CONTENTS Glossary 1. Introduction 2. Background to the initiative Description of the initiative and its objectives Development and implementation of integrated governance of maritime and coastal affairs (Article 82.1) Development of cross-sectoral activities (Article 82.2) Support for sustainable economic growth, employment, innovation and new technologies (Article 82.3) Promotion of the protection of the marine environment (Article 82.4) Collection, management and dissemination of scientific advice under the CFP (Article 85.1) Specific control and enforcement measures under the CFP (Article 85.2) Voluntary contributions to international organisations (Article 85.3) Advisory Councils and communication (Article 85.4) Market intelligence, including the establishment of electronic markets (Article 85.5) Intervention Logic Baseline Common Fisheries Policy Integrated Maritime Policy 3. Evaluation questions

General questions Specific questions linked to the various intervention categories: Public consultation External study Other information Limitations – robustness of findings 4. Implementation state of play 5. Answers to the evaluation questions Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness Integrated governance Marine knowledge Spatial planning Maritime surveillance Blue growth Marine environment Scientific advice Control and enforcement Voluntary agreements

Advisory Councils Market intelligence Technical assistance Coherence EU added-value 6. Conclusions Relevance Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence EU added value Glossary ABAC Accrual-based accounting – the European Commission’s accounting system AC Advisory Council Baltic SCOPE Project on spatial planning in the Baltic BTM Blue Time Machine – digital representation of blue planet CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources – part of the Antarctic Treaty System CFP EU’s Common Fisheries Policy CISE Common Information Sharing Environment (for maritime surveillance) CMO Common Market Organisation (for fisheries) DCF Data Collection Framework (for fisheries) DG Directorate General of the European Commission EASME Executive Agency for Small and Medium Enterprises EFCA European Fisheries Control Agency EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund EMODnet European Marine Observation and Data Network EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency ENV Directorate General for Environment of the European Commission ERIC European Research Infrastructure Consortium ESI European Structural and Investment (Fund) EU European Union EUMOFA European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products FAIR findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable FAME Fisheries and Aquaculture Monitoring and Evaluation under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) FAME SU Fisheries and Aquaculture Monitoring and Evaluation under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) Support Unit FARNET Fisheries Area Network the community of people implementing Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) FLAG Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs) are partnerships between fisheries actors and other local private and public stakeholder FRONTEX European Border and Coastguard Agency GES Good Environmental Status GFCM General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean GROW European Commission Directorate General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IFDM Integrated Fisheries Data Management IMP Integrated Maritime Policy IMS Information Management System (for maritime surveillance) INTERREG Part of the European Regional Development Fund supporting cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IT Information technology MARE European Commission Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries MedFish4Ever Ministerial declaration for strengthening fisheries management and governance in the Mediterranean MS Member State (of the European Union) MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive MSP Maritime Spatial Planning RCG Regional Coordination Groups (for fisheries data) RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation SimCelt Cross-border spatial planning project involving UK, Ireland and France SROCC IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries UN United Nations UNCLOS United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea 1.Introduction The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) supports the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP). National authorities implement 90% of the Fund under shared management. Just over 10% (a total of €647,275,400 over the seven-year funding period 2014-2020) has been earmarked for measures that are implemented directly by the European Commission and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium Enterprises (EASME). Between 200 and 300 contracts under this direct management part of the programme are signed each year. This interim evaluation assesses the efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, coherence and added value of the measures managed under direct management. The results will be used to guide the implementation of the last year of the programme and its follow-up in 2021-2027.

The analysis presented in this report draws on information from several sources: an external study (the Coffey evaluation report), an open public consultation, opinions expressed on individual components of the EMFF in open literature and insights of officials in the European Commission and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME). It covers the period 2014-2018 which is slightly more than halfway through the programme. The measures under direct management cover nine specific objectives, each with an earmarked budget allocation which was amended by a delegated regulation in 2017. One of these, “cross-cutting actions”, included three very distinct sub-objectives which required separate treatment. This evaluation therefore covers measures to meet 11 identifiable objectives as well as technical assistance to support the shared management component of the EMFF. Communication activities were not included as they have been evaluated separately. 2. Background to the initiative Description of the initiative and its objectives The Common Fisheries Policy aims to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities be environmentally sustainable over the long-term and managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies. The Integrated Maritime Policy is based on a clear recognition that all matters relating to oceans and seas are interlinked, and that sea-related policies must develop in a joined-up way if we are to achieve the desired results. The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund supported these objectives through a package of measures, each with a specific objective. Development and implementation of integrated governance of maritime and coastal affairs (Article 82.1) 5% of budget, increasing to 6% after the 2017 amendment The aim was to help break down silos between ministries, departments and agencies and between countries in order to lead to a more integrated approach to matters concerning the sea. Particular emphasis was placed on encouraging cooperation amongst authorities around a sea basin. This included non-EU countries which is particularly relevant for the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. This was largely accomplished through events, the largest being European Maritime Day held each year in a different coastal city, and through assistance mechanisms; these being secretariats who maintained on-line platforms, gathered information on relevant activities and funding opportunities, organised workshops for stakeholders and disseminated this information Development of cross-sectoral activities (Article 82.2) 33% of budget, falling to 24% after 2017 amendment The aim of these three activities was to improve coordination between different authorities within a country and between different countries. There were three strands, each targeting a separate objective: 1)improving the sharing and usability of marine data Data on the marine environment is essential for those managing or engaging in economic activity on the sea. A prototype Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) was already gathering data held by institutions in the EU and neighbouring countries and distributing them in a FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) manner. Following on from the 2012 Commission Green Paper “Marine Knowledge 2020”, the aim was to continue this “flagship project to build a seamless multi-resolution digital seabed map of European waters by 2020 (…) accompanied by access to timely observations and information on the present and past physical, chemical and biological state of the overlying water column”. The work under the EMFF involved (1) building a partnership of over 100 institutions to construct this digital map (2) undertaking stress tests to identify gaps and fitness for purpose and (3) supporting the deployment of Argo floats to measure oceanic temperature and salinity. 2)facilitating the sharing of information between authorities responsible for management, safety and security of activities at sea, particularly through the Common Information Sharing Environment (CISE) The aim was to complement the flow of information between maritime authorities – coastguards, border guards, fisheries inspectors, navigation authorities, customs officers, etc. – with a voluntary sharing of relevant information not already legally required in accordance with EU-law to be collected, reported, exchanged and shared, in order to build up an enhanced picture of what is happening at sea and to detect illegal or dangerous activity. This was accomplished in two ways (1) creating a coastguard forum to bring coastguards from different countries together to share experience and best practice and (2) building a Common Information Sharing Environment (CISE) that would allow information to pass between authorities in a secure and efficient manner. 3)helping Member States implement the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive, with a particular focus on ensuring coherence between neighbouring countries The 2014 Maritime Spatial Planning Directive obliged EU Member States to develop plans for their waters by 2021 defining where and how activities would be permitted in their waters. The objective of the EMFF measure was to help Member States achieve this objective. Particular emphasis was given to facilitating the obligation for Member States to take into account the plans of their neighbours through projects that brought authorities from different Member States sharing a common sea basin together.

Support for sustainable economic growth, employment, innovation and new technologies (Article 82.3) 2% of budget, increasing to 17% after 2017 amendment The Commission Communication on Blue Growth originally aimed to promote growth in five strategic areas not already subject to significant EU attention – aquaculture, coastal tourism, marine biotechnology, ocean energy and seabed mining – but later covered a broader set of activities; particularly those that contributed to societal goals such as decarbonisation or the circular economy. Initial spending on this objective was largely on studies to identify the state of play in these five sectors, especially bottlenecks to growth. And, since many of these studies identified lack of investment as a significant barrier, later efforts focused on this aspect. After the 2017 amendment to the EMFF regulation, an increasing proportion of the budget was spent on bottom-up projects whereby small and medium-sized enterprises obtained grants enabling them to enter the market or scale-up their activities. From 2019 these grants were conditional on obtaining a letter of intent from a body willing to invest in the activity subject to the grant award. An assistance mechanism was set up to provide coaching and advice to the enterprises seeking investment. Promotion of the protection of the marine environment (Article 82.4) 5% of budget The Marine Strategy Framework Directive has been identified as the environmental pillar of the integrated maritime policy. It sets an objective of achieving good environmental status (GES) of the EU's marine waters by 2020 and thus protecting the resource base upon which marine-related economic and social activities depend. The environmental status is constructed from 11 descriptors. Measures under the EMFF mainly involved studies to identify how to measure these descriptors and how to identify and quantify the human activities that influence them. Collection, management and dissemination of scientific advice under the CFP (Article 85.1) 11% of budget The EU is responsible for setting measures to ensure the sustainability of the European fishing industry by protecting fish population size and productivity over the long term. This requires significant scientific expertise to identify the appropriate measures – quotas for catches, limits to fishing effort, temporary or permanent avoidance of protected areas, restrictions on fishing gear etc. Since the marine environment and fishing practices change with time and since there are many unknown or unmeasurable factors that influence the size and nature of the stocks, the scientific advice needs to be updated regularly. Most stock advice is reviewed annually. Advice on specific questions was mainly provided by scientists working under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), supported by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre, which provided the secretariat. Some advice on Mediterranean stocks was provided separately under Article 85.3 of the EMFF “voluntary contributions to international organisations”. Where advice was needed that required more information than can be obtained from readily available data, the EMFF has financed studies. Data collection was co-financed separately under the shared management component of the EMFF. The direct management component helped countries to coordinate this collection with other countries sharing the same sea basin. Specific control and enforcement measures under the CFP (Article 85.2) 19% of the budget, falling to 11% after the 2017 amendment Member States are responsible for enforcing the Common Fisheries Policy rules in their water and in their vessels but need to communicate and report to other Member States, to the European Fisheries Control Agency and the Commission. Most of the budget was allocated to building and maintaining an information technology system that could facilitate this. A smaller share was dedicated to inspections by the Commission of national control and enforcement processes. It was originally intended to finance the joint chartering of patrol vessels but this option was not taken up for reasons explained later in this evaluation (page 43) Voluntary contributions to international organisations (Article 85.3) 10% of the budget, increasing to 13% after the 2017 amendment Regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) are international organisations formed by countries with fishing interests in a given area. Some of them manage all the fish stocks found in that specific area, while others focus on particular highly-migratory species, notably tuna, throughout vast geographical areas. The European Commission represents the Member States who fish the stocks in question. The European Commission plays an active role in 6 tuna and 11 non-tuna RFMOs or other regional fisheries bodies.

The EMFF awarded grants to 14 separate bodies (over and above the membership fees) to cover specific purposes such as scientific research or administrative capacity. A significant share of the financing to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation was allocated to building capacity at the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. Advisory Councils and communication (Article 85.4) 9% of total budget, falling to 7% after the 2017 amendment The Advisory Councils (ACs) are stakeholder-led organisations that provide the Commission and EU countries with recommendations on fisheries management matters. This may include advice on conservation and socioeconomic aspects of management of fisheries and aquaculture, and on simplification of rules. Advisory Councils are consulted in the context of regionalisation. They can also contribute to data for fisheries management and conservation measures. Advisory Councils are composed of representatives from the industry and from other interest groups (with a 60% - 40% allocation of the seats in the general assembly and the executive committee). Ten Advisory Councils received EU financial assistance from the EMFF over the period of this evaluation for pursuing an aim of general European interest. A new Council for the Outermost Regions was set up in 2019. Market intelligence, including the establishment of electronic markets (Article 85.5) 9% of total budget, falling to 7% after the 2017 amendment. The EMFF supports the enhance of transparency and efficiency of the market for fishery and aquaculture products for producers, processors, importers, retailers, consumers, markets' analysts and policy makers through the EU Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture products (EUMOFA) EUMOFA enables direct monitoring of the volume, value and price of fishery and aquaculture products, from first sale to the retail stage, including imports and exports. Data are collected from EU countries, Norway, Iceland and from EU institutions, updated every day. Intervention Logic The EMFF measures were designed to stimulate the blue economy and strengthen healthy ecosystems. Cooperation between the different communities and government departments responsible was a third objective which contributed to the other two. A broad package of measures aimed at private industry, public authorities, the research community and civil society involving advice, events, studies, capacity building, organisational support, dissemination of data and knowledge and bottom-up projects were financed. The relationship and pathways between the measures and the desired outcomes is illustrated in Figure 1 . Figure 1intervention logic Baseline Common Fisheries Policy Although there were some differences in detail, measures in support of the Common Fisheries Policy (Articles 85.1-85.4) were mainly continuations of measures previously carried out under Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006. A study to evaluate the first three of these measures provides a baseline. It drew the following conclusions. Collection, management and dissemination of scientific advice under the CFP (Article 85.1) The study found that the timeliness of data submissions could have been improved and that better tracking was needed to assess how the advice is taken account of in fisheries management. Nevertheless, the objectives could not have been met by individual Member States alone. Responsibility for data collection shifted to the shared management part of the EMFF after 2013 with regional coordination handed to Member States in line with the Common Fisheries Policy’s regionalisation strategy. Specific control and enforcement measures under the CFP (Article 85.2)

The budget was largely taken up by introduction of new technologies, in particular IT tools. The work was beset by underspending, failure to implement projects or projects started and then abandoned. The study recommended a more long-term, flexible plan for control and enforcement, in particular for data exchange and IT tools development. Voluntary contributions to international organisations (Article 85.3) The study found that financial support was effective and efficient and clearly benefited the organisations concerned, though some administrative processes could have been streamlined. Better performance indicators would have helped demonstrate the favourable outcomes. There has been no evaluation of the other two measures related to fisheries: Advisory Councils and market intelligence. Advisory Councils (Article 85.4) Seven Advisory Councils were set up following a 2004 Council Decision. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy in December 2013 created four new Councils and reinforced their role in the regionalisation process. The impact assessment for this reform did not cover Advisory Councils, though there had been some questioning of whether the pre-reform Common Fisheries Policy top-down system focusing on the setting of Total Allowable Catches (TACs) provided space for such multi-actor reflection and deliberation. The reform introduced the obligation for 40% of members to be from outside the industry, for instance environmental lobbies or labour organisations. It was expected that this would deliver not only more balanced advice but would also enable local stakeholders to hear a more diverse range of views. Market intelligence (Article 85.5) The project to develop an EU market intelligence tool, EUMOFA, began in 2010 following a request from the European Parliament for the Commission to implement a preparatory action. Before this, there was little economic knowledge and understanding of the Union market for fisheries and aquaculture products along the supply chain. It only became fully operational during the period of this evaluation. Integrated Maritime Policy In 2007, the Blue Book announced the launch of an integrated maritime policy. It had no dedicated fund. It identified a number of maritime policy activities, notably the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet), the Common Information Sharing Environment (CISE) and spatial planning, which were initially funded through pilot projects and preparatory action proposed by the European Parliament. Following these pilots, €40 million of financing was allocated under Regulation 1255/2011 establishing a programme to support the further development of an Integrated Maritime Policy. Several of the 70 projects started under this regulation were not completed before a study for the ex-post evaluation so the conclusions drawn were tentative. These were: Development and implementation of an integrated governance of maritime and coastal affairs (Article 82.1) The study confirmed that events were well attended. In particular stakeholders reported that the European Maritime Days and regional workshops helped raise awareness of maritime affairs and the sustainable development of the blue economy. Development of cross-sectoral initiatives (Article 82.2) According to the study: -The European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) was operational but still in its infancy. The basic idea was that marine data collected for one purpose should be available for others. Stakeholders responding to the interim evaluation asked that the network distribute data products such as digital maps as well as raw data. -The Common Information Sharing Environment for the maritime domain (CISE) was a new and complex information-sharing concept. The investment was considered worthwhile given the substantial improvement it could bring to the efficiency of Europe’s maritime awareness capabilities by exchanging maritime information across sectors and borders. -Projects on spatial planning mainly focused on raising awareness amongst stakeholders, including through cross-border projects. This may have contributed to the adoption of the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive in 2014. Support for sustainable economic growth, employment, innovation and new technologies (Article 82.3)

The studies on emerging economic activities funded under the programme for further development of maritime policy focused on those identified by the Commission’s Communication on Blue Growth (coastal tourism, deep-sea mining, blue biotechnology, ocean energy and aquaculture). According to the ex-post evaluation, these provided a useful knowledge base for future activities to maximise their potential. Promotion of the protection of the marine environment (Article 82.4) Eleven descriptors of good environmental status had been listed in the 2008 Marine Strategy Framework Directive and a Commission Decision was adopted in 2010 laying down criteria and standards for their determination. Despite this a 2014 report by the Commission on the first phase of implementation identified many shortcomings. Articles 3(5)b and 5(2) impose coherence at a regional and EU level but the report found no shared EU understanding of good environmental status. There were over 20 different determinations across the EU, and therefore no common or comparable goals. Studies and workshops supported by Regulation 1255/2011 began investigations into these questions but had made little progress in resolving them. 3.Evaluation questions General questions relevance -To what extent is the measure still relevant? efficiency -To what extent has the measure been cost-effective? -Is the indicative distribution of funding reasonable? (Are the funds being used, if not why not? Are more funds needed, and if so, why)? effectiveness -To what extent have the objectives been achieved? -What have been the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure? -Regarding contracts over €1 million per year, are the deliverables being used by DG MARE or by stakeholders? coherence -To what extent is the measure coherent internally (with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy and integrated maritime policy) and externally (with wider EU policy objectives)? EU added value -What is the additional value resulting from the EU action taken compared to what could be achieved by Members States at national and/or regional levels? Specific questions linked to the various intervention categories: Development and implementation of an integrated governance of maritime and coastal affairs (Article 82.1)

-Have the measures contributed to a more integrated governance of maritime and coastal affairs? Development of cross-sectoral initiatives (Article 82.2) -Are the marine knowledge activities contributing to reducing costs of offshore or coastal activities, promoting innovation and reducing uncertainty in knowledge of the sea? -Have the marine spatial planning activities helped Member States set up spatial plans? -Will the maritime surveillance activities lead to an operational system for exchanging information between maritime authorities? Support for sustainable economic growth, employment, innovation and new technologies (Article 82.3) -Have ‘Blue Growth’ initiatives funded by the EMFF facilitated the development of marine economic activities (MEAs) and the jobs they generate? Promotion of the protection of the marine environment (Article 82.4) -Will the action taken help Member States report the state of the marine environment as part of their obligations under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive? Collection, management and dissemination of scientific advice under the CFP (Article 85.1) -To what extent have the studies, pilots and scientific advice funded under direct management contributed to improving the overall effectiveness and relevance of scientific advice to policy-making? -To what extent have the studies, pilots and scientific advice funded under direct management been coherent with research funded Horizon 2020? -How have data collection-related measures strengthened regional cooperation? Specific control and enforcement measures under the CFP (Article 85.2) -Which measures are most frequently implemented, and why? Which measures are least used, and why? -Why is there a reluctance from Member States to apply for joint chartering and/or purchase of control means? Should this measure be abandoned? If not, under which conditions that measure would be relevant in the next programming period? Voluntary contributions to international organisations (Article 85.3) -Are the voluntary agreements in line with the objective of the CFP? Do the contributions help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the international organisations (please provide a counterfactual - with and without Partnership Agreements - as proof). Advisory Councils (Article 85.4) -Have the Advisory Councils been able to provide substantial and timely recommendations on fisheries management matters, including advice on conservation and socioeconomic aspects of fisheries, and on simplification of rules?

Market intelligence, including the establishment of electronic markets (Article 85.5) -To what extent has EUMOFA delivered on the Commission commitments on market intelligence as defined in article 42 of the CMO Regulation (1379/2013)? Technical assistance -Are the tasks that FARNET implements meeting a need of the local community? If so, what structures are in place to hand over these tasks after 14 years of implementation? -What has FAME's contribution (EU value added) been to a more efficient and effective implementation of the monitoring and evaluation system of the shared management of the EMFF both at Member State and EU level? Public consultation A public consultation opened on 29 May 2018 and closed on 7 September 2018. The three main areas covered by maritime and fisheries policies – fisheries, marine environment and blue economy – elicited replies by representatives of all four stakeholder categories (public authorities, academia and research, private bodies and civil society). About one third had received EMFF funding. There were 200 respondents overall. Annex II gives more information on the results. Figure 2. Interests of respondents to public consultation Figure 3. Proportion of respondents who had received EMFF funding External study Following an open call for tender, a team led by Coffey International was contracted on 20 December 2017 for €179,420 to answer the questions set out in Section 3 of this report. The contract ended nine months later in September 2018. Since few of the measures resulting from the 2017 work programme had produced results, the study only covered the first three years of the programme from 2014-2016. Given that it was unfeasible to check all projects, the approach taken was to look at a representative sample, agreed with the Commission. The study team questioned stakeholders in a more targeted way than the public consultation. The conclusions of the final report were almost entirely based on the answers received rather than on quantitative analysis. The distribution of the respondents was as follows. Table 1 Stakeholders consulted in the Coffey evaluation study. All European Commission EASME civil society contractor private body public authority researcher 77 18 1 14 1 2 39 2 The study also looked in more detail at 5 out of the 747 projects run between 2014 and 2016 that they had agreed with the Commission as being representative. These covered spatial planning, environmental evaluation, scientific advice, advisory councils and market intelligence. This study is referred to as “the Coffey evaluation study” in this document. Other information

The analysis presented in this report takes into account information from the Coffey evaluation report, from the public consultation, opinions expressed on individual components of the EMFF in open literature and insights of officials from the Commission and EASME. Two of the cross-cutting objectives of the maritime policy (Article 82.2 of the EMFF regulation), better marine knowledge and more effective maritime surveillance, underwent separate evaluations during this period. Their conclusions were also taken into account. Financial information is taken from Commission decisions on annual work programmes for the programmed amount and from the Commission’s financial information system, ABAC, for the commitments and payments. Limitations – robustness of findings The main challenges in evaluating this programme were: -The number and variety of measures financed by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. Between 200 and 300 contracts through grants and procurement) were signed each year on topics ranging from tuna-tagging in the Indian Ocean to coastguard fora in the Mediterranean. -the novelty of many of the actions. Other than the short 2011-2013 preliminary programme, this was the first financial programme dedicated to the maritime policy. -The EMFF Regulation was adopted in May 2014 and the financial decision for the 2014 work programme in July 2014. Only a small proportion of projects were completed by the time of the Coffey evaluation study which only covered activity programmed in the years 2014 to 2016. This meant that bottom-up “innovation” projects” for the maritime policy which absorbed almost half the maritime policy part of the budget from 2017 onwards could not be evaluated. -The lack of performance indicators or catalogue of project reports meant that too much effort was spent in finding and assembling the output of activities rather than assessing their impact. Despite these impediments, this interim evaluation was able to determine what the programme delivered. More time is needed before it is feasible to quantify the full impact on society, the economy and the marine environment. 4.Implementation state of play At the beginning of each year, the Commission adopted a work programme in a decision that allocated the year’s budget to a set of identifiable measures for each specific objective of the EMFF regulation. The budget was split between these objectives as set out in section 3. Nearly all the programmed budget was committed ( Table 2 ). The only exception was for fisheries control. The reasons are explained in the following section. The Financial Regulation stipulates that commitments must be made by the end of the year following the budget allocation. Many projects span two to three years so payment figures lag the commitments. DG-MARE delegated part of the implementation of the programme to EASME under Commission Decision C(2014). DG-ENV implemented the part of the programme under Article 82.2(4) which concerned protection of the marine environment. Each year there were approximately 250 separate contracts signed, either through procurement or grants. Each measure was monitored by the contracting authority – DG-MARE, DG-ENV or EASME. Payments were conditional on fulfilment of the terms of the contract. Correspondence, contracts and reports were registered and stored in the Commission’s document registry ARES (Advanced Records System) and financial information on the Commission’s ABAC (Accrual Based Accounting) system. A number of the study reports are published on the web-site of the publications office of the EU. Other than consumption of the budget ( Table 2 ), there were no key performance indicators. The Commission reported annually to the EMFF Committee who expressed an opinion on the following year’s work programme. Specific strands of the work were presented at Expert Group meetings such as the Maritime Policy Expert Group or at stakeholder meetings such as the annual European Maritime Day. The Commission has been developing tools for managing expenditure that reduce the bureaucracy of budget management; both for the contracting authority and for the beneficiaries. However, during the period of this evaluation, 2014 to 2018, few were in operation. This is reflected in the conclusions on efficiency described in the next section. Table 2.Implementation of EMFF. The programmed amount was that published in the annual Commission decisions for the DG MARE work programme and their amendments The Commission does not routinely analyse the budget execution to this level of detail. The analysis was undertaken specifically for this evaluation.

All Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 fisheries Advisory Council committed (€) 12,012,732 1,750,000 1,750,000 2,700,000 2,908,861 2,903,871 contracts 44 7 7 9 10 11 paid (€) 10,377,111 1,647,554 1,658,956 2,137,498 2,532,340 2,400,763 programmed (€) 14,400,000 1,750,000 2,750,000 3,300,000 3,300,000 3,300,000 communication committed (€) 10,481,410 1,146,985 3,124,048 2,090,388 2,732,637 1,387,352 contracts 222 23 70 44 58 27 paid (€) 8,204,289 874,740 2,687,716 1,738,433 2,196,552 706,848 programmed (€) 15,682,016 3,741,245 3,743,771 1,778,000 4,119,000 2,300,000 control and enforcement committed (€) 26,174,580 3,984,352 6,466,116 4,802,962 5,430,142 5,491,009 contracts 306 28 59 59 78 82 paid (€) 21,421,819 3,566,184 4,017,099 4,258,764 4,764,112 4,815,660 programmed (€) 49,286,624 15,439,690 16,110,967 6,010,967 6,225,000 5,500,000 market intelligence committed (€) 21,400,964 4,047,880 4,047,880 4,565,030 4,462,375 4,277,798 contracts 13 1 1 3 3 5 paid (€) 19,354,126 4,047,880 4,047,880 4,565,030 4,462,375 2,230,961 programmed (€) 24,199,726 4,944,000 4,944,966 4,827,880 4,667,880 4,815,000 scientific advice committed (€) 38,392,692 6,528,076 6,537,917 8,309,630 7,862,068 9,155,000 contracts 78 14 13 16 15 20 paid (€) 27,692,502 6,056,915 5,784,164 7,105,519 4,726,016 4,019,888 programmed (€) 41,834,000 6,990,000 8,680,000 8,590,000 8,300,000 9,274,000 voluntary contributions committed (€) 52,985,041 6,053,998 7,691,350 14,415,960 12,530,471 12,293,262 contracts 141 18 31 34 24 34 paid (€) 44,107,671 5,375,639 7,189,557 12,543,632 10,344,585 8,654,257 programmed (€) 49,752,088 6,137,369 7,977,720 10,675,000 12,670,000 12,291,999 maritime policy blue growth committed (€) 55,268,376 1,956,530 1,283,837 5,351,852 21,723,572 24,952,585 contracts 94 5 7 14 36 32 paid (€) 25,405,173 1,941,489 1,226,423 4,783,813 9,485,564 7,967,884 programmed (€) 55,596,000 2,050,000 1,517,000 5,779,000 21,410,000 24,840,000 careers committed (€) 3,763,646 . . 3,763,646 . . contracts 7 . . 7 . . paid (€) 2,895,494 . . 2,895,494 . . programmed (€) 3,452,000 . . 3,452,000 . . evaluation and IT committed (€) 925,738 . 25,100 . 900,638 . contracts 5 . 1 . 4 . paid (€) 925,738 . 25,100 . 900,638 . programmed (€) 610,000 . 30,000 . 580,000 . integrated governance committed (€) 15,201,491 1,521,333 3,125,164 2,446,005 4,453,969 3,655,021 contracts 202 55 45 45 32 25 paid (€) 11,438,128 1,422,085 2,943,491 2,158,581 3,359,050 1,554,922 programmed (€) 17,970,220 1,850,000 3,575,000 2,528,240 5,296,980 4,720,000 marine data committed (€) 46,730,890 5,368,630 13,481,708 13,691,626 8,517,925 5,671,000 contracts 26 5 4 8 4 5 paid (€) 32,851,992 5,368,630 13,081,736 13,691,626 710,000 . programmed (€) 47,440,000 5,680,000 13,800,000 13,830,000 8,600,000 5,530,000 marine environment committed (€) 20,443,560 3,663,470 3,637,598 4,269,799 4,269,790 4,602,903 contracts 45 8 7 8 12 10 paid (€) 14,524,544 3,355,206 3,163,514 4,060,708 2,663,574 1,281,543 programmed (€) 19,837,262 3,260,000 3,637,598 4,269,664 4,270,000 4,400,000 spatial planning committed (€) 26,703,262 7,179,266 6,774,774 7,548,607 1,986,173 3,214,441 contracts 22 5 4 5 3 5 paid (€) 18,683,484 6,153,887 5,071,707 5,068,346 1,206,567 1,182,977 programmed (€) 27,822,760 8,230,000 7,130,000 7,077,760 2,115,000 3,270,000 surveillance committed (€) 15,647,694 6,485,515 1,393,519 2,000,958 697,722 5,069,980 contracts 35 13 6 7 3 6 paid (€) 11,828,416 5,573,340 1,138,523 1,658,159 523,801 2,934,594 programmed (€) 19,748,000 8,250,000 3,048,000 2,190,000 1,190,000 5,070,000 technical assistance technical assistance committed (€) 18,618,805 2,431,360 4,210,548 4,128,794 3,825,095 4,023,009 contracts 83 15 17 18 15 18 paid (€) 17,284,796 2,108,105 4,194,733 4,004,169 3,303,824 3,673,966 programmed (€) 18,591,500 2,416,500 4,300,000 4,160,000 3,735,000 3,980,000 Annex 5 gives a breakdown of the measures by type (projects, events, capacity building etc.) for each specific objective. 5.Answers to the evaluation questions Relevance To what extent is the measure still relevant? Figure 4. Stakeholders’ response to questions on the relevance of EMFF measures on (1) creation of digital sea bed maps; (2) events to share knowledge between stakeholders; (3) projects to facilitate cross-border spatial planning; (4) projects to improve information flow between maritime authorities; (5) studies to help authorities meet the requirements of Marine Strategy Framework Directive; (6) studies to improve knowledge of blue growth. The aim of the Common Fisheries Policy is to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities be environmentally sustainable over the long-term and managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies. The primary objective of the Union's Integrated Maritime Policy (‘IMP’) is to develop and implement integrated, coordinated, coherent, transparent and sustainable decision-making in relation to the oceans, seas, coastal, insular and outermost regions and in the maritime sectors. Council and Parliament adopted the EMFF regulation on the basis that it was relevant to the objectives of these policies. Stakeholders from public authorities, private companies, civil society and the research community overwhelmingly agreed that meeting the objectives of the EMFF measures contributes to meeting the objectives of integrated maritime policy ( Figure 3 . ) or the Common Fisheries Policy ( Figure 4 ) and were thus relevant. Figure 5. Stakeholders’ response to questions on the relevance of EMFF measures on (1) contributions to international organisations; (2) observatory for fishery and aquaculture products; (3) scientific advice for fisheries; (4) support to Advisory Councils; (5) support to information technology and chartering vessels; (6) support to regional fisheries management organisations. The measures continue to be relevant. Specifically, progress has been made in ocean governance – more Member States have coordinating mechanisms between ministries although some do not. Seabed maps have been produced but they need to be maintained and enhanced. Member States still need support for spatial planning. The Common Information Sharing Environment for maritime surveillance is not yet operational and investment gaps remain in the blue economy. The EU has exclusive competence for managing European fish stocks and will continue to require fisheries advice. Fisheries enforcement needs more effective tools for monitoring and communication. Strengthening regional fisheries management organisation will continue to be a priority for ocean governance. Bottom-up advice from Advisory Councils will provide the needed check on how the Common Fisheries Policy is working and the much-appreciated market intelligence tool, EUMOFA, will continue to be needed. Efficiency To what extent has the measure been cost-effective? Could results have been achieved with fewer resources? Figure 6. How efficient were the measures that you participated in? Could results have been achieved with fewer resources? Results are expressed as proportion of those of total number of that category (public authority etc.). Only those receiving EMFF funding were asked this question. Stakeholders concurred that the results could not have been obtained with fewer resources ( Figure 5 ) but considered that the administrative burden was excessive ( Figure 6 ). This was not the case for some time-critical measures. For instance, the Coffey evaluation study considered that the annual work programme for the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) ensured that essential scientific advice was delivered in time to meet policy needs.

A high proportion of the calls for proposals and calls for tender are handled by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium Enterprises (EASME). According to EASME annual reports, the average time to grant fell from 221 days in 2017 to 188 in 2018. For procurement, the time between the “time limit for receipt of tenders” and “signature by the last party” was 135 calendar days for 2017 and 160 calendar days for 2018. These figures are better than those achieved by other programmes managed by the Agency (e.g. Horizon 2020). The EU Financial Regulations sets a maximum of nine months (243 calendar days) for time to grant except in exceptional circumstances. There is, however, still room for improvement in terms of efficiency. Much of the work involved entails routine checking for compliance with regulations. Due to its novelty, EMFF was implemented in relative isolation with paper-based procedures. It also lacked a common support service in the Commission for legal matters, business processes and IT tools. Dedicated IT systems and the move to fully electronic grant management procedures (eGrant) were implemented in time for the 2018 calls for proposals. These measures will aid project management and will facilitate policy feedback, communication and dissemination of the activities. Further simplification, a more risk-based approach to compliance and better alignment with other programmes could considerably reduce the workload and speed up the process. Figure 7. How efficient were the measures that you participated in? Was the administrative burden in participating in the measures proportionate? Results are expressed as proportion of the total number in that category (public authority etc.). Only those receiving EMFF funding were asked this question. Although some long-term planning helps applicants and EASME plan their resources, the process could be more flexible to adjust to changes in policy priorities. Proposals to allocate a proportion of the EMFF for spending in a particular year are for all intents and purposes fixed in June each year for implementation the following year. If the need for a new study is identified in July, but not included in the June proposal, it takes 18 months before a project contract can be signed. Is the indicative distribution of funding reasonable (are the funds being used, if not why not, are more funds needed, why)? The funds are all being used as planned, with the exception of the amount programmed for joint chartering of patrol vessels. The reasons are explained under “EU added value”. The Coffey evaluation study reported that Advisory Councils would have liked to fund their own scientific research. The Commission position is that they are entitled to reply to calls for proposals for research or studies. Stakeholders asked for an increased base resolution of the seabed maps and better interoperability between surveys of marine life which was not feasible within the budget allocation. This will need to wait till the next programming period. It is not clear whether more funding would have led to a faster implementation of tools for connecting authorities responsible for enforcing fisheries rules. The Commission will undertake a thorough review of the state of play of the Integrated Fisheries Data Management programme. Effectiveness To what extent have the objectives been achieved? What were the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure? Figure 8. Answers to the question “How much have these actions contributed to the stronger maritime economy, better protection of marine resources or a more joined-up approach to maritime policies?” Overall, the respondents to the public consultation considered that the measures had been effective but there were differences in terms of the extent of impact. The scientific community believed that the main impact had been to protect marine resources; public authorities a more-joined-up approach to maritime policies. The private sector agreed that the impact of the measures had mostly been to protect the marine environment and join up maritime policies but that the blue growth studies had been an effective support to the blue economy. Civil society, by contrast, felt that the blue growth studies had been the least effective measure. They considered that the stakeholder events had been effective in building a more joined-up approach. ( Figure 7 ) The measures on scientific advice were considered to be the most effective in protecting the environment, blue growth studies the most effective in improving knowledge on stimulating the maritime economy and events the most effective in improving information flow between maritime authorities. A number of respondents to the public consultation thought that effectiveness could be improved by making the results more widely available and by bringing new insights from studies to those that could benefit from them. Effectiveness is the key criterion for the success of the programme and yet the hardest to measure. The effectiveness of each aspect of the measure is assessed separately below. Integrated governance Have the measures contributed to a more integrated governance of maritime and coastal affairs? Table 3. Contribution of EMFF to integrated governance 2014-2018

committed (€) contracts paid (€) programmed (€) evaluation 149,965 1 149,965 150,000 events 5,902,241 154 4,856,396 8,011,220 international governance 1,249,831 4 469,118 2,000,000 online presence 2,417,842 22 2,417,842 2,760,000 sea-basin assistance 3,701,051 18 1,950,176 3,929,000 Many government ministries and departments have an influence on what happens on our seas and coasts. Since measures implemented by one affect all the others, it has always been a priority in maritime policy to improve communication and coordination between them. Indeed the Commission’s 2007 Blue Book which launched the maritime policy indicate that it would invite Member States to draw up national integrated maritime policies, working closely with stakeholders, in particular the coastal regions; (2) propose in 2008 a set of guidelines for these national integrated maritime policies and report annually on EU and Member States' actions in this regard and (3) from 2009; organise a stakeholder consultation structure, feeding into further development of the maritime policy and allowing exchange of best practices In fact, on reflection, it proved impossible to come up with guidelines, other than those too general to be of practical use, that could cater for the very diverse administrative structures in Member States. So the focus has been on the third aspect; bringing stakeholders together. The most successful measure on this front has been European Maritime Day, an event of workshops and exhibits, which rotates between different European maritime cities. Stakeholders from the public and private sector gain an overview of different areas of maritime policy and have an opportunity to discuss new ideas. Success depends on the city being easily accessible and having a venue that can meet the demand for workshop and exhibition space. The 2019 event was the most successful yet, with 1,500 participants. Respondents to the open stakeholder survey find that the events help different stakeholders assess how to achieve common objectives. Considerable effort has also gone into increasing conversation between stakeholders round the same sea-basin. The EMFF has supported “assistance mechanisms”, such as the ones for the Atlantic and the Western Mediterranean, as well as many events. These have been particularly useful for the Mediterranean and Black Sea because they provide a forum for involving non-EU countries who are excluded from many fora, such as those set up to implement the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive. A maritime forum provides a web-platform that can be managed by stakeholders and that can avoid the issue, pointed out by the Coffey evaluation study, of web-sites being discontinued once projects end. It complies with a new Commission policy insisting that all web-sites shift to the Europa domain. The forum is increasingly used for events, assistance mechanisms and fora including the Ocean Energy Forum, the Bioeconomy Forum, the Blue-Invest Platform, the Ocean Literacy Platform and the Ocean Governance Platform. The web page for the 2017 Black Sea Stakeholder conference on blue economy has been viewed by 3,348 people. Marine knowledge Are the marine knowledge activities contributing to reducing costs of offshore or coastal activities, promoting innovation and reducing uncertainty in knowledge of the sea? Table 4. EMFF contribution to marine knowledge 2014-2018 committed (€) contracts paid (€) programmed (€) assembly and dissemination 30,891,174 13 20,772,748 37,010,000 observation 3,999,726 1 3,253,890 4,000,000 secretariat 1,940,000 2 1,230,000 2,020,000 stress tests 4,174,990 4 4,174,990 4,350,000 studies 54,000 1 54,000 60,000 The EMFF has supported over one hundred organisations that make up the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) to build a shared data platform. Ten years ago, their marine data holdings, made up of observations costing over €1 billion annually from the public purse, were hidden. Finding them, accessing them and obtaining permission to use them took months or years. Measurements were repeated because previous observations were unavailable. There is still some way to go but substantial progress has been made. The objective set in 2012 has been achieved. A complete multi-resolution digital map of European waters has been constructed. EMODnet now allows users to access reliable data through a single gateway without restrictions of access. Annual reports show that the volume of data held and number of users are growing. Specifically: -It has reduced the cost of offshore or coastal activities. Numerous small businesses engaged in planning or assessing the impact of new structures such as wind farms or pipelines have reported that it has increased their efficiency. It was used by WindEurope to estimate the space requirements for the planned deployment of offshore wind turbines in 2050. -It has supported innovation. It was used by the Blue Time Machine (BTM) (from Spain) who won second prize in the 2019 EU datathon with their simulation of the impact of climate change on marine activities. -It has reduced uncertainty. The UK meteorological office have reported that the seabed topography map from EMODnet has massively improved their storm surge forecasts in the North Sea. A €4 million grant to the Euro-Argo ERIC (European Research Infrastructure Consortium) co-financed the procurement and deployment of 150 floats measuring salinity and temperature as a contribution towards the European effort under the international Argo programme. The 2019 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) concluded that Argo had greatly improved understanding of large-scale ocean circulation, including the Meridional Overturning Circulation in the Atlantic. Figure 9. Increase in data downloads for different categories of data held by EMODnet 2015-2018 An external evaluation of EMODnet completed in 2018 concluded that the net annual benefits of EMODnet are “between €288 million to €407 million from a combined effect of increased productivity, fostered innovation and reduced uncertainty”. Further improvements could increase these benefits. The external evaluation, stress tests undergone for each sea basin and the cross-border spatial planning projects supported by the EMFF determined that benefits would increase if the resolution of the digital seabed maps increased. Abundance maps have been prepared for a number of species but biodiversity remains a challenge. Combining different surveys is a laborious task because the same species may be labelled differently and because absence of a particular species may be because it was not present, because it was misidentified or because it was not included in the analysis. An Agile approach to project management has enabled continual year by year improvement. Continual support from EMFF has overcome the sustainability challenge faced by other data management programmes financed though limited-term project.

The increasing use of EMODnet services is shown in Figure 8 . Spatial planning Have the marine spatial planning activities helped Member States set up spatial plans? Table 5. EMFF contribution to spatial planning 2014-2018 committed (€) contracts paid (€) programmed (€) assistance 5,101,546 7 4,337,618 6,397,760 projects 17,649,656 10 12,000,352 20,800,000 studies 1,085,884 3 651,236 1,745,000 Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 obliged EU Member States to draw up maritime spatial plans by March 2021. The Coffey evaluation study pointed out that, without proper indicators, it had not been possible to monitor Member States’ progress in drawing up plans or to assess the contribution of the EMFF in helping them do so. However, there has been considerable interest in the Maritime Spatial Planning Platform, which has a website providing information on ongoing activities in spatial planning. In its first year, June 2016-June 2017, it logged 19,082 visits and 3,665 document downloads. In the second year, this increased to 50,096 visits and 12,500 downloads. The EMFF also financed a number of projects aimed at sharing information between neighbouring countries. For many planners, arranging informal meetings was the most essential part of the Baltic SCOPE process. They noted that “physical meetings” and the “possibility for face-to-face discussions” were paramount, as learning “can only be guaranteed by personal involvement and direct communication, but not by browsing national Maritime Spatial Planning home pages”. Some built up data repositories and strengthened working relationships between teams across borders. The Coffey evaluation study looked at the SimCelt project. In their judgement, this was more useful to the UK and Irish authorities because authority for French plans is devolved to prefectures. Nevertheless, some national authorities reported to the Coffey evaluation study that the knowledge from these projects was not feeding into their planning process and they would have preferred direct support themselves. Calls for proposals now insist on the participation of the responsible authorities. One of the respondents to the public consultation felt that the two years duration for the projects was not enough. Maritime surveillance Will the maritime surveillance activities lead to an operational system for exchanging information between maritime authorities? Table 6. EMFF contribution to maritime surveillance 2014-2018. Two main activities were financed: (1) CISE – efforts to develop an information technology solution for facilitating and automating information sharing between maritime authorities and (2) improvement of communication between coastguards through events and studies committed (€) contracts paid (€) programmed (€) CISE 13,040,292 22 7,871,819 16,968,000 coastguard support 2,607,401 13 2,160,893 2,780,000 The Coffey evaluation study recognised the basic truth that cooperation in maritime surveillance between authorities with similar responsibilities from different countries – for instance fisheries authorities – is often better than that between different authorities in the same country. EMFF funding supported a bottom-up approach whereby representatives from each maritime sector and research organisations worked together (mainly in large-scale projects) to develop the concept, design and suitable interoperability solutions to facilitate and improve information exchange between the different sectors. It followed up with upgrades and improvements to existing national systems that facilitates this exchange through a Common Information Sharing Environment (CISE). The process was long, as it had to take into account the existing legally established and operational EU-wide systems and services and accommodate the views and participation of systems of around 300 maritime authorities across the EU. Cooperation on coastguard functions between the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) and the European Borders and Coastguard Agency (FRONTEX), legally mandated in 2016, increased the participation of these EU agencies in the process. The EMFF support is now shifting towards an incremental approach, supporting the transition of CISE pre-operationally tested solutions to operations. This transitional phase is coordinated by EMSA which already host operational EU-wide systems and services, and involve representatives from all Member States. Blue growth Have ‘Blue Growth’ initiatives funded by the EMFF facilitated the development of marine economic activities and the jobs they generate? Table 7. EMFF contribution to blue growth

committed (€) contracts paid (€) programmed (€) assistance 107,758 1 537,764 5,000,000 communication 991,224 2 184,929 1,150,000 cooperation 2,974,403 4 2,116,164 3,377,000 projects 24,007,536 44 11,695,754 42,110,000 study 2,410,628 13 2,195,765 3,159,000 Activities supported under the blue growth banner have focused on specific industries, including: (1) studies to improve knowledge of bottlenecks, (2) cooperation to identify joint projects and partnerships on a regional or sectoral basis, (3) assistance to help potential new entrants in the market to connect with partners, investors and target customers, (4) communication to raise awareness, and (5) projects. A minority of projects, such as the one supporting an environmental plan for the mid-Atlantic ridge, one on environmental monitoring for ocean energy and one on the impact of bottom trawling on vulnerable marine ecosystems were top-down and designed to answer specific questions. But most were bottom-up projects with particular emphasis on innovation – to bring ideas from research laboratories to the market. The proportion of EMFF funding allocated to these innovation projects increased dramatically from 2017 onwards. It is hard to capture the blue economy through official statistics. About 70% of sectors such as shipbuilding are made up of small and medium enterprises that also deliver services and products to other parts of the blue economy such as fishing or renewable energy. The studies, and projects to bring stakeholders from industry, academia and public authorities together on ocean energy and the blue bio-economy, have resulted in a better knowledge of bottlenecks. For instance the cooperation project on the blue bio-economy identified discrepancies in the interpretations of rules on novel foods as a major concern for companies developing products from microalgae. A study on investment needs evaluated a pipeline of over 500 projects and produced a file on the most promising needs. This demonstrated to investors that there are real market opportunities. The Coffey evaluation study found that cooperation at a sea-basin level is a useful way to make stakeholders aware of opportunities in other EU-funded programmes such as the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programmes or the European Structural and Investment Funds. A number of the bottom-up projects – for instance on aquaculture feed, low-emission shipping and the prevention of corrosion in the offshore renewable energy industry – have the potential to help meet the EU’s climate and sustainability goals but it is too early to tell whether they will make it to the market. Marine environment Will the action taken help Member States report on the state of the marine environment as part of their obligations under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive? Table 8. EMFF contribution to the marine environment 2014-2018 committed (€) contracts paid (€) programmed (€) MSFD analysis 6,264,653 10 5,109,973 5,047,598 MSFD support 11,678,177 26 4,826,233 11,389,664 emerging pressures 1,217,940 5 1,217,940 1,600,000 regional coordination 1,282,790 4 1,282,790 1,800,000 The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) defines 11 descriptors of good environmental status (GES). An updated (2017) Commission decision lays down criteria and methodological standards for a measurable and harmonised GES determination and requires the setting of threshold values. EMFF funding supported the work to implement the decision at national, regional and EU level. Initially EMFF funding supported studies to understand better how these descriptors could be defined and how measurements from different authorities could be brought together into a common framework. This was particularly the case for descriptors of marine litter and noise. Awareness of the damage that these could cause to marine species was increasing but, although regional sea conventions has developed standards for measuring chemical contaminants for decades, little had been done about these “emerging pressures”. The studies were successful in that digital maps of marine litter now provide a baseline for monitoring progress. It is in everybody’s interest to align the work on the MSFD with longstanding monitoring and reporting obligations under regional sea conventions. The BALTIC BOOST project strengthened the work of the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) on biodiversity and seabed habitats and pressures that damage them, such as hazardous substances and underwater noise. This work is contributing to the development of joint environmental targets for such pressures. Although the Coffey evaluation found that not all tools were taken up, several of the project deliverables were directly used in the HELCOM HOLAS II project, which provides an assessment of the environmental state of the Baltic. Some authorities reported to the Coffey evaluation study that they would have preferred more time to consolidate their work. Another project, INDICIT, completed in January 2019, investigated indicators for assessing the impact of litter on marine fauna. It developed tools to assess how litter affected the health of individual organisms through ingestion or entanglement. The approaches were accepted not only for the MSFD but also by regional sea conventions for the Atlantic, Baltic and Mediterranean. INDICIT also trained new networks of stakeholders, particularly in the Atlantic area, where the status of the “litter ingested by sea turtles” indicator changed from “candidate” to “common”.

An important objective is to contribute to regional or sub-regional cooperation needs of Member States' competent authorities in implementing the Directive. In the latter part of the period covered by this evaluation, the focus switched to more direct support and involvement by insisting that MSFD competent authorities (Article 7 of MSFD) of at least two Member States be directly included amongst the beneficiaries. Proposals brought together up to four competent authorities in consortia, thereby strengthening the regional buy-in of the project outcomes. Scientific advice To what extent have the studies, pilots and scientific advice funded under direct management contributed to improving the overall effectiveness and relevance of scientific advice to policy-making? Table 9. EMFF contribution to scientific advice committed (€) contracts paid (€) programmed (€) ICES 9,000,000 5 7,849,611 8,900,000 JRC 5,065,000 4 4,205,458 5,330,000 STECF 3,686,500 12 3,049,136 4,264,000 cooperation on data 2,771,333 6 1,252,983 2,800,000 Studies 14,206,790 44 8,085,748 20,540,000 The Common Fisheries Policy would not work without scientific advice as management measures need to be drawn up in line with “best available scientific advice”. In line with this principle, all proposals and decisions on major management tools, such as total allowable catch, quotas, gear restrictions and suchlike, rely on reliable and independent scientific advice. For EU waters, this advice is provided mostly by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) for northern waters and by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). The Commission’s Joint Research Centre provides the secretariat for STECF and manages certain data – both concerning biological data and socioeconomic data such as employment, costs and income. The Coffey evaluation study report found that: “Overall the scientific advice and data collection funded through EMFF direct management is delivered through well-established processes to ensure that advice and data are effective in informing CFP objectives. There is now improved coordination of the work commissioned to see that it responds to key needs and to prioritise work streams, along with some flexibility in the funding for ad hoc projects to respond to emerging needs.” STECF has responded to Commission requests for advice 30 times in 2015 and 45 times in 2016. The advice it provided was assessed as “effective in influencing many areas of management decision-making under the CFP” in the Coffey evaluation study, such as for the preparation of Article 15 (landing obligation) of the CFP basic regulation. Although the respective roles of ICES and STECF in the scientific advice process are well defined, the Coffey evaluation study found that better coordination between STECF and the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) on Mediterranean and Black Sea stocks could help avoid overlaps and duplication in assessments and ensure greater acceptance of the resulting advice. This is recognised by the 2017 MedFish4Ever ministerial declaration agenda, which calls for a forum to ensure effective unity of action of scientific activities through effective coordination of stock assessment. GFCM receives support under the “voluntary support to international organisations” part of the EMFF. Data collected by Member States under the EU Data Collection Framework (DCF) feeds into the scientific advice delivered by ICES, STECF and other scientific bodies, including scientific committees of the RFMOs. EMFF direct management has supported the ongoing strengthening of regional cooperation in data collection, including Regional Coordination Groups (RCG) to ensure consistency and harmonisation on formats, categorisations and stratification. It also supported two specific EMFF calls for proposals “Strengthening regional cooperation in the area of fisheries data collection”. Regional cooperation on data collection provides the data necessary to meet fisheries advice requirements, and the Coffey evaluation study concludes that: “The EMFF direct management component has made a significant contribution to regional cooperation within and beyond EU waters.” Control and enforcement Which measures are the most /least frequently implemented and why? Table 10. EMFF contribution to control and enforcement committed (€) Contracts paid (€) programmed (€) Commission inspection 3,662,966 10 2,792,236 3,826,934 IT services 18,529,221 277 16,879,437 19,200,000 chartering patrol boats 2,112,000 2 . 21,320,000 expert group 833,000 9 509,435 925,000 study 645,895 5 631,780 3,235,000 training 540,000 4 346,601 779,690 Table 10 clearly shows that work on information technology absorbed most of the money through a large number of individual contracts. The peak year was 2018 with 77 contracts. An evaluation of the preceding work from 2007-2013 had concluded that there was underspending of funding, failure to implement projects or projects abandoned once started. Initiated in 2010, an Integrated Fisheries Data Management (IFDM) programme was set up to respond to these issues. It was set up as the umbrella for several projects related to fisheries data exchange and introduced a universal data exchange format. The standard is being rolled out by the Commission, Member States and the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) for exchanging fisheries data within and beyond the EU. The complexity of the IFDM programme, the multitude of stakeholders both within as outside the EU as well as sub-optimal IT implementation resulted in significant delays to the programme. National authorities also flagged that there was no out-of-hours support for systems that should be operational 24/7. According to the Coffey evaluation study: In view of the problems encountered by the Commission to finalise and implement the IT tools envisaged in the EU legislation, an increase of the relevant financial envelope should be considered. However, budget availability may not be the only factor hindering progresses (sic) and the Commission should make a detailed assessment of the problems in relation to IT development

In 2020, with the Integrated Fisheries Data Management programme coming to a close, the Commission will undertake a thorough review of the state of play of the IFDM programme, collect the future needs for further data exchange and investigate the best way forward. Voluntary agreements Are the voluntary agreements in line with the objective of the CFP? Do the contributions help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of international organisations? Table 11. EMFF contribution to voluntary agreements committed (€) contracts paid (€) programmed (€) enhance enforcement 4,552,768 19 4,176,965 4,910,000 improve functioning 33,346,472 75 27,600,096 29,827,453 participation of developing countries 1,701,538 9 1,386,678 2,037,000 research 13,384,262 38 10,333,666 12,977,635 The EU is committed to participating in the work of international organisations where it has an interest as a flag state, coastal state or market state. Article 28 and Article 29 of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation adopted at the end of 2013 stipulate that the EU should aim to lead the process of strengthening the performance of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations to better enable them to conserve and manage marine living resources. This was achieved by awarding grants to (1) improve knowledge through research, (2) improve the functioning (3) enhance enforcement and (4) improve the participation of developing countries. The Coffey evaluation study found that all these measures did indeed improve the effectiveness and efficiency of these organisations. Over this period, the EMFF supported an independent external review of the performances of a number of RFMOs (i.e. CCAMLR, IATTC, ICCAT) and followed up earlier evaluations. As an example, the EMFF supported the strengthening of GFCM mandate along the lines proposed by the 2011 performance review, including a clearer overall objective of biological, social, economic and environmental sustainability of living marine resources, provisions to lay down measures/penalties to address non-compliance by members and non-members and to establish a dispute settlement mechanism between contracting parties. The Commission’s grant enabled the GFCM to hire staff, expand its scope of work and improve the scientific basis for stock management. Compared to previous years, this resulted in the doubling of recommendations (decisions whose implementation is mandatory) adopted. The EU is certainly the largest donor to these organisations. Although it helps these organisations to work better, stakeholders reported that it does not increase the EU’s influence on subsequent decisions on fisheries management. Advisory Councils Have the Advisory Councils been able to provide recommendations on fisheries management matters, including advice on conservation and socioeconomic aspects of fisheries, and simplification of rules? Table 12. EMFF contribution to Advisory Councils committed (€) contracts paid (€) programmed (€) Advisory Council 11,837,732 43 10,240,673 14,400,000 Advisory Councils should provide the Commission with the local knowledge necessary to develop sound fisheries management advice. 60% of their membership is made up of representatives from the fishing industry. The rest comes from environmental or labour-related NGOs, recreational fishers and ‘women in fishing’ groups. They provide recommendations and advice to the Commission and Member States and may also comment on proposals from the Commission or a Member State on which they are consulted. Member States are obliged to consult them on joint recommendations submitted to the Commission in the context of regionalisation. The Commission appreciated this advice – for instance advice on management proposals for sole in ICES area VIId by the Northwestern Waters Advisory Council. Many opinions concerned the landing obligation. The EMFF provides 90% of the funding for the Councils. The other 10% comes from membership fees. Each Advisory Council receives the same amount, irrespective of membership size, translation needs or travel requirements. Some of the Councils expressed a desire for more funding to support scientific studies. The Commission replied that they are entitled to reply to calls for proposals under the direct or shared management parts of the EMFF. The Coffey evaluation study found that the Councils took some time to become fully responsive to requests for advice. Those that had been established for 10 years reacted faster than the newer Councils. The Council secretariats reported that the meetings often split into two, with the fishing industry in one corner and other interested parties in the other. This meant that it was sometimes not possible to reach a consensus. This was reflected in a reply from the private sector to the public consultation. After reading the minutes of meetings, they felt that few decisions had been made. So far the Councils have not managed to propose any simplification of measures but they have identified current measures that are not working optimally, such as those on technical measures or control. Without EMFF support, it is very unlikely the Advisory Councils could continue operations and this advice would not have been available. The government of the Azores requested that the EMFF could support better coordination between the different outermost regions. Their request was granted. On 1 July 2019, the Commission communicated the “start of functioning of the Advisory Council for Outermost Regions”. Market intelligence To what extent has EUMOFA delivered on the Commission commitments on market intelligence as defined in Article 42 of the CMO regulation (1379/2013)? Table 13.EMFF contribution to market intelligence

committed (€) contracts paid (€) programmed (€) EUMOFA 19,452,107 5 16,843,637 21,794,726 IT and observatories 870,282 5 697,782 1,305,000 studies 701,645 2 701,645 1,100,000 The European Market Observatory for fisheries and aquaculture products (EUMOFA) is a market intelligence tool on the EU’s fisheries and aquaculture sector, developed by the European Commission. It aims to increase market transparency and efficiency, analyses EU market dynamics, and supports business decisions and policy-making. EUMOFA enables direct monitoring of the volume, value and price of fisheries and aquaculture products, from the first sale to retail stage, including imports and exports. Data are collected from EU countries, Norway, Iceland, from EU institutions and from private data providers. They are updated every day. Table 14 shows how it meets the objectives set in Article 42 of the Common Market Organisation of the Common Fisheries Policy, Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013. Table 14. CMO Article 42 commitments Status (as of early 2018) Gathering and disseminating economic knowledge and understanding of the EU market for fisheries and aquaculture products along the supply chain Delivered -EUMOFA publications disseminate knowledge and understanding of the EU market through monthly highlights and the yearly publication on the EU market (The EU Fish Market). Providing practical support to producer organisations and inter-branch organisations to better coordinate information between operators and processors Partially delivered -Price information and market analysis published by EUMOFA can be considered as of interest to producer organisations (POs). -EUMOFA is not a sufficient information system to deliver targeted support to be provided to POs as per CMO Article 42.1(b) as it is designed to address the needs of a wide range of stakeholders with a single tool. Regularly surveying prices along the supply chain and conduct analysis on market trends Delivered -EUMOFA database provides price information regularly updated. Analysis of market trends is provided in monthly highlights and yearly publication. -EUMOFA cannot encompass all the supply chain due to the sensitive nature of information at the processing stage. This is compensated for by regular publication of case studies on price transmission. Conducting ad hoc market studies and provide a methodology for price formation surveys Delivered -Ad hoc market studies are published in Monthly Highlights series. A methodology for price formation surveys has been defined and published on the EUMOFA website. Facilitating access to available data on fishery and aquaculture products collected pursuant to EU law Delivered -Through EUMOFA, the Commission could concentrate available data on fisheries and aquaculture and add value to the process through harmonisation and standardisation of information. Sensitive commercial information (prices at processing stage) is protected. Making market information, such as price surveys, market analyses and studies, available to all the stakeholders and to the general public in an accessible and understandable manner Delivered -All EUMOFA information is published on a dedicated website open to the general public. Accessibility is improved by publication of the database in all EU languages and by translating publications into several EU languages. The Coffey evaluation study reported that EUMOFA worked better than its agriculture market alternatives in terms of data timeliness and standardisation. Technical assistance Table 15. EMFF contribution to technical assistance committed (€) contracts paid (€) programmed (€) FAME 4,049,100 4 3,719,410 4,000,000 FARNET 9,247,057 5 8,623,688 9,226,500 IT 3,527,513 61 3,362,576 3,790,000 evaluation 1,002,000 3 1,002,000 1,000,000 fi-compass 280,000 2 112,000 360,000 study 488,335 6 440,322 190,000 training 24,800 2 24,800 25,000 Are the tasks that FARNET implements meeting a need of the local community? If so, what structures are in place to hand over these tasks after 14 years of implementation? The Commission established the FARNET support unit in 2009 to connect fisheries local action groups (FLAGs). These partnerships of private sector, local authorities and civil society organisations fund local projects within the framework of a strategy under the shared management part of the EMFF. Tasks include capacity building, disseminating information, exchanging good practices, and cooperation amongst 328 FLAGs and 30 other stakeholder groups. As of December 2018, 950 projects have been approved. The Coffey evaluation study reported that the administration of FLAGs, as all the other parts of the shared management component, is administratively burdensome but that the managing authorities appreciate the readiness of the support unit to help them set them up. The FLAGs themselves are also satisfied with the unit. This has been helped by continuity: the unit’s staff has remained unchanged for many years, which allows them to develop knowledge and expertise. The Coffey evaluation study report suggested that increasing the number of issues of the FARNET magazine from one a year to two or three a year would bring the EU closer to local communities. The Commission’s proposal for EMFF after 2021 includes provisions for continuing support to community-led local development through local action groups. What has FAME's contribution (EU value added) been to a more efficient and effective implementation of the monitoring and evaluation system of the shared management of the EMFF, both at Member State and EU level? The Commission set up the FAME Support Unit (FAME SU) in 2015. Its purpose was first to help monitor and evaluate the implementation of the shared management component of EMFF and second to build capacity across the Member States and in the Commission on evaluation and monitoring methodologies, indicators and good practices. The Coffey evaluation study considered that progress has been made on both objectives. FAME provided several training sessions to Member State managing authorities. A community of management authorities from the Member States meets annually for a two-day workshop. Dedicated monitoring and evaluation training sessions individually tailored to Member States’ particular needs are held at least one other time per year. A suite of working documents, including statistics and reports on the use of EMFF funding, support the Member States in monitoring and evaluation. One such report was on EMFF financing of fishing for litter operations, which was used for the impact assessment of the Single Use Plastics Directive. The work has improved the comparability between action taken by different Member States. Are the deliverables of contracts of over €1 million per year being used by DG MARE or the stakeholders? Figure 10. Number of projects for each size category (commitments up to March 2018) Action taken Projects

> €1M cross-sectoral projects 31 scientific advice 10 voluntary contributions 10 market intelligence 5 blue growth 4 fisheries enforcement 3 Integrated governance 2 TOTAL 65

65 contracts with a combined value of over €142 million were concluded up to March 2018. About half were for cross-sectoral projects: marine knowledge, maritime surveillance and spatial planning. The digital maps and other products from the marine knowledge projects are now the main trusted data source for both public and private stakeholders. Other cross-sectoral projects (on spatial planning and maritime surveillance) mainly involved laying the foundations and building capacity for future work in areas where progress is essential to meet maritime policy goals. Ten contracts were awarded to support the organisation and delivery of scientific advice from the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and organisation of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). This advice was crucial for the management of EU fisheries. Another 10 supported voluntary contributions to international organisations. Five of these concerned research into Bluefin tuna. The deeper understanding achieved through this work has helped a stock that 10 years ago was threatened with collapse to becoming a stock that can be fished sustainably. Three other contributions built up the capacity of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. Other projects covered Indian Ocean tuna, and implementing port state measures to tackle illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. The results of the projects are indeed in use. Coherence To what extent is the measure coherent internally (with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy and integrated maritime policy) and externally (with wider EU policy objectives)? Figure 11. Response from stakeholders asked about coherence with wider EU policy objectives The measure is completely coherent with the aims of the Common Fisheries Policy and the integrated maritime policy, as explained in the section of this evaluation report on “relevance”. There is coherence between measures managed under the EMFF and other policies. Specifically: -10% of the budget is specifically allocated to implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and is managed by DG ENV. -Cooperation between the EU space programme’s Copernicus marine service and the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) was cemented by an exchange of letters between the Commission Directorates-General DG MARE and DG GROW. EMODnet data on marine litter and nutrients are being used in Member States’ submissions to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. -Projects funded under the INTERREG territorial cooperation programme helped Member States implement maritime policy on issues such as renewable energy, protected areas or spatial planning. Nevertheless, there is a perception amongst the stakeholders that complementarity could be better coordinated. More effort needs to be spent on showing links between different measures. When presenting a measure, the Commission departments should take more time to explain how it fits into the broader picture. A particular issue is how to embed fisheries policy within the broader maritime policy. The legal bases are at opposite poles – fisheries being an area where the EU has greatest competence and maritime policy where it has the least. There is scope for better integration, particularly on the three cross-cutting areas - data, planning and surveillance – and some progress has already been made. The European Fisheries Control Agency is involved in preparing the maritime policy’s Common Information Sharing Environment (CISE). To what extent have the studies, pilots and scientific advice funded under direct management been coherent with research funded Horizon 2020? According to the Coffey evaluation study, EMFF-funded science and the EU research programme Horizon2020:

“are complementary as both are necessary for the improved management of fisheries under the CFP.” Scientific advice rests on a wide body of research. As requests for scientific advice often have to be answered quickly and require more than simply gathering already-published knowledge, the EMFF has financed specific studies on scientific questions such as “improvements for the analysis and exploitation of observers' reports in EU fisheries from northwest African waters”. Usually, the study results are available between one and two years after publication of the work programme. Longer term, and more far-reaching research issues such as “smart fisheries technologies for an efficient, compliant and environmentally friendly fishing sector” are tackled under the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. As Horizon 2020 work programmes usually cover two years and are published a year in advance, it typically takes three to six years from the publication of the work programme to the delivery of results. The Commission ensures that the results of the projects are made publicly available. Scientific advisory work can draw on results of completed EU research projects. The EMFF budget for studies is an average of €4.3 million a year. By contrast, the budget for fisheries and aquaculture part of Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge “Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry, Marine, Maritime and Inland Water Research and the Bioeconomy” is of the order of €20 million a year. Fisheries issues are also covered in other parts of the programme such as Marie Skłodowska-Curie studentships and the European Research Council, bringing the total to nearly €40 million a year. This division of responsibilities between specific questions requiring fast answers and longer-term, more loosely-specified topics ensures coherence. EU added-value What is the additional value resulting from the EU action taken compared to what could be achieved by Members States at national and/or regional levels? Fewer than 10% of stakeholders considered that any measure implemented under the EMFF could have been carried out by Member States alone ( Figure 11 ). The Coffey evaluation study concluded that: “the interventions supported by the direct management component of EMFF achieve benefits beyond what could have been achieved by national and/or regional spending. EUMOFA, STECF, Advisory Councils and FARNET, as well as maritime policy interventions such as EMODnet and mechanisms and projects for fostering cross-border maritime spatial planning would have not existed had it not been for EMFF support.” The EU provides the institutional framework for countries can come together to tackle common issues. No other body could have done this. And it could not have been achieved without contractual arrangements. The criteria to provide EU added value and ensure the transferability of project results to other EU regions were included in the eligibility and award criteria for grants to develop innovative solutions, products and services and to promote blue careers. A number of existing organisations, notably the regional fisheries management organisations, would have operated without EMFF support. But without this support for scientific knowledge or organisational support, their operations would not have been so effective or efficient. The EU was the only donor prepared to put substantial resources to achieving these goals and therefore added value. Figure 12. Public consultation of added value of EMFF measures. The only measure where there was some doubt about EU added-value was a proposed measure for the joint chartering of patrol vessels. Why is there a reluctance from Member States to apply for joint chartering and/or purchase of control means? Should this measure be abandoned? If not, under which conditions that measure would be relevant in the next programming period? According to the Coffey evaluation study, there were several contributory factors. Control means are sufficient and adequately adapted to the maritime environment Member States are required to control. There is a general lack of human resources for manning own patrol vessels. Manning additional chartered vessels adequately without impacts on manning own vessels would not be possible.

Joint charter involving two or more Member States may underpin specific administrative rules that prevent flexible deployment. In the case of joint purchase, there would be a legal uncertainty. There is uncertainty over availability over time of national budgets to cover expenses not covered by EC for joint chartering/purchasing. Covering additional costs or MS co-financed parts from national budgets could be an issue due to national contract procedures. Spain explains its withdrawal from the joint chartering operation approved in 2015 on these grounds. They considered it highly unlikely that these issues would change. The Commission withdrew the measure from its work programme in 2017. One public authority, in its reply to the public consultation, suggested that the measure could be reintroduced if managed by the European Fisheries Control Agency. This possibility is not covered in the current EMFF Regulation but it is included in the Commission’s proposal for the next period beginning in 2021. 6.Conclusions Implementation of the EMFF has a strong EU added-value and has been relevant, effective and efficient. It is broadly coherent with other EU initiatives. But demonstrating it has been difficult: (1) because information about the implementation and results are dispersed and difficult to find; (2) because, for some measures, it will take some time before the impact can be assessed and (3) because of the very diverse nature of the measures. The Commission’s financial database includes information on commitments and payments but the original purpose of the measure and the programmed budget are not available in electronic format and can only be linked to the financial data manually. Reports of studies are available but there is no catalogue covering all of them. Few categories of measures have targets or indicators. Fixing these issues could begin immediately. Relevance The aim of the Common Fisheries Policy is to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities be environmentally sustainable over the long-term and managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies. The primary objective of the EU's Integrated Maritime Policy is to develop and implement integrated, coordinated, coherent, transparent and sustainable decision-making in relation to the oceans, seas, coastal, insular and outermost regions and in the maritime sectors. The objectives of each measure correspond to either those of the Common Fisheries Policy or the integrated maritime policy and, as confirmed by stakeholders, are therefore relevant. Effectiveness Effectiveness measures whether or not these objectives were achieved. Stakeholders believe that they were. The maritime day and sea-basin events helped to bring stakeholders together from different communities who otherwise would have had little opportunity to meet. This enabled the more joined-up approach to policies related to the sea, which is an objective of EU maritime policy. The cross-cutting measures have been effective and need to be continued. Joining up marine data has already produced economic benefits worth many times the investment. Efforts should continue with higher resolution seabed maps, increased action on biodiversity and more intuitive user interfaces. Spatial planning is going to be critical for Europe’s decarbonisation strategy with offshore wind capacity set to increase by a factor of 20 by 2050. Cross-border planning projects have increased capacity in Member States but need to move beyond collecting data, which is already done within EMODnet, to thinking how we want seas to develop over the longer term. The expected benefits of better coordination of maritime authorities on surveillance are also potentially huge. Future efforts should build on the work done to develop CISE and the cooperation between the three EU agencies responsible: the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) and the European Borders and Coastguard Agency (FRONTEX). The studies and the fora organised on blue growth have increased knowledge of areas of the blue economy that have either changed significantly in the past years or did not exist at all, such as deep-sea mining, ocean energy and algae cultivation. It is too early to say whether the work to shift particular ideas from the laboratory to the market have been successful but they have provided the Commission and investors with a much better knowledge of the landscape and helped prepare a “Blue-invest Platform” to bring in equity from public and private sources. Projects to support implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) have been particularly useful in understanding emerging pressure on the marine environment, such as noise or litter. Participants in earlier projects reported that projects need to be better aligned with the official processes of regional sea basins and MSFD. Projects run later therefore aimed at providing more direct support. A number of standards and protocols developed in the projects are being adopted as guidelines for the directive. The package of measures to support fisheries advice have been very effective. Without them the Common Fisheries Policy would not have worked. ICES and STECF work together well on advice for northern waters but the Commission should resolve overlaps between the work of the STECF and GFCM in the Mediterranean. Then lion’s share of EMFF spending on enforcement went on information technology and, although the exchange of information between authorities is better than it was, progress has been slower than originally envisaged. A thorough review of the Integrated Fisheries Data Management programme should not exclude looking at future needs, including technology. The support provided to regional fisheries management organisations has produced tangible benefits and improved their effectiveness. Because these organisations govern the most direct human impact on biodiversity in the planet’s oceans, the support makes a tangible contribution to the EU’s international ocean governance policy.

The Advisory Councils for fisheries would not work without EMFF support. Their composition does not always allow a consensus to emerge but it creates a conversation bringing in different points of view,