. at sea basin and sub-regional levels). Issues related to maritime skills could in principle be covered by the ESF. H2020 ·Monitoring and reporting on the implementation of sea-basin and macro-regional should be harmonised across ESI Funds. This was not the case during the 2014-2020 period which caused problems when assessing the implementation of such strategies. ·Rules at ESIF-level are not enough given that the new fund for fisheries and maritime policies is a prime tool for implementing the CFP. That is why a policy-level legal basis is needed. (b) Key features at Policy-level Making delivery mechanisms simpler and more flexible: Member States would draw up their operational programme indicating the most appropriate means to achieve the objectives set out in the regulation. The basic principle would be that anything that is not explicitly forbidden in the regulation would be allowed. There would be a list of 'no-go' areas in fisheries policy so as to avoid detrimental impacts in terms of fisheries conservation (e.g. a general prohibition of investments enhancing fishing capacity) and restrictions for operating costs or where there is no proven market failure. This represents a major shift from current and past funding rules, where eligible investments/measures were spelled out in detail in the regulation and which stakeholders have criticised for being burdensome and inflexible. Making delivery mechanisms more focussed on success: Building on the Common Monitoring and Evaluation System developed for the 2014-2020 period the future policy will be structured around general and specific objectives. A limited number of key result indicators at ESIF-level and at fund-level are being developed that match the objectives. In the operational programmes Member States set their milestones and targets in relation to these indicators. Success will be measured on the basis of Member States reporting on progress towards these milestones and targets. On this basis, the Commission will carry out an annual performance review allowing for early detection of potential implementation issues and corrective measures. For most types of support funding (EU interim payments) would continue to be based on actual incurred costs and expenditures certified by Member States (without prejudice to using SCOs). However, in order to ensure the consistency of fleet structural adaptation with conservation objectives, support for the permanent cessation of fishing activities should be implemented only through financing not linked to costs provided for in the Common Provisions Regulation. This means that for this specific type of support Member States should not be reimbursed by the Commission on the basis of real costs but on the basis of the fulfilment of conditions or of the achievement of results. For this purpose, the Commission should establish in a delegated act conditions related to the conservation objectives of the CFP, that should be reflected in the operational programmes of the Member States concerned. Further flexibility will be provided through: ·Simplified intervention logic: fewer objectives at ESIF and policy-level ·Financial instruments: In line with the opinion expressed by the majority of stakeholders financial instruments (loans, guarantees) and repayable assistance such as repayable grants at programme level would play a more prominent role. ·Simplified cost options: An increased use of Simplified Cost Options (flat rates, lump-sums and unit costs) would help to reduce the administrative burden at Member State level . ·Compliance: The compliance mechanism that was introduced through the EMFF 2014-2020 and by which both Member States and operators have to comply with the rules of the CFP from admissibility to implementation to be able to get support would be continued. ·Dual management mode: The current dual management mode (shared and direct management) would be kept for the future .

4.3 What is new in comparison with the 2014-2020 period? The table below shows the areas where new or adapted delivery mechanisms are proposed for the post-2020 period. 2014-2020 Post-2020 Simplification, flexibility 4 thematic objectives at ESIF-level, 6 EMFF union priorities 2 policy objectives at ESIF-level, 4 EMFF general objectives 49 pre-defined measures setting out eligibility conditions Only operations that meet the eligibility conditions can be supported No measures A few no-go areas set out in the legal basis Everything is eligible that is not covered by the no-go areas Limited use of simplified cost options Increased use of simplified cost options Limited use of financial instruments: Mandatory for support to processing for non-SMEs Increased use of financial instruments: Mandatory for support to processing as well as to productive and innovative investments in aquaculture for all types of beneficiaries (including SMEs) Focus on performance and success Ex-ante conditionalities at fund-level No ex-ante conditionalities at fund-level. Funding conditional upon the compliance of Member States and operators with the objectives and rules of the CFP. Applications from non-compliant operators not admissible All financing based on eligible costs Possibility to provide financing not linked to costs in the form of flat rate payments linked to the attainment of milestones and targets CMES 2014-2020 Common indicators at EMFF-level Simplified CMES (fewer indicators) Common indicators at ESIF-level and policy-level Synergies with other funds The blue economy could be funded through other funds A more clear demarcation. Enabling funded through fisheries and maritime policies. Upscaling funded through other funds, notably the ERDF and the research framework programmes 5.How will performance be monitored and evaluated? 5.1 What is already available? For the 2014-2020 a Common Monitoring and Evaluation System was developed for the EMFF . It is built on the following elements: ·An intervention logic showing the interactions between priorities, specific objectives and measures. ·A set of common indicators. ·Cumulative data on operations selected for funding. ·The Annual Implementation Report of the Operational Programme. ·An Evaluation Plan. ·The ex-ante and ex-post evaluations and all other evaluation activities linked to the EMFF programme. ·The performance review. First, for the 2014-2020 period a set of common indicators with common definitions were established covering the main characteristics of the fisheries and aquaculture sector, reflecting the goals of relevant EU policies (CFP, maritime policy) and providing a connection with the EU 2020 strategy. Indicators used serve different purposes: ·Context Indicators (CIs) are linked to the overall objectives of the EMFF and establish the baseline at the beginning of the OP implementation. The EMFF uses 25 common CIs. ·Output indicators (OIs) are the direct product of the implemented activities. In the case of the EMFF, they are mostly expressed as a number of operations. The EMFF CMES defines 28 OIs covering the 50 measures. ·Result Indicators (RIs) measure the gross effect of the EMFF. The CMES comprises a set of 28 RIs, some of which are linked to only one EMFF Specific Objective, others to more than one . MS were free to add specific indicators if they wished.

Member States are required to report on these indicators. Second, we have a system for cumulative data on operations referred to as Infosys . As explained in this IA report the mid-term and ex-post evaluations of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF, 2007-2013) were hampered by the lack of robust monitoring data, making the collection of data challenging. As a response, for the 2014-2020 period, a reporting system was established to address this shortcoming and provide the Commission with detailed information at the level of every single operation. In concrete terms this means that we have created a database of information at the level of operations that can be used to follow the implementation of the OPs, carry out specific analysis required by policy-making and ensure that robust data is available for evaluation. The Infosys reporting describes the progress and achievements at operation level by capturing what is happening on the ground. It provides key information about the beneficiary (e.g. size of enterprise, gender) and the operation (type of activities, budget, number of fishers concerned, total area concerned, etc.). In order to limit the administrative burden on Managing Authorities and on beneficiaries, most of the data requested by the Infosys is already stored in national databases set up to comply with the minimum data to be recorded and stored for each operation. Member States are required to provide Infosys data annually. Third, the CPR lays down the general rules for evaluation in all the ESI funds, whilst the EMFF Regulation specifies that the Member States have to conduct an ex-ante evaluation and further evaluations during the implementation period. The Commission has to conduct an ex-post evaluation, to be completed by the end of 2024. The ex-ante evaluation is the only evaluation undertaken so far by the Member States. 5.2 What do we want to develop for the future? For the future we would like to build on the model developed during 2014-2020. It is essential that this existing, functioning monitoring and evaluation system remains in place. The focus will be on evolution and simplification. The number of indicators will be reduced, indicators should be more operational (i.e. close to the operations and easy to report on) and methodological guidance would be provided to Member States prior to programming. The specific indicators at fund-level should be few, simple and defined prior to programming. For the future the aim is to have a maximum of 10 result indicators at policy-area level. These indicators would cover the following: PRIORITY INDICATOR Fostering sustainable fisheries and the conservation of marine biological resources Evolution of volume of landings stemming from stocks assessed at MSY Evolution in profitability of the Union fishing fleet Surface (ha) of Natura 2000 sites, and other MPAs under the MSFD, covered by protection, maintenance and restoration measures Percentage of fishing vessels equipped with electronic position and catch reporting device Contributing to food security in the Union through competitive and sustainable aquaculture and markets Evolution in the value and volume of aquaculture production in the Union Evolution in the value and volume of landings Enabling the growth of a sustainable blue economy and fostering prosperous coastal communities Evolution of GDP in maritime NUTS 3 regions Evolution in the number of jobs (in FTE) in the blue economy Strengthening international ocean governance and enabling safe, secure, clean and sustainably managed seas and oceans Number of shared operations contributing to the European cooperation on coastguard functions In addition, indicators at the level of operational programmes are under development. All indicators - including methodological guidance on definitions - will be defined and elaborated prior by the Commission to programming. For the future we would also like to keep the Infosys. The basic requirement will be that Member States annually provide cumulative data on operations selected for funding until the end of the previous year. They will provide data on each operation (type of investments, area covered, number of employees benefitting from the operation etc) including key characteristics of the beneficiaries. 5.3 What requirements are being proposed for evaluation? What data is available? All key requirements on evaluation will be put in the CPR and will be common to all ESI Funds. It will not be obligatory for Member States to carry out an ex-post evaluation as experience from current and previous periods show that these evaluations have been of limited value. Member States will be required to carry out evaluations during the programming period. Such evaluations shall help to improve the quality of the design and implementation of programmes, as well as to assess their effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, EU added value and impact in relation to their contribution to the priorities of the European Union. In principle the evaluations to be made by Member States will cover the following elements: ·Process evaluation covering the effectiveness and efficiency of partner involvement, OP implementation and communication ·Effectiveness evaluation at specific objective level focussing on how well the operational programme is being implemented ·Impact evaluation at general objective level. It should demonstrate how much the operational programmes have contributed to change in the sector and in society as a whole in line with the general objectives.

Member States will have to ensure that procedures are in place to produce and collect the data necessary for evaluations, including data related to common and programme-specific indicators. The Commission will carry out the ex post evaluation. In addition to the ongoing evaluation set out above, each Member State will have to submit to the Commission an annual performance report. This report should describe the achievement of milestones and targets and it will be examined by the Commission who will submit its observations to the concerned Member State. Moreover, the Commission will carry out a mid-term assessment to examine the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value by the end of 2025. Taken together the provisions above should be sufficient to ensure that evidence is available at the time of revising the spending programme for the period post-2027. Availability of data for evaluation purposes: ·Infosys data will be used for evaluations. ·In addition, data from the Data Collection Framework will be used. This is data the Member States are collecting and which is assembled and stored by the JRC ·Also data from the European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture (EUMOFA) will be used. EUMOFA operates a consolidated database of aggregated and harmonised data. ·EUROSTAT data will be used wherever available The table below summarises the requirements on monitoring and evaluation during the 2014-2020 period and the post-2020 period: 2014-2020 Post-2020 CMES 2014-2020 Common indicators at EMFF-level Simplified CMES (fewer indicators) Common indicators at ESIF-level and policy-level Infosys 2014-2020 Infosys post-2020 CPR requirements: Ex-ante evaluation to be done by MS Evaluation during the programming period to be done by MS. At least once during the programming period an evaluation shall assess how ESI Fund support has contributed to the objectives Ex-post evaluation to be done by COM Synthesis at Union level of the ex-post evaluation by the COM CPR requirements: Evaluation during the programming period to be done by MS. Ex-post evaluation to be done by COM Mid-term assessment to be done by COM by the end of 2025 Synthesis at Union level of the ex-post evaluation by the COM Policy-level requirements: Ex-ante evaluation to be done by MS Ex-post evaluation to be done by COM Synthesis at Union level of the ex-post evaluation by the COM Policy-level requirements: None. All requirements moved to the CPR and common to all ESI Funds.



Annex 1: Procedural information 1.Organisation and timing The Directorate-General for for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) is the lead service for the preparation of the initiative and the work on the impact assessment. DG MARE has used the new template for impact assessments supporting programme proposals of the next Multi-annual Financial Framework as sent in ARES on 15/01/18 (Ares(2018)239380). An inter-service steering group (ISSG), chaired by the Secretariat-General, was set up in January 2018 with the invitations sent out to the following Commission Directorates-General: Legal Service; DG Competition; DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion; DG Energy; DG Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations; DG Economic and Financial Affairs; DG for Mobility and Transport; DG Environment; DG Climate Action; DG Taxation and Customs Union; DG Regional and Urban Policy; DG Health and Food Safety; DG Agriculture and Rural Development; DG Communication; DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology; DG Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union; DG Trade; DG International Cooperation and Development; DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs; DG Budget; DG Research and Innovation; DG Informatics; DG Human Resources and Security; Joint Research Centre; Eurostat and the Internal Audit Service. Invitation was also sent to the European External Action Service. The first ISSG meeting dedicated to the preparation of the fisheries and maritime policies post-2020 was held on 2nd February 2018. The first meeting was dedicated to the discussion of the inception impact assessment and the draft impact assessment. The second meeting of the ISSG was held on 23rd February and covered the complete draft IA report including the annexes. The formal presentation of the Impact Assessment to the RSB is planned for 11 April 2018 with the opinion from the RSB planned for 13 April 2018. Afterwards, the inter-service consultation will be launched for two weeks (16 – 27 April 2018).

The adoption of the MFF is foreseen for the beginning of May 2018 and the EMFF legislative proposal will follow afterwards. DG MARE will also start preparing the outreach once the new EMFF is adopted. A first presentation and discussion could take place in the informal DG meetings planned by the AT Presidency in early July. 2.Consultation of the RSB DG MARE held an upstream meeting with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) and the SG on 19 January, with the participation of DG BUDG and JRC. The purpose of the meeting was to clarify expectations for the Impact Assessment for post-2020 EMFF, in particular in light of the revised template circulated by the SG. RSB acknowledged the challenge of the exercise when a number of important political decisions still need to be taken. RSB noted that any political guidance included in the future MFF framework including on the future funding structure should be the starting point from this assumption. RSB informed that the reference point should be the annual average amount of the current MFF. In case there are significant changes in later decisions on the MFF, the IA might have to be adjusted. It also has to be complemented at a later stage in order to include the budget because of the requirements of the Financial Regulation. The RSB and the SG informed DG MARE that there is no more need to present three budgetary options and compare them but to assess the impact of the changes compared to the current situation. A date will be booked with the RSB between 11 and 13 April for the presentation of the Impact Assessment to the Board. The board made the following recommendations which have all been addressed in the revised IA report: RSB recommendations IA report (1) The IA has to start from the decisions that remain to be taken and that are not in the MFF communication. The DG has to look at options if there are still options left after the MFF Communication. These should mainly to assess the changes compared to the current programmes. They should focus on both on the overall programme priorities and structure, and on the implementation methods and delivery mechanisms. Addressed in the IA. (2) The IA should address the cross-cutting issues of the new MFF exercise, flexibility, coherence and performance, as well as the scope of the actions. On this, the DG may have to look at various options. Such options can discuss various ways of funding, including funding outside of the MFF and financial instruments. The DG responded that they aim to move towards simplification and more result-based management. RSB emphasised that flexibility always has pros and cons and that the DG needs to outline these transparently. Addressed in the IA. (3) RSB explained that if the DG believes there is a minimum critical mass of the funding that is necessary to deliver the key objectives, they should outline this in the IA. Not applicable. (4) RSB indicated that new priorities or changes in the focus of the policies would need to be reflected in the first block of the impact assessment on the structure of the programme. It emphasised that the synergies with other policies have to be more explicit, as the evaluation concluded. Addressed in the IA. (5) RSB explained that the assessment of impacts should focus on the implications of the new features and not the overall impact of the funding itself: what the DG expects the programme will deliver following the changes. The impact section needs to analyse the effects of various changes on national administration (burden), the fishery business, and more. Addressed in the IA. (6) RSB emphasised that the IA has to be linked to evaluation results and future challenges. It asked for absolute clarity in the IA on the sources of the lessons learned for the future, if these are previous evaluations, ongoing evaluations and/or consultation efforts. Addressed in the IA. (7) RSB mentioned in this context that evaluations of the MFF of the previous period are often based on very little evidence, mainly on stakeholder views. For this reason, strong monitoring and evaluation provisions are of high importance for the new impact assessment. These provisions have to be very specific, not only on types of indicators, but also on realistic methods of data collection. The DG furthermore needs to identify how they are going to measure the success of the policy. This is where they will have to think of the indicators for the overall impact of the policy. Addressed in the IA. 3.Evidence, sources and quality The problem definition was based on numerous consultation activities carried out by the Commission as well as using external expertise (ex-post evaluation of the EFF prepared by an external contractor), complemented by additional analysis of available reports and studies. Regarding the post-2020 evaluation, the evidence was based on information gathered in particular in the framework of the EMFF Tallinn conference and the ex-post evaluation of the EFF. The Assessment report builds also on the contributions from Member States and other relevant stakeholders such as Advisory Councils, Social partners, NGOs, Industry etc. Also, a great number of studies and reports both from experts and academia, have been used in the Impact Assessment exercise. In order to complement the internal COM studies, reports and notes, DG MARE has also used various studies and reports from the European Parliament and a number of studies done by DG REGIO. Internal consultations in DG MARE have also been carried out and written contributions received internally have been analysed.



LIST OF SOURCES Ex-post Evaluation of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), Staff Working Document, European Commission SWD(2017) 274 final, July 2017 https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=45977 Report on the Blue Growth Strategy: Towards more sustainable growth and jobs in the blue economy SWD(2017) 128 final, March 2017 https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/maritimeaffairs/files/swd-2017-128_en.pdf Study on costs, benefits and nature of an extended European Ocean Observing System European Commission, January 2018 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/node/4119 Study on the economic importance of activities ancillary to fishing in the EU European Commission, March 2016 https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/07f9aa31-9aa6-11e6-868c-01aa75ed71a1 Study on the employment of non-local labour in the fisheries sector European Commission, June 2016 https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/323daeca-9ab5-11e6-868c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en Study on the subsidies to the fisheries, aquaculture, and marketing and processing subsectors in major fishing nations beyond the EU European Commission, January 2017 https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/45f78bf8-d24b-11e6-ad7c-01aa75ed71a1 Study on the implementation of Axis 4 of the EFF European Commission, July 2014 https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/axis-4_en Retrospective evaluation of scrapping and temporary cessation measures in the EFF European Commission, December 2013 https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/cessation_fr Scoping study for the use of financial instruments under the EMFF and related advisory support activities Fi-Compass, European Commission, June 2015 https://www.fi-compass.eu/publication/manuals/manual-scoping-study-use-financial-instruments-under-emff-and-related-advisory Interim assessment of the implementation of Production and Marketing Plans pursuant to the CMO Regulation and the EMFF Regulation European Commission, January 2017 https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/15571c4b-e137-11e6-ad7c-01aa75ed71a1 Ad hoc expert report providing information on present and future EMFF support to Small-scale Coastal Fisheries through FLAGs FARNET, July 2017 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/cms/farnet2/library/technical-report/providing-information-present-and-future-emff-support-small-scale-coastal_en Realising the potential of the Outermost Regions for sustainable Blue Growth ARES(2017)4618231, September 2017 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/reports/2017/realising-the-potential-of-the-outermost-regions-for-sustainable-blue-growth Note to Management: 2017 Annual Economic Report of EU fleets: Main results ARES(2017)4630815, September 2017 Presentation on Study on the employment on non-local labour in the fisheries sector, Dir A, Unit A4 (DG MARE), March 2017 The Economic Performance of the EU Fish Processing Industry (STECF-14-21) Joint Research Centre (JRC), November 2014 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/economic/-/asset_publisher/d7Ie/document/id/932642 The 2017 Annual Economic report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF-17-12) Joint Research Centre (JRC), 2017 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/2017-annual-economic-report-eu-fishing-fleet-stecf-17-12 International ocean governance: an agenda for the future of our oceans SWD(2016) 352 final, November 2016 https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/maritimeaffairs/files/join-2016-49_en.pdf European Union Maritime Security Strategy European Commission, EEAS, June 2014 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2011205%202014%20INIT