COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: FIFG, aquaculture, common fisheries policy, financial aid, fishery resources, fishing area, innovation, marine ecosystem, shipping policy, sustainable development

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 2.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1417 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE 
COUNCIL 

on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund [repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 
1198/2006 and Council Regulation(EC) No 861/2006 and Council Regulation No 
XXX/2011 on integrated maritime policy 

{COM(2011) 804 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1416 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
1. 

PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT TOOLS OF THE CFP AND THE IMP 

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has the following financial tools in 2007-2013:  

– 

– 

– 

– 

The  European  Fisheries  Fund  (EFF)  (shared  management)  is  the  major 
financial pillar of the CFP. Budget: €4.304 million.  

The  Second  Financial  Instrument  (direct  management)  supports:  Control 
and enforcement (€345 million),  Data collection and scientific advice (€360 
million), Governance (€45 million) and voluntary and obligatory contributions 
to Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO) (€9.8 million in 
2010).  

The  European  Agriculture  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGF)  (direct  management) 
the  Common  Market  Organisation  (CMO)  for  fisheries  and 
finances 
aquaculture  products  (€15  million  per  year)  and  compensation  for  the 
additional  costs  incurred  in  the  marketing  of  fishery  products  from  the 
outermost regions (€15 million per year). 

Funding for the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) (direct management) was 
€20.4  million  (2008-10).  A  new  regulation,  cu rrently  in  co-decision,  is  to  be 
adopted by the end of 2011 to finance the IMP in 2011-13. 

The  Second  Financial  Instrument  finances  also  Fisheries  Partnerships  Agreements.  These 
agreements,  similarly  to  obligatory  contributions  to  RFMO,  have  their  own  legal  basis  and 
will remain outside of the scope of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The CFP reform IA concluded that, notwithstanding progress since 2002, the CFP has failed 
to achieve its objectives of environmental, economic and social sustainability. Some  part of 
the failure can be attributed to CFP funding. This can be explained by problems linked to their 
design  and  delivery  mechanism,  in  particular  the  EFF,  and  by  their  lack  of  effectiveness  in 
terms of content. 

Regarding  the  design,  each  financial  instrument  has  its  own  programming,  monitoring, 
evaluation  and  control  systems  and  is  negotiated  separately.  This  makes  coordination  and 
reaching critical mass difficult. Coordination with other structural funds through "demarcation 
lines" is also insufficient to ensure synergies and to avoid duplications. 

Furthermore,  the  EFF  lacks  focus  on  the  CFP  strategic  priorities.  Operational  Programmes 
(OP)  often  amount  to  a  "menu"  of  measures  from  which  MS  can  choose.  Many  MS  give 
precedence to investment facilitating absorption rather than focusing on CFP priorities. This 
is reinforced by the absence of conditionalities linked to the compliance with these priorities 
and  by  a  weak  and  heterogeneous  monitoring  and  evaluation:  each  MS  has  set  its  own 
indicators, which impedes aggregation and comparisons.  

In addition, 75% of the EFF is allocated on the basis of the historical share of the fisheries in 
the cohesion policy. For the remaining 25% (non convergence regions), allocation is based on 
the size of the fisheries sector. This results in huge disparities (as high as 30 to 1) in terms of 
the  support  per  capita,  to  the  detriment  of  non-convergence  MS  with  big  fisheries  and 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
aquaculture,  whereas  other  MS  combine  large  financial  allocations  with  a  relatively  small 
fishing and aquaculture sector. This, besides the long process of setting up Management and 
Control Systems and preparing OP, which are the precondition for EFF implementation, is the 
main explanation for the current low absorption of the EFF funds (20% by October 2011). 

The lack of strategic approach explains also the lack of critical mass of many projects and the 
very limited use of the EFF possibilities in the environmental field. 

These  design  problems  refer  mostly  to  shared  management  EFF  part  of  the  funding,  which 
accounts  for  most  of  the  overall  funding  available.  For  the  instruments  under  direct 
management the most conspicuous problem relate to the fragmentation of the support to CFP 
and IMP and the high administrative burden related to central budgetary management.  

Regarding the lack of effectiveness, in environmental terms CFP funding has not eliminated 
overcapacity. Despite €1.7 billi on spent on scrapping since 1994, actual fishing capacity has 
not decreased in most of EU fleets. Overcapacity is a key driver for overfishing and for low 
economic  profitability.  Public  funding  had  also  very  limited  effect  on  the  high  level  of 
discards of many EU fisheries. The new proposal for CFP reform includes discard ban, which 
should increase demand for selective gears and new fishing techniques.  

Another key factor for the success of the reformed CFP is the supply of scientific advice and 
economic  data.  Scientific  advice  is  currently  available  for  45%  of  commercial  stocks  for 
which the EU is responsible; this number must increase in the coming year in order to ensure 
the transition to sustainable fishing. Coordination with data from other maritime fields is poor 
and compliance is insufficient. 

Aquaculture is another area where public financial needs to be more effective. More emphasis 
should  be  put  on  the  strategic  approach,  promoting  green  growth  in  aquaculture.  Public 
support shall also foster the environmental conservation services of extensive aquaculture in 
sensitive habitats (e.g. enhancement of biodiversity).  

Finally,  the  current  development  of  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  is  insufficient  to  address  the 
competition  for  space  among  maritime  activities,  with  its  negative  environmental  and 
economic effects. 

In  economic  terms,  public  financial  tools  have  not  addressed  the  innovation  gap  in  the  EU 
fisheries and aquaculture (labour productivity is 25% below the EU average). Low innovation 
explains part of the poor performance of the EU fleets and the stagnation of the aquaculture 
production for the last 15 years. The innovation gap is often related to the small size of firms: 
91%  of  fishing  firms  own  a  single  vessel  and  98%  of  the  aquaculture  firms  are  SME.  The 
small size limits access to finance and insurance. 

The gap is particularly acute in marketing and commercialization. Another area is that of the 
high energy consumption, in particular of the catching sector. 

Finally,  the  segmentation  of  maritime  policies  results  in  potential  synergies  not  being 
exploited and a lack of adequate support for research for technological innovation. This also 
impedes a clear understanding of where the real potential for marine growth exists.  

In  social  terms  jobs  offered  by  the  catching  sector  are  not  attractive.  The  importance  of 
fishing  is  declining  in  many  coastal  communities.  New  activities  are  replacing  fisheries  as 
sources  of  income  and  jobs  in  many  of  them,  but  some  do  not  have  diversification 
alternatives. Furthermore, the new CFP could result in short term, additional job losses in the 
catching and ancillary services. Hence, some communities may not be viable in the medium 
term.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
3. 

WHO IS AFFECTED? 

A  successful  CFP  and  IMP  are  the  ultimate  reason  of  being  of  public  financial  support.  In 
view of that, stakeholders affected are the same identified in the CFP reform IA report: 

Stakeholder 
Catching sector 
in the EU 

Description of stakeholder 
Vessel owners, operators and crew. 

Key interests 
Maintaining profitability and livelihoods. 

Aquaculture producers 

Aquaculture 
sector 
Dependent 
businesses & 
communities  
Processing sector  Those processing raw material both imported and 

Business and communities dependent upon 
fisheries. 

caught within EU waters 
Sector regulators  National, regional and local bodies regulating 

Sector research 

Consumers 

fishing  
Scientific bodies contributing to the conservation 
and management of stocks 
Those consuming fisheries & aquaculture 
products 

Third countries 

Fishing sector competing with EU fleets. 
Aquaculture producers, exporters. 

NGOs, the civil 
society and EU 
citizens 

NGOs advocating sustainable management. 
The wider public with an interest in and concern 
for fisheries and the marine environment 

Idem 

Idem. Viability of communities in fisheries areas. 

Increasing value added. Get access to stable 
supplies. 
Optimize public financial support to achieve 
policy objectives. Guarantee food supply. 
Contribution to effective fisheries management r 
through the timely access to high quality data. 
Availability, cost, quality and nutritional values of 
fisheries products with varying degrees of 
environmental scrutiny. 
Conflicting interest between those who see the EU 
as export market and local fishing communities 
facing competition from EU fleets on access to 
local resources.  
Maintaining fish populations, biodiversity, and the 
amenity value of oceans, rivers and lakes together 
with an economically and socially sustainable 
industry. Adequate food supply. 

4. 

THE RIGHT TO ACT 

The EU has exclusive competence in the conservation of marine biological resources. Beyond 
that  (i.e.  the  CFP  parts  under  shared  competence)  the  subsidiarity  and  proportionality 
principles  apply.  The  proposal  for  the  future  budget  of  the  EU  has  a  strong  subsidiarity 
justification as it focuses already on "the policy areas where the EU can be more effective by 
acting  through  the  EU  level  in  the  current  climate  of  national  austerity  and  financial 
consolidation". 

Regarding fisheries and maritime activities, the proposal includes a new EMFF structured on 
4 pillars: Smart, green fisheries, smart, green aquaculture, sustainable and inclusive territorial 
development and IMP. The first three are to be managed under shared management, the last 
under  direct  centralised  management.  In  addition,  the  EMFF  will  include  accompanying 
measures  in  the  areas  of  data  collection  and  scientific  advice,  control,  governance,  fisheries 
markets  (including  outermost  regions),  voluntary  payments  to  RFMO  and  technical 
assistance.  

5. 

THE EMFF OBJECTIVES 

The EMFF shall support: 

– 

the  objectives  of  the  new  CFP,  sustainable  and  competitive  fisheries  and 
aquaculture. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
– 

– 

further development of the IMP. 

balanced development of fisheries areas. 

By achieving these objectives, the EMFF will also contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy, in 
particular  to  three  flagship initiatives:  a  resource  efficient Europe,  an  innovation  Union  and 
the agenda for new skill and jobs. The following specific objectives are defined. 

5.1. 

Specific objectives related to the design of the EMFF 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Review allocation criteria, 

Focus on smart green investments and territorial development, 

Improve strategy and programming, 

Foster collective approaches, 

Set up a monitoring and evaluation framework, based on common indicators, 

Reinforce conditionalities, 

Exploit  synergies  between  CFP  and  IMP  financial  instruments.  Simplify 
delivery and reduce administrative burden, and 

Exploit synergies with other EU funds (e.g. LIFE). 

5.2. 

Specific objectives related to the content of the EMFF 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Eliminate ineffective subsidies, 

Reduce environmental impact of fisheries,  

Contribute,  in  the  context  of  sustainable  fishing,  to  the  management  and 
preservation  of  marine  ecosystems  and  to  the  objectives  of  MSFD  and 
Natura2000, 

Promote the green growth of aquaculture,  

Increase the availability of scientific advice and data. Coordinate fisheries and 
IMP data, 

Ensure compliance with CFP,  

Promote cross-border/ecosystem-based management of EU sea basins, 

Increase innovation, 

Promote animal health and welfare.  

Tackle segmentation of maritime policies and contribute to the identification of 
growth opportunities, 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

Reduce energy consumption, and 

Improve job attractiveness and the viability of coastal communities. 

6. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Three  reform  options  are  developed.  In  line  with  the  CFP  reform  and  the  proposal  for  the 
future budget of the EU, the "no policy" and "Status Quo" options are discarded. The later is 
nevertheless kept as baseline. 

6.1. 

Common elements 

Reform options have common elements predetermined by the proposal for the new CFP and 
the Commission Communication on MFF: 

•  EMFF  is  included  into  the  Common  Strategic  Framework  and  the  scope  of  Common 

Regulation. 

•  Allocation criteria aligned with the size of the fishing sector. 

•  Most fleet subsidies discontinued.  

•  CMO  integrated  into  the  EMFF,  out  of  6  intervention  instruments  only  storage  aid  is 

maintained.  

•  Scheme to compensate the outermost regions integrated into the EMFF. 

•  Critical mass is achieved through emphasis on collective actions, Producer Organisations 

(PO), other collective bodies and local action groups under territorial development.  

•  Conditionalities are introduced based on: scope of eligibility and content, compliance with 
the  control  and  the  IUU  Regulations,  compliance  with  data  collection  obligations  and 
compliance with the requirement of adopting national Strategic Plan for Aquaculture. 

•  Monitoring is based on a common framework and a set of common indicators. 

The financial allocation for the EMFF is €6.692 bill ion (in current prices). Based on ex ante 
evaluation its distribution between policy areas should be as follows: 

Areas  

Percentage of 2014-2020 EMFF 

Ex - EFF part (out of which) 

-Fisheries 

-Aquaculture 

- Local development 

Voluntary 
to 
organisations including RFMOs 

contribution 

international 

Data collection and scientific advice 

67 - 70% 

30 – 35% 

15-17,5% 

15-17,5% 

1,5 -2,0% 

7 -8% 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Control and enforcement 

Market  Policy  including  compensation  to 
outermost regions 

Governance 

IMP 

6.2. 

Contents  

10 - 11% 

2,5 – 3% 

0,8-1% 

6 – 7% 

Option 1: “EFF +” (equivalent to options 1 and 1a in the CFP Reform IA) tests the impact of 
addressing  all  the  design  and  content  issues  related  to  ex  –  EFF  part,  including 
discontinuation  of  the  permanent  and  temporary  cessation  of  fishing  activities,  stronger 
strategic programming (CSF), conditionalities linked to CFP objectives, new evaluation and 
monitoring  framework  and  priority  given  to  collective  projects.  Territorial  development  is 
reinforced  and  better  coordinated  with  other  local  development  initiatives.  The  current 
architecture  of  financial  instruments  is  maintained,  although  an  effort  is  made  to  better  co-
ordinate their scope and objectives. 

Option 2: “EFF + Integration”: In addition to Option 1, all CFP financial instruments are 
included  into  the  new  fund,  but  continue  to  be  managed  separately,  under  the  current 
implementation modes (shared or direct management). IMP remains outside the future fund. 

Option  3:  “EMFF  Convergence”:  Integration  of  data  collection,  control,  CMO  and  the 
instrument  for  outermost  regions  into  EMFF  under  shared  management.  IMP  included  into 
the future fund. 

7. 

ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS / THE PREFERRED OPTION 

The comparison of options is based on the analysis of their potential to reduce discards, close 
the innovation gap and create jobs in coastal communities. Option 3 is preferred both in terms 
of impacts and in cost-effectiveness of EU action. 

Environmental 
sustainability 

Economic 
Sustainability 

Social 
sustainability 

Simplification 
& 
administrative 
burden 

Cost-
effectiveness 

(-) 

(XX) 

(XX) 

(-) 

(XX) 

(XX) 

(-) 

(XX) 

(XX) 

(-) 

(XX) 

(-) 

(XX) 

(XXx) 

(XXx) 

(XXx) 

(XXx) 

(XXx) 

(XXX) 

(XXX) 

Status Quo 

EFF+ 

EFF+ Integration 

EMFF 
Convergence 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
8. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The EMFF should have a strong monitoring and evaluation system. There should be common 
output,  result  and  impact  indicators  based  on  data  collected  at  measure/program  level  and 
aggregated at national / EU level, to be agreed between the Commission and MS. 

EN 

8 

   EN