Table of contents 1.Introduction 2.Background to the intervention 3.Implementation / state of Play 4.Method 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 6.Conclusions Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition AAC Aquaculture Advisory Council AC Autonomous Communities AODA Areas for Organised Development of Aquaculture CFP Common Fisheries Policy CMES Common Monitoring and Evaluation System CMO Common Organisation of the Markets of Fishery and Aquaculture Products DCF Data Collection Framework DG MARE Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries DG EAC Directorate-General Education and Culture EASME Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises EC European Commission EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund EMPA European Mollusc Producers Association EMU Economic and Monetary Union EQM Evaluation Questions Matrix ETM Education and Training Monitor EU European Union EUMOFA European Union Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture products FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FEAP Federation of European Aquaculture Producers FLAG Fisheries Local Action Group GIS Geographical Information System IBO Inter-Branch Organisation IMP Integrated Maritime Policy M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MANP Multiannual National Strategic Plan MS Member State MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive MSP Maritime Spatial Planning NA National Administration OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OMC Open Method of Coordination OP Operational Programme OPC Open Public Consultation PO Producer Organisation RAS Recirculation Aquaculture Systems SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprise SAC Special Areas of Conservation SP Spatial planning SPA Special Protected Area (under the Habitats Directive) SPC Social Protection Committee SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (analysis) TOR Terms of Reference UP Union Priority WFD Water Framework Directive 1.Introduction Purpose This Staff Working Document (SWD) presents the results of the interim evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) for the sustainable development of EU Aquaculture. It is based on an independent evaluation report prepared by external consultants, as well as on other sources of evidence, inter alia the "Economic Report of the EU Aquaculture sector" (STECF-18-19) and the EU Fish Market 2018 Report. The aim of the evaluation is:

·To assess national and EU efforts to promote the development of sustainable aquaculture in relation to the OMC’s objectives in terms of their effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value; ·To inform Member States, stakeholders and the public on the achievements of the OMC in this sector; ·To provide evidence for future policy making on EU aquaculture. The evaluation aims at identifying the factors that contributed to the success or failure of the implementation of the OMC so far. Although the evaluation is not formally required by the Regulation governing the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), its conclusions can contribute to further develop evidence-based policy for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture. In accordance with the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines, the evaluation exercise was structured around the following standard evaluation criteria: ·Effectiveness: assessment of the OMC for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture as an effective method for policy coordination and mutual learning; ·Efficiency: assessment of the relationship between the resources used by the OMC and the changes and novelties generated at national, regional and local levels; ·Coherence: assessment of coherence within the OMC, with related policies and with other interventions impacting the aquaculture sector; ·Relevance: assessment of the relationship between the needs and problems in the aquaculture sector, the objectives of the OMC and how this has changed over time thanks to the OMC and what the current needs are; ·EU added-value: assessment of the value resulting from the OMC that is additional to the value that would have resulted from interventions initiated at regional or national levels by public authorities and the private sector. Scope This interim evaluation examines the period 2013 to 2017, covering all the different OMC tools (Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture, guidance on EU legislation, Multiannual National Strategic Plans, exchange of good practices) and covering all Member States, except Luxembourg which has very limited aquaculture. 2.Background to the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) for the Sustainable Development of EU Aquaculture Background on aquaculture According to the latest “ Economic report of the EU aquaculture sector “, overall the performance of the aquaculture sector is improving, reaching 1.4 million tonnes in sales volume and €4.9 billion in sales value in 2016. This corresponds to an increase of 6% in sales volume and 8% in sales value compared to 2014. However, since 2007 production has decreased by 2%, this trend is in contrast with global aquaculture production which shows continuous growth. European aquaculture production represents only 1.2% of the world aquaculture production in terms of weight and 1.9% in value. EU aquaculture production is mainly concentrated in 5 countries: Spain (21%), France (15%), Italy (14%), the United Kingdom (14%), and Greece (10%), making up 74% of the sales volume. These 5 countries are covering 73% of the sales value in EU28. The total number of enterprises in EU is estimated to be 12 500. Almost 90% of the enterprises in the aquaculture sector are micro-enterprises, employing less than 10 employees. The number of employees in EU was estimated to be 75 300 in 2016. The EU aquaculture sector can be divided into three main sectors: Marine, Shellfish and Freshwater production. The marine sector is the most important economically and generated the largest turnover of €2 731 million, followed by the shellfish sector with €1 134 million and the freshwater sector with €1 028 million. The main species produced in terms of value are Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout and European seabass, whereas the unidentified mussels, which the experts believe to be Mediterranean mussels, dominate in weight. EU aquaculture is renowned for its high quality, sustainability and consumer protection standards. EU legislation establishes the high health, consumer protection and environmental sustainability standards that EU aquaculture activities have to comply with. The future demand for fish is expected to increase due to increasing population and income and health benefits associated with fish consumption. The growing demand offers a unique opportunity to expand the aquaculture production in the EU. However, expanding the EU aquaculture production for food security reasons should be done in a way that is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable. The Commission intends to boost the European aquaculture sector through the CFP that aims to promote aquaculture through an OMC, a voluntary process for cooperation. Four priority areas were identified to unlock the potential of EU aquaculture and address the CFP objectives (enhance sustainability, food security, growth and employment linked to the aquaculture sector), notably: reducing the administrative burden, integrating aquaculture in spatial planning, improving the competitiveness of the aquaculture industry and promoting a level playing field for EU operators.

Description of the OMC and its objectives The competence for the management of aquaculture lies largely with EU Member States. However, the challenges, barriers and threats that face EU aquaculture are common across many countries. EU aquaculture policy is developed and implemented in the framework of the ‘Open Method of Coordination’ (OMC) as established under the CFP Regulation. The OMC is a non-legal, voluntary process that aims at giving practical answers to the challenges identified by the Member States and stakeholders. It is a framework for national strategy development and for coordinating policies between EU Member States. It involves concerted action between EU and national policies in full respect of the principle of subsidiarity. As described in the intervention logic in figure 1: The general objective is to enhance the sustainability, food security, growth, employment and level-playing field linked to the aquaculture sector as stipulated in the CFP Regulation (Article 2). The specific objectives stemming from the CFP Regulation’s Article 34 are: (I)Reduce the administrative burden; (II)Integrate aquaculture activities into maritime, coastal and inland spatial planning; (III)Improve the competitiveness of the aquaculture industry; (IV)Promote a level playing field for EU operators by exploiting their competitive advantage. The operational objectives conceived as intermediate outcomes of the activities rolled out through the OMC are: (I)Develop a mutual learning process between Member States with the support of the Commission, including through the exchange of good practices and the participation to technical seminars; (II)Foster changes in national legislation by feeding in lessons learned from the exchange of good national practices and technical seminars; (III)Provide guidance on the EU legislation with an impact on aquaculture (such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)), with the objective to ensure that aquaculture activities are in compliance with their provisions and facilitate their application by Member States; (IV)Support realistic and sustainable investments at EU and national level in the aquaculture sector. As requested by the CFP Regulation (Article 34), the Commission adopted in 2013 "Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture". These Strategic Guidelines define four priority areas to be addressed by the OMC to unlock the potential of EU aquaculture: ·Simplifying the administrative procedures. Administrative procedures related to the starting of a new aquaculture farm are time-consuming and complex in several Member States. In addition, most businesses in the sector are SMEs, which are disproportionately affected by regulatory red tape. ·Securing sustainable development and growth of aquaculture through coordinated spatial planning. Integrating aquaculture activities into maritime, coastal and inland spatial planning can encourage economic activity, facilitate investment and boost the development of the aquaculture sector. It also presents an opportunity to enhance access to suitable sites for aquaculture production with a view to sector expansion. Coordinated spatial planning can also reconcile the competing interests of the aquaculture sector with environmental protection. ·Enhancing the competitiveness of EU aquaculture. Increased competition with producers from third countries, as well as the expectations of consumers on the quality and diversity of food products present challenges for EU aquaculture producers. ·Promoting a level playing field for EU operators by exploiting their competitive advantages. Aquaculture products originating from the EU comply with high environmental, animal health and consumer protection standards. These are EU aquaculture's main competitive factors and could be exploited more effectively to compete on the markets.

For each priority the Strategic Guidelines set targets for the Member States, for the Commission and for the Aquaculture Advisory Council (see Annex 4). The activities deployed for the OMC are: ·The Multiannual National Strategic Plans (MANPs). In order to better coordinate actions to promote aquaculture, Member States were required under the CFP to prepare MANPs for the promotion of sustainable aquaculture based on the Strategic Guidelines that contained a draft outline of the structure. Member States were encouraged to cover the period 2014-2020, to provide quantified targets and indicators and to make a mid-term assessment of the implementation of their plan by the end of 2017. Consequently Member States developed in 2014-2015 MANPs in which they identified their national priorities and proposed concrete actions to address them. Although Member States were free to choose to which priorities they planned actions, most MANPs included actions to address the four priorities of the Strategic Guidelines (see above). These plans also include national good practices that they wish to share in the context of the OMC. The MANPs are consistent with the Operational Programmes (OPs) of Member States developed to make use of funding available through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The submission of MANPs are a pre-requisite to access EMFF funding (ex-ante conditionality). ·Technical seminars and high-level events on aquaculture are organised by the Commission and attended by Member States' representatives. They provide a forum for the exchange of good practices aiming to foster a mutual learning process across the EU. The technical seminars are also meant to provide learning opportunities on implementation processes or policy approaches for stakeholders across the EU. The Strategic Guidelines suggested that the Commission organises at least one technical seminar per year to present the selected good practices and facilitate the exchange of information between Member States. ·Guidance documents on EU legislation have been developed by the Commission to facilitate the implementation of relevant EU legislation such as the WFD and the MSFD. The guidance documents offer practical answers to questions about the application of EU law in relation to aquaculture. In addition, the mandate of the Aquaculture Advisory Council (AAC) includes the provision of advice to the Commission and Member States for all issues contributing to the development of EU aquaculture. The AAC is the ideal platform for this purpose as it includes balanced representation of professional bodies from the 28 Member States (farmers, processors, feed manufacturers and NGOs). The AAC is expected to collect data on economics, production conditions and stimulate the exchange of good practices. The AAC is entitled to formulate advice to the Commission, the European Parliament and Member States to inform the debate and form the basis for new ideas and measures to be channelled into the decision-making process of the OMC for sustainable EU aquaculture. The development of sustainable EU aquaculture is financially supported through: ·the EMFF for the period 2014 to 2020 and through national contributions. The main contribution of the EMFF to sustainable aquaculture occurs in the context of Union Priority 2 (UP2) to foster sustainable aquaculture and is coherent with Union Priority 6 (UP6) on the implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) Regulation. The Strategic Guidelines note that the EMFF provides vital funding for initiatives foreseen in the MANPs for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture. The support to aquaculture focuses on aid for productive investments, conversion to eco-management and organic aquaculture, develop aquaculture providing environmental services, and support aquaculture for conservation and biodiversity protection. The total commitments of the EMFF for 2014 – 2020 for the sector of aquaculture amount to EUR 1.2 billion or 21% of all available funding. The EMFF funding for UP2 is complemented by EUR 0.5 billion of national contributions of the Member States to the funding of their OPs. There are differences between Member States, both in terms of total EMFF funding of their OPs and the degree to which they choose to focus resources on the development of their aquaculture sector. ·other EU funding instruments such as the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development, Horizon 2020, Life+ and the European Regional and Development Fund. Figure 1: Intervention Logic Baseline and points of comparison National strategies for the sustainable development of aquaculture existed before the start of the OMC in 2013 in most Member States, but they were integrated into wider strategies in many cases (e.g. strategies for the fisheries and aquaculture sector as a whole). The Strategic Guidelines and the MANPs have encouraged Member States to develop a comprehensive strategy for aquaculture, with quantified targets for growth. In the Strategic Guidelines each Member State is encouraged to indicate in the MANP its own aquaculture growth objective in the period covered by the plan. All Member States have set quantified objectives for growth. For example: ·National growth objective (2014-2020) for Austria: production volume from 3 100 tonnes to 5 500 tonnes in 2020. ·National growth objectives (2013-2023) for Cyprus: production volume from 5 339.3 tonnes to 6 332 tonnes in 2023 (19% increase). Production value from 29.2 million euro to 34,5 million euro in 2023. In the Strategic Guidelines Member State are encouraged to set quantified targets and indicators for the proposed actions. However, in most cases this was not possible. For example: Romania‘s action for the first priority “simplify administrative procedures” is “to identify the potential for improving procedures and reducing administrative tasks”. The Strategic Guidelines set for the four priorities, targets for the Member States, for the Commission and if relevant for the Aquaculture Advisory Council (see Annex 4). The targets are sometimes quantifiable (eg. number of new licences granted, success rate of applications for licences), sometimes concrete (eg. organise a seminar, prepare guidance documents), but mostly they are not quantifiable (eg. to make full use of the proposed CMO and EMFF). The officially published MANP for each Member State, and a very short summary of each plan (in English) prepared by the Commission as well as a summary document of the 27 MANPs can be found on the Commission’s aquaculture website. 3.Implementation / state of Play

The progress against the four specific objectives of the OMC is described below: 1. Simplifying administrative procedures Almost all Member States, except Latvia and Lithuania, identified the administrative simplification as a priority for the development of the aquaculture sector in their country and recommended 76 actions on this priority in their MANPs. Twenty-two Member States made progress since 2014. This concerns the simplification of licensing systems both in terms of regulatory framework and in terms of administrative organisation. Overall, the main success factor for the simplification of administrative procedures is the close collaboration between administration and professionals to establish a new administrative process to attribute exploitation licenses. The most common hindering factors is the complexity of institutional and regulatory frameworks and the number of administrations involved, which range between two and thirteen public entities being involved in an authorisation procedure. The key findings on the results of actions undertaken to support administrative simplification are: ·changes to the public administration and licencing systems in 15 Member States (MS); ·setting up of platforms for dialogue between industry and the public administrations in 13 MS; ·alignment of procedures between regions in 6 MS. ·establishment of one-stop-shops in 5 MS This has led to the following impacts: ·increase in the number of new licences in 7 MS; ·decrease in the average time for licensing procedures in 6 MS; ·increase in the number of applications processed per year in 6 MS; ·increase in the success rate of applications in 4 MS. Overall, Member States consider that the actions related to administrative simplification involve long term processes. The high costs of some actions in comparison to their expected benefits could hinder the completion of the actions. This is related to the creation of electronic platforms for the submission, analysis and processing of licenses (e.g. producers are used to paper-based systems). The complexity of institutional or regulatory frameworks is also one of the main difficulties. France indicated for example the high number of administrative bodies to coordinate and Spain highlighted the difficulties related to the decentralised organisation of the aquaculture governing bodies (autonomous communities have the exclusive competences for aquaculture management). Role of the OMC and the Commission: The Strategic Guidelines have clearly contributed to focus the national strategies on administrative issues. 2. Securing sustainable development and growth of aquaculture through coordinated spatial planning. Progress on spatial planning is highly variable. According to the survey of National Administrations (NA), the mapping of existing aquaculture facilities has been the most common type of action in the field of spatial planning. Twelve Member States indicated that they have made public up-to-date maps of existing aquaculture facilities since 2014, and four other Member States intend to do so by 2020. Eleven Member States shared best practices at regional/local level, with four Member States planning to do the same by 2020. From the 15 Member States that answered this question, ten have reported at least a marginal increase in the surface area covered by Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) since 2014 and Belgium, France, Malta, Portugal and the UK all indicated that the surface area increased significantly. Five Member States did not increase the surface area covered by MSP since 2014, citing the following reasons: ·MSP procedures are too long for building permit approvals (Estonia); ·A delay in the incorporation of the MSP Directive (Greece);

·The country does not have access to sea (Hungary); ·The plan is under development and significant stakeholder engagement is ongoing (Ireland); ·The entire maritime territory is already covered by spatial planning (Slovenia). In Scotland, an Aquaculture Infrastructure Map has been created to support discussions about aquaculture developments that may help to increase aquaculture productivity in the country. The map is designed to assist strategic planning in this industry. In addition, Marine Scotland’s online National Marine Plan interface (NMPi) also includes aquaculture sites. Hungary's Fisheries Information System includes regional technical and economic data on aquaculture production but does not include any spatial information on licensing or permitting, as this information is held by too many different government bodies. Croatia is developing an online register of aquaculture licensing with a new aquaculture law, and already collects aquaculture production data electronically. Denmark has an online aquaculture licensing system that includes environmental information, which also supports a one-stop-shop approach. It is evident from the above that spatial planning for aquaculture across the EU is both highly variable in terms of progress and in terms of approach. Whilst the MSP Directive provides some rigour in ensuring common approaches to transboundary spatial planning in marine areas – supported through various elements of direct funding under the EMFF – there is significant potential for developing common approaches, definitions and Geographical Information (GIS) tools in the future. Role of the OMC and the Commission. The Strategic Guidelines provide a target for the Commission to “monitor the implementation of coordinated maritime planning, to disseminate studies and experiences to help Member States in their planning. To organise a best practice exchange seminar in summer 2014”. Since the EMFF Regulation requires the development of MANPs as an ex-ante conditionality for accessing EMFF funding, all Member States (except Luxemburg) produced MANPs that included a section on spatial planning. In many cases, this was the first time Member States engaged in spatial planning for aquaculture. Spatial planning has been a recurring feature in the various technical seminars organised by the Commission, being covered in: November 2015 (spatial planning and governance), May 2016 (spatial planning) and April 2017 (spatial planning and GIS). In most cases, the focus has been on marine finfish and shellfish farming, although the role of spatial planning in freshwater environments has been acknowledged. A recent evaluation of EMFF expenditure examined the progress made in spatial planning. The evaluation is not yet completed by the Commission but the study concluded that EMFF support under direct management to date has catalysed Member States actions, allowed the development of Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) implementation structures and frameworks, and facilitated a progress towards pilot national maritime spatial planning in certain sea bodies. Direct EMFF funding into transboundary MSP has had the added benefit of encouraging inter-sectoral discussions and their engagement with counterparts in neighbouring waters. It has also encouraged proactive MSP engagement across maritime boundaries, building confidence in MSP at both national levels and allaying concerns over political uncertainties in geo-political issues such as Brexit. 3. Enhancing competitiveness of EU aquaculture The case studies highlighted the diversity of strategies and actions carried out to improve competitiveness in the sector and show that there is a direct link between achievements related to the reduction of administrative burden and spatial planning on one hand, and the improvement of competitiveness on the other. Considering the importance of EMFF funding to support the improvement of competitiveness (EUR 1.8 billion of EMFF allocated to the sustainable development of aquaculture including national contributions), delays in the implementation of the EMFF have significantly impacted the achievements under this objective. The analysis of the mid-term review reports showed that three of the 20 Member States that submitted their mid-term reports did not indicate any progress towards this priority. Progress in the other 17 Member States is variable, but according to the NA survey, Member States expect to have completely fulfilled about one third of their actions by 2020 and to have partially fulfilled most of the remaining ones. The most important actions that have been implemented concern research developments in aquaculture sectors, cooperation and knowledge-sharing and modernising existing aquaculture units and techniques. Less importantly, some Member States made progress in enhancing the business resilience against fish disease and improving the marketing of aquaculture products. Six Member States indicated some quantifiable effects, mostly relating to production volumes. In all cases, there has been an increase in production and targets are expected to be achieved by 2023 or before. Data Collection Framework (DCF) data also confirm the increase in production at EU level between 2013 and 2016 (+13%) and the Economic Report of the EU Aquaculture sector shows that recent forecasts from various organisations (FAO, EU Parliament, OECD) indicate that targets set for 2023 are realistic based on current trends. Significant progress has been made in this area even if it is not emphasised in national strategies, as 11 out of the 28 recognised Producer Organisation (POs) were established after 2015. Role of the OMC and the Commission The Strategic Guidelines provide a target for the Commission to “coordinate and support research and innovation for aquaculture through all the relevant EU programmes and funds. To promote the transfer of knowledge, best practices and innovation, including EU research project findings. To deliver a user-friendly EU market Observatory to provide market intelligence.” The Strategic Guidelines and the obligation to draft the MANP as a pre-requisite to access EMFF funding has contributed to a favourable dynamic for the sector and to some convergence of national objectives. Even if strategies and actions implemented at national level remain very diverse when it comes to competitiveness, the focus, almost in all Member States, on administrative procedures, spatial planning and innovation (under competitiveness) has contributed to create a more favourable context.

Between 2013 and 2017 research projects related to aquaculture were funded under the EU Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP7), under Horizon 2020, the EU LIFE+ programme and under the European Regional Development Fund. It provided new insights on new species, diseases, fish welfare, sustainability, new production systems and environmental impacts. Up to December 2017 the EMFF has funded several projects leading to more knowledge on innovation in aquaculture. 4. Promoting a level-playing field for EU operators by exploiting their competitive advantages. The case studies show that this priority was not always well understood and that there is no clear line between the strategy to improve competitiveness and the strategy to improve level-playing field. The analysis of mid-term review reports shows that a limited number of initiatives has been implemented for promoting a level-playing field between EU operators. From the 20 Member States that submitted their mid-term review, six Member States did not provide any information on this type of initiative. The remaining 14 Member States implemented a variety of measures, including the promotion of aquaculture products, market research, promoting product safety, labelling, certification and establishment of producer organisations. The NA survey results also show that 19 Member States supported cooperation between research institutions and producer organisations under this priority. No quantified results have been provided for the actions implemented under the level-playing field, but feedback from the NA survey indicates that the expected impacts are increased transparency, increased organisation of the sector, increased public awareness and an increase in the number of certifications. Role of the OMC and the Commission The Strategic Guidelines provide a target for the Commission to “ensure that labelling rules, in particular as regards freshness, provenance and commercial name are fully implemented. To improve markets transparency and disseminate markets information on trends at local, EU and international levels. To launch by the end of 2013, a Communication campaign on the strengths of EU aquaculture”. Some convergence of national strategies can be observed. Many Member States have implemented actions to improve labelling, but these actions generally focus on the country of origin rather than on environmental specifications that could apply EU-wide, as foreseen in the Strategic Guidelines. The Member States have supported the establishment of new POs, but no Inter-Branch Organisation (IBO) or transnational PO has been set up. The EU launched the campaign ‘Farmed in the EU’ in 2016, but stakeholders refer more to national campaigns promoting national products. Ensuring that labelling rules are fully implemented depends on the implementation of the Control Regulation and has not been fully analysed. Dissemination of markets information is done mainly through EUMOFA, the Market Advisory Council and the technical seminars. EUMOFA was set up in 2008, although the OMC may have played a role in the increased focus on aquaculture products since 2014. 4.Method Short description of methodology The interim evaluation is coordinated by Unit A.2 of the Commission's Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE), with the support of an Inter-Service Steering Group comprised of other Commission services (see Annex 1). It is based on a study carried out by external consultants between October 2017 and July 2019 as well as on the "Economic Report of the EU Aquaculture sector" (STECF-18-19) and the EU Fish Market 2018 Report. The study was conducted in three main phases: inception, data collection and analysis. During the inception phase interviews were conducted with relevant services in the Commission as well as with the Aquaculture Advisory Council. An initial analysis of existing data took place. Methods and tools for data collection and analysis were designed and refined such as the Evaluation Questions Matrix (see Annex 3), a questionnaire for the stakeholder public consultation, a survey tool for the consultation of national administrations and the approach to the case studies. During the data collection phase the main evidence required to answer the evaluation questions was collected. Data was collected from a range of stakeholders at EU, national and regional/local levels using different methods: ·Analysis of the mid-term reports on the MANPs leading to the development of a synthesis of the mid-term reports on the MANPs and the drafting of two-page country fiches presenting the state-of-play in each of the Member States. ·Targeted consultation of national administrations (NA) aiming to provide more detailed and up-to-date information on the achievements, potential effects and impacts of the objectives set in the sustainable development of the aquaculture sector across the 27 Member States. The consultation was conducted in 20 languages and questions were tailored to the specific objectives set by each Member State. ·Commission's stakeholder consultations: showcasing the evaluation at the Sixth and Seventh Technical Seminars.

·Open Public Consultation (OPC) carried out from 26th May 2018 until 20th July 2018. ·Case studies in five Member States to explore the evolution of the aquaculture sector, the influence of the OMC and the drivers and limitations behind the current status quo. In the analysis and reporting phase data were analysed. Key findings were developed from the desk research, the targeted consultation of NA, the OPC, the stakeholder consultation events and the case studies. In a second stage, key findings were triangulated according to the evaluation criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value). Triangulated findings were analysed to develop responses to each evaluation question and to draft conclusions. Robustness of findings Although quantitative data has been derived from the analysis of the MANPs and responses from the NA survey and the public consultation, many of the in-depth insights at Member State level rely on qualitative data. This is due to the nature of the tools analysed, the state of progress of implementation and the fact that there are no quantified objectives or monitoring systems in place for the OMC. This is understandable given the voluntary nature of Member States’ engagement in the OMC. The data gathered from the analysis of the mid-term review reports, the targeted consultation of NA and the OPC, do, however, provide robust information on the progress achieved to date in Member States in addressing the four strategic priorities. Twenty-seven Member States responded to the consultation of NA and provided data. The OPC provided an opportunity for feedback from stakeholders who might not have otherwise been consulted. Together, these consultations provide a solid body of evidence. The case studies, which were used to examine the situation in five Member States, provide more in-depth insight into progress at national level, coherence with other EU legislation, the difficulties encountered to achieve the MANPs objectives, rationale for the Member States’ various implementation choices, and the aquaculture sectors’ needs. Key limitations The lack of common OMC indicators: the OMC has not been set up to provide systematic and accurate data on Member States’ activities and impacts; there is no common monitoring system to allow direct comparisons to be made. The heterogeneity of the qualitative information provided by the Member States in the MANPs, mid-term review reports and the survey of NA makes comparisons difficult. The OMC lacks quantified targets in terms of reaching its specific objectives. The MANPs set few quantified targets (and none for the mid-term) and no indicators. Attributing causality to the OMC: it can be difficult to disentangle the actions that Member States would have taken any way and the actions upon which the OMC has had a direct impact. The lack of data on costs and cost savings: limited data could be gathered on the current costs and cost savings. The costs of administrative procedures are not monitored by Member States and are difficult to estimate when procedures involve more than one service or administration. The analysis of cost savings in Member States relies mainly on qualitative information and examples. The timing of the evaluation: due to the interim nature of the evaluation, it is in many cases too early to observe a significant impact from the various activities. Many of the improvements involve long and complex processes. 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions It should be noted that the analysis is often vague and limited. This is due to the above-mentioned list of key limitations. This chapter will address the 5 evaluation criteria. Answers are given to all the evaluation questions listed in Annex 3. In order to improve the readability of the document the replies are presented to groups of related questions. 5.1 EFFECTIVENESS 1) Achievements of Member States’ actions. Member States addressed in their MANPs the four priorities identified in the Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of aquaculture. While Member States focused on administrative simplification and enhancing the competitiveness of the aquaculture sector, they have not addressed spatial planning in the same manner, because some Member States (including the landlocked countries) did not consider it as a priority. Moreover, although almost all Member States identified promoting a level playing field as a priority, the actions pursued are very similar to those defined under the third priority and progress is limited. The level of achievement of the MANPs’ actions at this stage is difficult to assess because there were few quantified targets (and none for the mid-term), and because actions planned under the MANPs often involve long-term processes. The overall level of achievement can therefore only be measured through the percentage of national actions expected to be partially or fully achieved by 2020 under each of the four priorities. It is estimated that by 2020, the majority of actions described in the MANPs will have been at least partially achieved: administrative simplification (96%), spatial planning (96%), improved competitiveness (92%) and a better level playing field (86%). However, the proportion of actions likely to be fully completed by 2020 is lower: administrative simplification (43%), spatial planning (49%), competitiveness (33%) and level playing field (23%). Evidence and argumentation Administrative simplification: In their MANPs, Member States defined 76 actions to address administrative simplification to be implemented by 2020, except for Latvia and Lithuania . Table 1 provides a general overview of the expected level of achievement regarding administrative simplification by 2020. Table 1: Expected level of achievement of Member State actions on administrative simplification by 2020 Total number of actions in the MANPs Number of actions that are still valid Fully achieved (valid actions) by 2020 Partially achieved by 2020 At least partially achieved Actions that will not be achieved by 2020 76 72 31 (43%) 38 (53%) 69 (96%) 3 (4%) Source: consultation of national administrations (N=27) The results of the NA survey show that 43% of MANP actions will be fully achieved by 2020. They involve different types of actions depending on their national contexts and priorities. Only three Member States indicated that all their administrative simplification actions will be fully implemented (Czech Republic, Greece and Portugal), while the remaining Member States indicated that some of their objectives will be partially or not achieved by 2020. This indicates different levels of progress between Member States and confirms that in most cases, administrative simplification is seen as a long-term process. The results of the consultation of NA indicate also that 53% of actions will be partially achieved. Seven Member States indicated that all their actions will be partially achieved (Cyprus, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Hungary, Ireland and Sweden). Only 4% of the actions (3 actions) set by Member States in their MANPs and which are still valid will not be achieved. Enhancing coordinated spatial planning: spatial planning issues were not addressed by Member States to the same extent as administrative simplification. Member States placed different levels of priority on aquaculture-oriented spatial planning, which relates to their different national contexts. The landlocked countries (Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia) in addition to Belgium, Latvia and Lithuania did not define specific actions on this priority. Overall, Member States developed 69 actions related to spatial planning. Although these actions address a wide range of topics, half of Member States focussed on the identification of new aquaculture zones. There was some focus on exploring opportunities for diversification and for integrated aquaculture and possible synergies with other marine activities. In contrast, other actions target the better regulation of the existing aquaculture facilities. Most Member States set out in their MANPs both types of action (i.e. addressing issues of existing facilities and developing new areas for aquaculture). Table 2 provides a general overview of the expected level of achievement on spatial planning by 2020. Table 2: Expected level of achievement of Member State actions on spatial planning by 2020 Total number of actions in the MANPs Number of actions that are still valid Fully achieved by 2020 Partially achieved by 2020 At least partially achieved Actions that will not be achieved by 2020 69 60 30 (50%) 28 (46%) 58 (96%) 2 (4%) Source: consultation of national administrations (N=27) From the 60 actions that are still valid, half will be fully achieved by 2020. Five Member States (Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Ireland and Portugal) indicated that they will fully achieve all their actions by 2020. Those actions concern mainly harmonising criteria, carrying out preliminary studies and surveys and the development of guidelines to be used for identifying suitable areas for aquaculture. Actions aimed at mapping designated areas suitable for aquaculture and the development of a Geographical Information System will be fully implemented in most countries, except Croatia, France, Greece and Malta. 46% of actions (28) that are still valid will be partially achieved by 2020. The actions that will be partially implemented concern the full implementation of MSP for aquaculture (e.g. the integration of areas suitable for aquaculture in local/regional/national spatial plans), the support of new investments and the development of aquaculture production in the designated areas. Only 4% (2 actions) which are still valid will not be achieved by 2020. Enhancing competitiveness of the aquaculture sector is an important objective for all Member States. Analysis of the MANPs shows that the largest number of actions relates to this priority and that all Member States developed actions in this area. The number of actions is variable across Member States and range from one action in Slovakia to thirteen actions in Lithuania. Analysis of the MANPs shows also that 16 out of 27 Member States developed actions regarding research and innovation aimed at developing farming technologies to support sustainable fish production (e.g. recycling systems), energy saving and diversification with new species. In many cases (e.g. Germany, Ireland and UK), the actions described in the MANPs concern both research and innovation and cooperation, networking and knowledge share. Table 3 provides a general overview of the expected level of achievement regarding competitiveness by 2020. Table 3: Expected level of achievement of Member State actions on competitiveness by 2020 Total number of actions set Gin the MANPs Number of actions that are still valid Fully achieved by 2020 Partially achieved by 2020 At least partially achieved Actions that will not be achieved by 2020 121 112 37 (33%) 66 (59%) 103 (92%) 9 (8%) Source: consultation of national administrations (N=27) Most of the actions foreseen in the MANPs are still valid. 33% (37 actions) will be fully achieved by 2020. Only 4 Member States (Finland, Ireland, Poland and Portugal) indicated that all actions related to this priority will be fully achieved. These actions concern different topics as Member States tend to choose initiatives that address their local issues. 59% (66 actions) of actions that are still valid will be partially achieved by 2020. Eleven Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Slovenia and Slovakia) indicated that all of their actions related to enhancing the competitiveness of aquaculture businesses will be partially achieved by 2020. The EMFF plays a central role in the achievement of objectives by supporting several initiatives set by Member States. The effective implementation of the EMFF will determine the level of achievement of actions related to this priority in the coming two years. By 2020, only 8% of actions will not be achieved. Member States explain this by the delay in the implementation of the EMFF and the small scale of aquaculture businesses. The mid-term review reports were the most relevant source of information. Only 20 reports were available - as a result, the following findings did not provide a full picture of the progress. According to the analysis, 3 of the 20 Member States that submitted their mid-term review reports did not indicate any progress towards this priority (Croatia, Czech Republic and Slovakia). The remaining 17 Member States reported unequal progress in implementing this priority, with Cyprus, France and Germany among the Member States that have been most proactive in enhancing the competitiveness of the aquaculture sector. The most important actions implemented so far concern the development of research in the aquaculture sector, cooperation and knowledge share and modernising the existing aquaculture units and techniques. The willingness to use research findings in aquaculture is reflected in the adoption of relevant planning documents. For example, Scotland published its first comprehensive aquaculture science and research strategy, while the Netherlands launched a multi-annual research programme for the cultivation of seaweed. Actions aimed at knowledge transfer and exchange took various forms and a group of Member States placed emphasis on the modernisation of existing aquaculture units and techniques. For instance, Cyprus, France, Latvia and Lithuania are all providing funding for the modernisation of farms or stimulating productive investments. Less importantly, some Member States have made progress in enhancing the businesses resilience against fish diseases and improving marketing of aquaculture products. France, Germany and Spain implemented initiatives aiming to combat endemic fish diseases . France has also been one of the Member States that put animal health issues on the agenda, focusing particularly on shellfish aquaculture . The Member States that worked in improving marketing of aquaculture production were Lithuania and Estonia and conducted a study on the market outlook for aquaculture products. Promoting a level playing field for EU operators: Twenty-six Member States developed 85 actions to promote a level playing field for EU operators. Only Poland did not set actions on this specific objective. The promotion of aquaculture products was one of the most important actions defined by Member States (e.g. Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Netherlands and Portugal). Member States also put a lot of attention on collaboration and sharing experience and promoting sustainable aquaculture practices. Some Member States developed actions to develop advertising campaigns and promote local products with a high export value (e.g. Estonia). However, actions defined under “level playing field” are very similar to actions set under “competitiveness”. Table 4 provides a general overview of the expected level of achievement regarding level playing field by 2020. Table 4: Expected level of achievement of Member State actions on level playing field by 2020 Total number of actions in the MANPs Number of actions that are still valid Fully achieved by 2020 Partially achieved by 2020 At least partially achieved Actions that will not be achieved by 2020 85 73 17 (23%) 46 (63%) 63 (86%) 10 (14%) Source: consultation of national administrations (N=27) Table 4 shows that from the 73 actions that are still valid, 23% (17 actions) will be fully achieved. Only 3 Member States indicated that they will implement all the actions in their MANPs by 2020. There is no specific trend among Member States on the types of actions that will be fully achieved. The results from the consultation of NA also indicate that 63% (46 actions) will be partially achieved and 14% (10 actions) will not be achieved by 2020.





2) Results of the OMC in the Member States. For administrative simplification, the analysis showed that the implementation of MANPs did not bring major changes to the indicators "management of authorisation procedures (i.e. public bodies involved in authorisation, average license duration and average license costs)". The only indicator which has seen significant impact is the length of the licensing process, which decreased in 6 Member States. However, indicators related to the "results of the authorisation procedure (i.e. number of processed applications, new licenses and success rate)" saw significant improvements in most Member States since the implementation of the MANPs. For enhancing coordinated spatial planning, the impact of MANP implementation was less obvious. Only ten Member States reported an increase of the surface covered by spatial planning, even if marginal. This improvement was most obvious in coastal states, which have obligations for MSP. The other Member States indicated that it is a long-term process involving different stakeholders and the spatial planning is under development. For competitiveness the effects of MANP implementation concern increasing production volume with five Member States indicating progress in this field. For promoting a level playing field little information on the impact of MANP implementation has been gathered: only Italy, Greece and Spain reported tangible improvements. Evidence and argumentation Administrative simplification Impacts of the progress on administrative simplification since the implementation of the MANPs is assessed through analysis of indicators proposed in the Strategic Guidelines. Since 2013, the European Commission encourages Member States to collect information on the following indicators: Category 1: management of authorisation procedures oNumber of public bodies involved in the authorisation procedure; oAverage time to complete licensing procedure in months; oAverage costs of licensing procedures for new businesses; oAverage duration of a license (Years/ months). Category 2: results of authorisation procedures oNumber of applications processed per year; oNumber of new licences granted per year; oSuccess rate of applications for licenses. Only 13 Member States provided quantitative information for both 2014 and 2016. Austria, Hungary and Slovakia provided only information for one year - trend analysis is therefore not possible for these countries. Management of authorisation procedures There have been no significant changes in these indicators since the implementation of the MANPs, except for the indicator on the average length of the licensing processing. This indicator has seen the most significant progress, with 6 Member States noting a shorter average length of the licensing processing in 2016 than in the baseline year. The most significant progress has been made by Portugal where the average length of the licensing processing decreased by 52%. For the indicators related to the number of public bodies involved in authorisation procedures and the average licenses duration, there are no major changes between 2014 and 2016. This suggests that the implementation of MANPs did not result in major changes to these indicators. The average costs of licensing procedures for new businesses have overall remained unchanged, except in Greece where cost of licences increased. The survey revealed major differences across Member States. Average license durations have only changed in Greece (from 10 to 20 years). Overall, the consultation of NA indicates that the average license duration varied from ten years in Cyprus to up to 50 years in Croatia in 2016. Both Romania and Estonia reported that they grant unlimited aquaculture licenses. Results of the authorisation procedures This category of indicators has seen significant changes since the implementation of the MANPs by the Member States. For Member States that provided data for both 2014 and 2016, 6 reported an increase in numbers of processed applications. Sweden and the United Kingdom progressed the most with an increase of 100% and 138% respectively in the number of processed applications. Out of the 11 Member States that provided figures for both 2014 and 2016, in 7 Member States there was an increase in the number of new licenses granted in 2016 compared to the baseline year, 3 Member States experienced a decrease, while in Slovenia the number of new licences stayed the same. Most progress occurred in Ireland where the number of new licenses increased from 14 to 122. Concerning the success rate, all Member States who reported on this indicator in the survey confirmed a success rate of 50% or over and 6 Member States reported a success rate of 90% or over, with Estonia, Greece and Croatia all reporting a 100% success rate. Four Member States had a higher success rate in 2016 compared to the baseline year, the United Kingdom saw a decrease, and 3 Member States reported the same numbers for both years. Overall, there is no correlation between progress made on the two categories of indicators. In fact, even though in some cases the length of the licensing process or number of public bodies involved in authorisation remained unchanged, the number of processed applications, new granted licenses and success rates increased. Enhancing coordinated spatial planning In the NA survey ten Member States reported an increase in the surface covered by SP, even if marginal. From these Member States, Belgium, France, Malta, Portugal and the UK indicated that this area increased significantly. Five Member States did not increase the surface area covered by SP since 2014. In their mid-term reviews, Member States indicated that their limited progress reflects the long-term processes involving different stakeholders, which are required. The most frequently mentioned reasons are related to the lack of quantitative data and the small amount of time since the adoption or the implementation of the MANPs. Portugal and Estonia provided quantitative information in their mid-term review reports: Portugal reported on the creation of two new aquaculture production areas, one in the Central region (area with 1,000 hectares) and the other in the Algarve (974 hectares); Estonia reported that its aquaculture production doubled during the period of 2012-2016, linking this increase to the creation of new aquaculture facilities. Stakeholders from the industry generally considered that initiatives implemented are of significant importance for the development of aquaculture. They also shared views on different spatial planning tools developed in the different Member States. For instance, in Greece, stakeholders considered that there was a serious problem of incompatibility between different spatial plans creating conflicts between aquaculture and other maritime activities. In France, the surface area covered by spatial planning increased as almost all regions developed their own regional schemes for the development of aquaculture. However, stakeholders consulted during the fieldwork considered that these regional schemes must be integrated in broader regional development schemes of maritime activities. Also, there is a problem related to low social acceptability of aquaculture activities. Enhancing the competitiveness of aquaculture operators



According to Data Collection Framework (DCF) data, overall EU aquaculture production increased by 13% between 2013 and 2016. The most important increases were in Slovakia and Slovenia with 96% and 77% respectively. However, 2013 saw a production decline in most of the five largest aquaculture producers in Europe, which influenced production achievements in 2016. The view of industry is that the impact and results of progress made regarding the implementation of initiatives related to the competitiveness are not obvious. Stakeholders considered that aquaculture production could be increased through administrative simplification and the full implementation of spatial planning. The EMFF plays an important role to support producers in adopting sustainable technologies (recirculation systems for instance). National authorities in Member States monitor results at macro level (national production). However, industry reported results related to farm level (producers) or sector level (representative organisations). Promoting a level playing field for EU operators The mid-term reports provide almost no information on quantifiable effects of these initiatives. Member States reported that their MANPs are still in the early stages of implementation. The only 2 Member States that reported impact are Spain and Italy. Italy reported an increase in the number of farms that adopt sector certification schemes (in freshwater fish farming in particular). Spain monitors some relevant indicators such as consumption of aquatic products, trade balance of fishery products and weight of aquaculture in GDP. The case studies provided little information on the results and impact of initiatives targeted at creating a level playing field, except in Greece. To reward high production costs of the Greek aquaculture (qualitative products, shipping costs of reaching remote islands), national authorities established POs which proposed a set of actions to improve the competitiveness of Greek products (creation of labels, promoting collective actions and research and technology) and to promote marketing. Only part of these results was achieved, and it is expected that full impact will be seen in the coming years. Feedback from industry indicates that the results achieved at national level are not perceived at industry level, where the focus is placed on tackling issues related to administrative simplification, spatial plaining and difficulties with claiming EMFF to enhance the competitiveness of their companies. 3) Results of the OMC at EU level. The targets set in the Strategic Guidelines have been partially achieved: almost all Member States have drafted a MANP and have set quantified targets for growth in the sector. There has been an increased focus on administrative procedures and spatial planning in national strategies. The Strategic Guidelines contributed to promoting the aquaculture sector within EU policy, encouraging funding from other sources (e.g. Horizon 2020) and greater focus in EUMOFA. The Strategic Guidelines and the MANPs have contributed to improve strategic planning and create a sense of common goals across Member States. National strategies existed before the OMC in most Member States, but they were integrated into wider strategies in many cases (e.g. strategies for the fisheries and aquaculture sector as a whole). The Strategic Guidelines and the MANPs have encouraged Member States to develop a comprehensive strategy for aquaculture, with quantified targets for growth. Evidence and argumentation Responses to the OPC about participation in the development and actual use of OMC tools indicate that the MANPs are the tools that have involved the largest number of stakeholders and that are the most widely used (25 respondents out of 42 participated in their development and/or used them), followed by seminars and events (21 respondents), EU guidance documents (20 respondents, but with a smaller share of stakeholders involved in the development and a larger share of users), and finally the Strategic Guidelines and available documents on best practice (17 respondents each). Feedback from the case studies show that the Strategic Guidelines contributed to focus national strategies on administrative issues and spatial planning. Even if MANPs are not always structured around the four EU specific objectives, the MANPs involved large consultations with the industry at national and regional level, and contributed to promote the priorities of the Strategic Guidelines. Analysis of the actions set by MS in their MANPs also shows some convergence of strategies, especially for the first two specific objectives (administrative burden and spatial planning). On the contrary, except for Greece, there is no evidence from the case studies, that authorities in charge relied significantly on EU guidance documents. They may have been used for transposition into national laws (especially the EU guidance for the implementation of the WFD and the MSD) but there has been little dissemination; and administrations in charge of administrative procedures and MSP, as well as the industry, tend to refer to the legislations rather than to the guidance documents. 4) Factors that influenced the achievements at national level and EU level. Simplification of the licensing procedure can be hindered by complex regulatory frameworks and a significant number of entities involved. On the other hand, good collaboration between stakeholders can facilitate change. The general development of spatial planning regulation and tools contributes to improving spatial planning for aquaculture but its actual contribution to the sustainable development of aquaculture is limited by the competition for land and marine use, as well as low social acceptance. Targeted investments through the EMFF should have contributed to enhance the competitiveness of aquaculture but delays in the implementation have limited the impact. The main issues identified in terms of level-playing field are differences in requirements for products entering the EU market, which are not addressed through the OMC tools. Evidence and argumentation Simplify administrative procedures: the tight collaboration between administration and professionals has been identified as a key factor to establish new administrative processes. According to the NA survey, 17 out of 25 Member States that provided responses, declared to have established a platform for dialogue between industry and public administrations. These tools either existed before 2014 (4 cases) or have been implemented since, in order to foster collaboration between stakeholders with the objective to reduce the complexity of administrative procedures. On the contrary, the complexity of institutional and regulatory frameworks and the number of administrations involved have hindered improvements in this area. The issue of complex bureaucratic procedures was highlighted for example in the mid-term reports of Italy, Germany and Romania. The case studies in France, Greece and Spain also show that the large number of organisations involved results in lengthy procedures and also makes it more difficult to implement changes. The Polish administration established a new entity in 2018, which focuses on water management and administrative procedures related to water permits, including for aquaculture, with the objective to streamline and shorten procedures, but it is too early to assess the impact on the administrative processes. The information provided shows that the number of administrations involved has not been reduced between 2014-2016, which can be explained by the fact that it usually reflects the administrative organisation of the Member State and the allocation of competences among the different organisations. The example of Galicia shows that even where one-stop-shops have been or are being set-up, it does not necessarily translate into a reduction of the overall number of administrations involved. Coordinated spatial planning: the level of Member State experience in spatial planning is a key driver and pre-requisite for the integration of aquaculture in spatial planning. The difficulties encountered in Poland because of the absence of maps and databases in areas where inland aquaculture could be developed is a good illustration of this. The adoption by Member States of new regulatory frameworks for spatial planning also contributed to achievements in this area. Nevertheless, land pressure and, in the case of marine aquaculture, competition for space with other marine activities remain strong barriers. Conflicts can arise with other activities such as fishing (professional and recreational), tourism and other marine activities or among different aquaculture sectors. Therefore, the ability to identify suitable space for the development of aquaculture strongly depends on local policies and priorities, which can be different from the national strategy for aquaculture. Although conflicts of use exist for both inland and marine aquaculture, they appear to be stronger in the latter case. In some Member States, the low social acceptance of aquaculture and the controversial image of farmed products tend to disadvantage fish farmers in this competition for space. Spatial planning can also be more difficult to implement in decentralised Member States. For instance, in Spain, the central government has competence for the marine public domain but the Autonomous Communities (AC) have competence for the development of aquaculture, which raises legal issues about the implementation of the MSP Directive and the definition of areas of interest for aquaculture. Some Member States are trying to address the issue of conflicts of use, for instance through positive communication on aquaculture, by integrating aquaculture into tourism activities (e.g. Taste the Atlantic route in Ireland) or by pre-empting possible changes of use when producers retire, so the property remains allocated to aquaculture (e.g. shellfish sector in France ), but these initiatives do not allow to identify potential new spaces for aquaculture. Other Member States are exploring developing off-shore farms as a way to limit conflicts of use (e.g. in Greece). Enhancing the competitiveness of EU aquaculture: The key success factors to enhance the competitiveness of EU aquaculture are the access to funding, through public funding or access to credits, the level of knowledge about the aquaculture and industry in administrations and relevant private stakeholders (banks in particular), ability to find trained staff and access to space and licenses. The specific pillar for aquaculture under the EMFF has encouraged Member States to support targeted investments. However, this was hindered by delays and other difficulties encountered in the implementation of the EMFF. The negative image of some consumers towards aquaculture products can be another limiting factor. Marketing and communication campaigns were implemented to improve consumer’s perception of aquaculture products (e.g. campaign for the Label Rouge in France, supported by the EMFF), but the main barriers (i.e. access to funding, space and licences) have not been really addressed. Promoting a level playing field for EU operators by exploiting their competitive advantage: Success and hindering factors to promote a level playing field were difficult to identify as this priority was interpreted differently among Member States and was generally not well understood. Whereas the Strategic Guidelines implied that the Member States should improve the level playing field in particular through a better organisation of the sector, only few Member States included actions related to this aspect in their MANPs. The main issues usually highlighted by the industry in terms of level playing field are not addressed by the OMC tools: (1) Differences in production costs among EU Member States and with third countries (e.g. labour costs for France, extra costs on remote Greek islands); (2) Differences in legal requirements, in particular with third countries. 5) Impact of the OMC on the CFP objectives. At this stage, the impact of the OMC on the wider objectives of the CFP can be considered marginal. Only few Member States could measure effects in terms of sector growth. Some of the measures of the MANPs are related to enhanced sustainability or food security, one Member State reported an increase in the number of organic farms under the competitiveness objective. The EU guidance should theoretically contribute to enhanced sustainability through a better and harmonised implementation of EU directives, but the information collected does not allow for a full assessment of its impact on the environment or long-term sustainability of aquaculture production. Likewise, the technical seminars and the high-level events addressed sustainability and food security issues, but impact will only be measurable in the long run.

The MANPs reflect the OMC specific objectives, therefore the measures implemented by Member States relate to those objectives by definition. More generally, the intermediate results observed at EU level (increased focus on administrative procedures and spatial planning, increased support to aquaculture through various EU programmes) should have a positive impact on the general objectives of the CFP. 6) Communication. Although communication is a key tool to exploiting the high environmental, animal health and consumer protection standards in the EU, there has been little formal advice, standardisation or coordination on communication between Member States. The one exception is the ‘Farmed in the EU’ campaign, which includes some online resources, as well as a school project in around 10 EU Member States. There is some consistency over the nature of communication messages coming from Member States as a result of the OMC. The OMC supports the use of good communication for promoting the benefits and competitiveness of EU-farmed seafood. This can be provided though the MANPs, with some funding available via the EMFF. However, in practice, there is limited evidence that improved communication at Member State level has been actively facilitated by the OMC. Some simple guidance, based on practical experience of communicating to stakeholders in similar primary industries, would be a useful addition to the OMC tool set. 5.2 EFFICIENCY 1) Reduction of administrative procedures in the Member States. The three main actions taken to simplify administrative procedures have been (1) improvements to coordination within public administrations, (2) streamlining and reductions of administrative procedures, and (3) the provision of a platform for dialogue between industry and the public administration. Fewer Member States took actions to review assessment procedures, prolonging license durations, align assessment procedures in different regions, and establish a mandatory timeframe for procedural steps. Only two Member States plan to set up a one-stop-stop in the future. There were other planned initiatives to support administrative simplification beyond what was described in the MANPs, confirming the wide-ranging set of initiatives to simplify administrative procedures across the Member States (simplifying the environmental regulatory framework, reforming aquaculture legislation, as well as developing data management and information systems). However, the lack of quantitative information makes it difficult to confirm that administrative procedures have been reduced across the Member States. There is also an inherent difficulty in attributing any changes directly to the OMC. Nonetheless, the available evidence indicates that the impacts that can be identified relate to an increase in the number of new licenses and a decrease in the average time to complete licensing procedure. Evidence and argumentation Number of new licenses granted per year: Eleven Member States provided figures for both 2014 and 2016. In seven Member States (Greece, Croatia, Ireland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, UK) there was an increase in the number of new licenses in 2016, in three (Estonia, France, Portugal) there was a decrease and in one (Slovenia) the number of new licences granted was the same number in both years. Success rate of applications for licenses: As only 11 Member States provided data, the survey provides an incomplete picture. However, the evidence suggests that four Member States (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden) had a higher success rate in 2016, one (UK) saw a decrease and four (Estonia, Croatia, Romania, Slovenia) reported the same numbers for both years . Average time to complete licensing procedure in months: From the ten Member States that provided data for both years, six (Spain, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Slovenia, UK) had a shorter average length of licensing procedure in 2016 than in 2014. Number of public bodies involved in the authorisation procedure: Seven of the 12 Member States for which 2016 data is available had five or more public bodies participating in the authorisation procedure. However, the figures reported for both 2014 and 2016 were largely the same, indicating that the implementation of MANPs did not bring major changes to the management of authorisation procedures. Average duration of a license: In 2016, the average license duration varied from ten years in Cyprus, Spain and Ireland to up to 50 years in Croatia. Among the 11 Member States that provided data for both 2014 and 2016, there were almost no change in the average duration of a license. The only exception was Greece, where the average license duration increased from ten to 20 years. The lack of quantitative information (and the sparse data) makes it difficult to confirm improvements. However, the case studies largely confirmed the key findings from the NA survey. The evidence indicates that the actions simplifying administrative procedures had not much impact on the ease and speed of use of procedures and processes except for the number of new licenses and the average time to complete licensing procedures. 2) Cost savings from administrative simplification. There is limited information on costs available, both by national administrations and other private stakeholders. There is some information on costs of licenses, although there does not seem to be a clear link between the simplification of administrative procedures and a decrease in costs of licenses, and private stakeholders in particular have not experienced a reduction in costs. There is some evidence to suggest that administrative simplification will result in time saved by administrations and operators, such as through shortening of licensing procedures and new authorisations. However, the limited available data shows that administrative simplification has not yet significantly resulted in cost savings for the aquaculture sector. There is some evidence quantifying the average costs of licensing procedures for new businesses. Nine Member States provided data on this for 2014 and 2016 , although not all nine provided data for both years. While in both 2014 and 2016 the procedure was free of charge in France and the UK, the costs were as high as €1,300 in Croatia and €15,000 in Greece for the year 2016. From 2014 to 2016, there were very little changes in the average costs of licensing procedure for new businesses in the seven Member States (Belgium, France, Greece, Croatia, Romania, Slovenia, UK) that provided the figures for both years. None of these seven Member States reported a decrease in costs in 2016 compared to the baseline year (2014). The evidence from the case studies in the five Member States shows a complicated picture. In Greece, the experience of operators submitting requests following licencing procedures showed that the gain in time booked through simplification of legislation did not imply a proportional reduction in terms of costs. The direct cost remains the same or even higher for locations included in Natura 2000 areas. Similarly, in Spain, there was no evidence that simplifications in administrative procedures would result in increased cost savings, although according to the national authority cost savings could be expected from the increased use of IT tools. 3) Expected cost savings from further reductions in administrative burdens. The further planned simplification measures are wide-ranging across the Member States. They include, for example, introducing or shortening the time limits for certain administrative procedures, improving the data collection and information systems, simplifying regulations, and improving coordination within the public administration. There is no evidence to suggest that Member States have quantified the expected cost savings from the planned actions and there is an inherent difficulty in quantifying costs. Moreover, there is a lack of consensus among stakeholders on the potential impacts of future actions, for example in Greece, there was a general expectation that the establishment of Areas for Organised Development of Aquaculture (AODAs) would lead to cost savings and in Galicia the setting up of a one-stop-shop was expected to significantly improve processes, but some stakeholders were concerned about the potential for increased delays. Given the limited evidence presented by stakeholders, including national administrations on actions planned in the next two years and possible savings, it is not possible to say with certainty that additional savings can be expected from planned improvements. 4) Cost of engaging with the OMC. It is difficult to quantify Member States’ costs of engaging with the OMC. In general, however, it can be expected that the costs are minimal. Nevertheless, there is evidence that stakeholders see the OMC as a benefit, emphasising the added value of the mechanism compared to what could be achieved without EU action. There is, therefore, a strong sense that the benefits provided justify time and resources committed by Member States, particularly as the OMC facilitated more cooperation and mutual learning. There is no evidence to confirm the costs in terms of time and resources at Member State level. In France, it was noted that the financial resources available are often limited to implement all the actions included in the MANP. In general, however, it can be expected that Member States’ costs are minimal. There is no evidence to confirm that the costs of engaging with the OMC are compensated by the benefits that are generated at Member State and EU level. However, most stakeholders consulted considered that the OMC is a benefit and emphasised its added value compared to what could be achieved by Member States at national/regional level without EU action. The OMC facilitated a common approach as well as more cooperation and mutual learning. The OMC also helped to ensure that Member States are more aligned with EU policies and objectives and provided a platform for Member States to exchange information and experiences. 5) Good practices and difficulties influencing the efficiency of the changes to the administrative procedures. The two main good practices were: setting up coordination bodies and making legislative reforms. The main difficulties include the complexity of the regulatory landscape, the level of decentralisation, and the lack of coordination between institutions. Lack of cooperation and coordination among institutions, including in highly decentralised Member States, inhibits the development of an overarching framework to make administrative changes and makes administrative procedures particularly burdensome for industry. The main factors supporting increased administrative simplification relate to the existence and set up of coordinating bodies and legislative changes. In some Member States, such as Greece, Ireland, Sweden and the UK, legislative reforms are the drivers of administrative simplifications. For example, Sweden simplified the animal health regulations by merging four legislative acts into one while Greece has simplified administrative procedures through the law 4282/2014 (entitled aquaculture development and other provisions). The factors that limited administrative simplifications include the complexity of the regulatory landscape, the level of decentralisation, and the lack of coordination between institutions. In France, there are a large number of regulations governing aquaculture activities. Administrative procedures are different according to the types of farming practiced and the decentralisation of aquaculture management means that several authorities could intervene in any application. The decentralised landscape of the management of the aquaculture sector in Spain’s ACs also limits administrative simplification. The ACs have exclusive competence for aquaculture, such that actions implemented at national level are mainly limited to coordination and harmonisation effects (e.g. IT harmonisation, guidelines, exchange of information, etc.). This coordination requires feedback and contributions, which can be varied as it is dependent on the capacity and relative importance of aquaculture in each AC. Lack of coordination is also an issue in Poland. Documents are issued by various independent institutions not cooperating with each other. Although there is no licence system in Poland, growers complain about the multitude of documents that they have to produce.

5.3 COHERENCE 1) The OMC and its tools are fully coherent with the reformed CFP and its strategic objectives. The CFP’s strategic priorities include ensuring that “aquaculture activities contribute to long-term environmental, economic, and social sustainability” and “Aquaculture should contribute to the preservation of the food production potential on a sustainable basis throughout the Union”. The CFP also recognises that the Commission's Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture (adopted in 2009) is the key starting point for the OMC, providing the basis for the Strategic Guidelines. The subsequent MANPs are also an explicit tool for promoting sustainable aquaculture (under Art. 34). The reformed CFP states the need for Member States to exchange information and best practises through the OMC and it outlines the role of the Commission in encouraging the exchange of information and best practices among Member States and the coordination of national measures foreseen in the MANPs. Evidence and argumentation Unlike wild fisheries management, the EU shares competence for aquaculture management, with the primary competence lying with the Member States. Therefore, there was a need for a coordinated approach to ensuring sustainable development across the EU, as well as remaining competitive in a global market. The OMC was developed to fulfil this purpose through a voluntary approach. It is also considered a ‘joined up’, sequential approach in that the Strategic Guidelines established the key objectives of the OMC following considerable stakeholder input, and that public financial support though the EMFF built upon this strategy. This was further reinforced by the development of the MANPs at Member State level, which again was fully coherent with the earlier strategy and Strategic Guidelines. The main tools of the OMC are (i) the Strategic Guidelines, (ii) the design and implementation of the MANPs, and (iii) the exchange of good practices within and between Member States. These tools have been delivered sequentially and are fully consistent and interrelated: 1.The Strategic Guidelines, which included an outline structure of the MANPs, linkages to the EMFF Operational Programmes and the introduction of ‘exchange of best practices’ based around technical seminars. 2.The MANPs were developed in preparation of the EMFF OPs (and are an ex-ante conditionality for EMFF fund eligibility) and explicitly based around the specific objectives of the OMC and thus effectively enforce coherence with the Strategic Guidelines. 3.The exchange of good practice is linked to the MANPs, in that Member States are encouraged to submit three proposals of good practice in their MANP. The Commission organises, at least once a year, technical seminars to present the selected good practices and exchange information between Member States. The five case studies noted that this process was a logical and functional approach and that the main OMC tools are synergistic. The overlap between the CFP and the OMC is limited. However, although the CFP is EU policy and aquaculture management via the OMC is a voluntary process, the reformed CFP which entered into force on 1 January 2014 does include aquaculture in its scope. It states that “the CFP should ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities contribute to long-term environmental, economic, and social sustainability”. The CFP also explicitly recognises the role of the OMC, stating in paragraph 55 that “Union Strategic Guidelines for national strategic plans should be developed to improve the competitiveness of the aquaculture industry, supporting its development and innovation, and encouraging economic activity, diversification and improving the quality of life in coastal and inland areas. Furthermore, mechanisms should be introduced for the exchange between Member States of information and best practices through an open method of coordination of national measures concerning business security, access to Union waters and space, and the simplification of licensing procedures”. This is defined in more precise terms in Art. 34 (promoting sustainable aquaculture), where the role of MANPs is explained and that “Member States shall exchange information and best practices through an open method of coordination of the national measures contained in multiannual national strategic plans”. The nature and role of an Advisory Council for aquaculture is also explicitly required and detailed in the reformed CFP.

2) The EMFF Regulation is fully coherent with the specific objectives of the OMC. It has a similar origin, in that it was designed to support implementation of the reformed CFP, replacing various previous financial mechanisms and merging policy direction with the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) Regulation . The EMFF Regulation also explicitly recognises the role of the Strategic Guidelines, stating that “the EMFF should support the environmentally, economically and socially sustainable development of the aquaculture industry”. With MANPs being an ex-ante conditionality for EMFF funding, the structure and policy objectives of the OMC are further integrated into aquaculture development at Member State level. Evidence and argumentation Given the structural integration of the EMFF as a support tool to the reformed CFP and the latter’s goal of ensuring that “aquaculture activities contribute to long-term environmental, economic, and social sustainability”, there was broad consensus that the OMC objectives are fully coherent with the EMFF Regulation. In particular, it was noted that the OMC has a strong role in ensuring that Member State MANPs were fully aligned with the Strategic Guidelines and thus integrated into the Member State EMFF OPs. The EMFF Regulation was adopted a year after the Strategic Guidelines were published and the same year as the reformed CFP entered into force (2014). The EMFF Regulation intends to support the implementation of the CFP and includes aquaculture within its scope. Aquaculture support is provided under the shared management component, although the AAC is funded via direct management. The EMFF Regulation recognises the role of the Strategic Guidelines, stating that “the EMFF should support the environmentally, economically and socially sustainable development of the aquaculture industry”. In recital 49, the EMFF Regulation focuses on financial assistance on SMEs, and specifically refers to increasing the competitiveness and economic performance of aquaculture activities. Recital 51 notes the role of the EMFF in supporting the definition and mapping of [aquaculture] zones, thus contributing to maritime spatial planning. The EMFF Regulation also sets out six Union Priorities (UP) for the sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture, which includes “Fostering environmentally sustainable, resource-efficient, innovative, competitive and knowledge-based aquaculture”, which lays the basis for the subsequent Chapter II on the sustainable development of aquaculture (see table below).

Key aspects of the EMFF Regulation Chapter II (Art. 45 – 57) relevant to the OMC include: Specific Objectives of the OMC EMFF Regulation Simplifying administrative procedures (reducing administrative burdens) ·Provides integrated financing of CFP and IMP expenditure. ·The ex-ante conditionality for the development of MANPs ensures that a strategic approach to reduce administrative burden is reflected in Member State EMFF OPs. Securing sustainable development and growth of aquaculture through coordinated spatial planning (improving access to space and water) ·EMFF support in marine protected areas is only eligible if an environmental impact assessment (EIA) shows that there is no negative environmental impact that cannot be adequately mitigated (Art. 46(5)). ·Identification and mapping of the most suitable areas for developing aquaculture (Art. 51). Enhancing the competitiveness of EU aquaculture ·Innovation e.g. technical, new species development, new or improved processes, etc. (Art. 47). ·Modernisation and diversification of aquaculture & species cultured (Art. 48). ·Increasing energy efficiency (Art. 48). ·Support organic or energy-efficient aquaculture (Art. 53). ·Reduce risk through aquaculture stock insurance (Art. 57). Promoting a level playing field for EU operators by exploiting their competitive advantages (high quality, health and environmental standards). ·Reducing environmental impact (Art. 48) and support for EIAs (Art. 49). ·Enhance the quality of, and adding value to, aquaculture products (Art. 48). ·Improving health and safety standards (Art 49). ·Supporting public health measures (Art. 55). ·Foster animal health and welfare (Art. 56). The MANPs are also closely related and complementary to the OPs of the EMFF, as: ·Article 18 of the EMFF provides that SWOT analyses of the OPs shall be consistent with the MANPs. ·Article 48(3) of the EMFF restricts the eligibility of measures for the increase in production and/or modernisation of existing aquaculture enterprises, or for the construction of new ones to operations that are consistent with the multiannual national strategic plan for the development of aquaculture. ·Annex IV of the EMFF makes the establishment of a MANP on aquaculture an ex-ante conditionality for the use of UP2 of the EMFF. A MANP had to be transmitted to the Commission at the latest by the day of transmission of the OP. The OP has to also include information on the complementarities with the MANP on aquaculture. ·The EMFF shall be a major source of financing for initiatives foreseen in the MANPs (see also Section 4.2 of the Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture). The EMFF Regulation is entirely consistent with the specific objectives of the OMC. This is logic since they both emerged over a similar time period and are underpinned by the reformed CFP and its pre-cursor developments. 3) There are no major inconsistences in policy texts concerning (i) environment, (ii) food safety, (iii) animal health and welfare and (iv) research and innovation. EU strategic thinking on sustainable aquaculture development is implicit both in the reformed CFP and the Strategic Guidelines. Both of these key processes emerged after the Birds and Habitats Directives (1992), WFD (2000) and MSFD (2008) and thus are broadly coherent with these cornerstone environmental directives. Much of the current policy directives and funding mechanisms are aligned with Europe 2020, and with the synchronisation of public funding through the EU cohesion mechanism, specifically the Common Provisions Regulation over the 2014 – 2020 period. This has helped enforce complementarity and coherence between the EMFF and other EU regulations in the environment, food safety and animal health and welfare in particular. Evidence and argumentation Although competence for aquaculture management is shared with the Member States, many related policy areas are set at EU level. These include: 1.Fisheries: Common Fisheries Policy; 2.Environment: Birds and Habitats Directives ensuring that aquaculture is not environmentally damaging in Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protected Areas (SPAs), MSFD and the WFD aiming at improving water quality and aiming at ‘good ecological status’ in inshore coastal waters, estuaries, rivers and ground water and at “good environmental status” in marine waters. 3.Food safety: General Food Law ; 4.Animal health and welfare: Protection of animals kept for farming purposes , European Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015 , Council Directive on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals, Regulation on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (the ‘Animal Health Law’ ); 5.Research and innovation: Europe 2020; Horizon 2020. The evaluators could not find any significant inconsistencies between the Strategic Guidelines and the abovementioned policies. Environmental protection and sustainability are strongly built into the CFP and relative instruments such as the EMFF. In 2010, a gap analysis assessed the adequacy of EU legislation to address the key pressures related to aquaculture (e.g. introduction of alien species, changes in water biochemistry etc), and no significant regulatory gaps were detected . This review includes the Birds and Habitats Directives, MSFD and WFD and is thus still relevant. In 2012 the Commission produced a ‘Guidance document on aquaculture activities in the Natura 2000 Network’ . Another review into the legal and regulatory constraints in EU aquaculture noted Member States’ concern over the ability of the WFD to provide the same level of protection as the Shellfish Waters Directive that was repealed in 2013 as the WFD became better consolidated. In 2016 the Commission produced a Commission Staff Working Document on the application of the WFD and the MSFD in relation to aquaculture . Food safety is an important issue for aquaculture, especially given the extensive trade in fresh seafood products, including highly perishable items such as shellfish and oily finfish (e.g. salmon). The Food and Veterinary Office in the Commission and the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) both cover aquaculture products. Research and innovation are a key part of the OMC’s objective to remain competitive. As discussed above, mechanisms to fund innovation and research in aquaculture are part of the EMFF, and “Competitive and environmentally-friendly European aquaculture” is a specific topic under Horizon 2020, most recently under a ‘Blue Growth’ banner. EU policies affecting aquaculture are coherent. However a couple of minor issues were noted: ·The OMC is lacking quantified targets in terms of reaching its specific objectives, and how they relate to other policy targets. It is recognised that this was probably not possible nor advisable at the time, but any revision of the OMC should consider broad targets, both for aquaculture and related policy areas. ·A number of MANPs were seen to lack recognition of the possible environmental consequences of some of the actions. It is recommended that this is addressed in the context of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the next generation of EMFF programmes, as consistency between such programmes and MANPs is required in Article 23 (2) of the Commission’s proposal for the 2020-2027 programming period. Evidence and argumentation In France, EMFF funding (via Art. 58) has been used to support communication, especially on the benefits of their Label Rouge ecolabel when used with farmed seafood. Through this approach, the trout market has experienced significant growth in terms of value. This approach has been similar to that adopted in Spain and Greece, although there has been less dependence upon third-party certification, and more on (i) the role of POs in promoting the products from particular aquaculture segments (e.g. shellfish), (ii) improving labelling and traceability and (iii) promoting linkages between aquaculture and tourism. In Ireland, the latter theme is also common. The government agency Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) is proposing an EMFF-funded project focussing on improving communication concerning aquaculture. Working closely with the European Commission’s ‘Farmed in the EU’ initiative, this study will assess the economic and societal benefits of aquaculture to coastal and rural communities. In Spain, the MANP highlighted the absence of strategic, sectorial communication and of specialised communication professionals in this field. As a result, a “National Plan for the Communication on Spanish Aquaculture” was put in place under the ’level-playing field” priority, with 21 specific actions initiated to date. In Spain, it was also noted that development of the “Acuivisor online GIS aquaculture planning tool” had limited levels of stakeholder communication and validation to date. 5) What about the coherence between Member States’ aquaculture objectives and their environmental policy objectives ? EU environmental objectives (as provided via the Birds and Habitats Directives, the WFD and the MSFD) apply to aquaculture. Whilst environmental sustainability is a common theme running through the MANPs, there is little evidence of any formal, systematic analysis ensuring coherence between environmental issues and aquaculture development. Evidence and argumentation The Strategic Guidelines stated that aquaculture is dependent on clean and healthy marine and fresh waters and that EU environmental legislation – in particular the WFD, the MSFD and the Regulation concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture - ensures that these preconditions are met . There has been previous work on the subject , , and in 2016 the European Commission produced a Commission Staff Working Document on the application of the WFD and the MSFD in relation to aquaculture . The suggested outline structure for MANPs - provided as an Annex to the Strategic Guidelines - does not provide specific guidance on how ‘national environmental objectives’ are defined, how environmental considerations should be included in the MANPs, how they might be related to specific aquaculture objectives nor any discussion of the possible trade-offs that might have to be considered as a result. A review of the