REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN FISHERIES FUND (2011) 
Date: 2012-12-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aquaculture, audit, common fisheries policy, fund (EU), management audit

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 12.12.2012  
COM(2012) 747 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN 
FISHERIES FUND (2011) 

{SWD(2012) 424 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 3 

PART I - Implementation of the EFF in accordance with Article 68 of the EFF ........ 3 

2.1. 

Main developments, trends and challenges.................................................................. 3 

2.1.1.  Budget implementation by the Commission ................................................................ 4 

2.2. 

Technical assistance ..................................................................................................... 4 

2.2.1.  Use made of Technical Assistance budget by the Member States............................... 4 

2.2.2.  Use made of the Technical Assistance budget by the Commission............................. 4 

2.3. 

Outcome of the strategic debate referred to in Article 16.1 and EFF interim 
evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 5 

3. 

Economic performance of the fisheries sector in 2010 -2011...................................... 6 

3.1.1.  Catching sector............................................................................................................. 6 

3.1.2.  Aquaculture .................................................................................................................. 6 

3.1.3.  Processing .................................................................................................................... 7 

4. 

PART II - Analysis....................................................................................................... 7 

4.1. 

Public and private actions for adapting the fishing fleet.............................................. 7 

4.1.1.  Permanent cessation ..................................................................................................... 7 

4.1.2.  Fleet adaptations to fuel prices..................................................................................... 8 

4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

Modernisation under Article 25(2) of the EFF ............................................................ 8 

Implementation of Axis 4 of the EFF .......................................................................... 9 

Financial execution in the Member States ................................................................. 11 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN 
FISHERIES FUND (2011) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION  

In line with Article 68 of the European Fisheries Fund1 (EFF), by 31 December each year, the 
Commission  shall  forward  to  the  European  Parliament,  to  the  Council,  to  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions a report on the actual 
implementation  of  the  EFF,  based  on  its  assessment  of  the  Member  States  (MS)  Annual 
Reports and on any other available information.  

This report covers EFF implementation during 2011. It is divided in two parts. The first deals 
with requirements under Article 68 of the EFF. It also includes the outcome of the strategic 
debate referred to in Article 16.1 of the EFF. The second part includes an overview of some 
key elements of the EFF in the 2007-2013 period, namely permanent cessation, modernisation 
under Article 25 and the implementation of Axis 4.  

The  Accompanying  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  includes  a  summary  of  the 
implementation in each MS as well as detailed information on financial execution2. 

2. 

PART I - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EFF  

2.1.  Main developments, trends and challenges 

Financial  implementation  by  MS.  Certified  interim  payments  sent  by  MS  by  end  of 
December 2011 amounted to 28% (EUR 1 187 725 419.93) of the overall EFF allocation, an 
increase  of  84.5%  (EUR  551  273  466.57)  compared  to  December  2010.  The  average 
commitment rate by end 2011 was 55.29%. Bulgaria and Romania are significantly delayed. 
The  rate  of  commitment  for  Germany,  France,  Hungary,  Italy,  Malta,  Slovenia,  Spain  and 
Sweden is below the average EU rate. On the other hand, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, 
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Austria, Poland, Slovakia, The 
Netherlands and United Kingdom are above the EU average. At the end of 2011, six MS were 
concerned by de-commitment according to the "N+2" rule (EFF Article 90 ) for an amount of 
EUR  9  696  117,  on  the  2009  tranche.  This  represents  a  significant  increase  relative  to  the 
situation by the end of 2010. 
Audit  of  the  fuel  regulation.  In  the  framework  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  744/2008, 
audits were carried out in Belgium, Denmark, France, Portugal and Spain. In June 2011 the 

1 

2 

Art. 68 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund, OJ 
L 120, 15.08.2006. 
Table I. Financial execution in convergence regions. 
Table II. Financial execution in non convergence regions. 
Table III. EFF programmed amounts by priority axes and by Member State. 
Table IV. EFF certified expenditure by priority axis and by Member State. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
Commission  received  the  results.  The  main  findings  related  to  shortcomings  in  the  national 
management  and  control  systems.  In  addition,  audit  reports  recommended  MS  to  (1)  make 
sure that the audit and control systems are in place and work properly; (2) ensure sufficient 
audit activities; (3) improve cooperation with the Commission to contain any irregularity at an 
early  stage  and  (4)  check  that  irregularities  are  not  due  to  systemic  problems.  The 
Commission sent the audit reports to concerned MS with requests to take remedial action.  

The above findings and recommendations prompted the Commission to request other MS to 
perform additional controls. 

Compliance.  By  December  2011,  26  MS  had  submitted  their  compliance  assessments,  of 
which 25 were accepted.  Compared to previous reports,  compliance problems in relation to 
temporary  and  permanent  cessation  have  improved  which  prompted  less  interruption  of 
payments.  

2.1.1.  Budget implementation by the Commission 

In  terms  of  annual  commitments,  in  2011  15.2%  (EUR  653  204  485)  of  the  total 
appropriations for 2007-2013 (EUR 4 292 990 279) were committed, of which EUR 496 297 
184  for  convergence  and  EUR  156  907  301  for  non-convergence  regions.  In  terms  of 
payments in 2011, 10.2% (EUR 440 909 408) of the total appropriations were paid, of which 
72.7%  for  convergence  (EUR  320  405  479)  and  27.3%  for  non-convergence  regions 
(EUR 120  503  930).  These  payments  were  made  in  the  form  of  interim  payments.  Detailed 
information is provided Section 5 below and in the accompanying Staff Working Document  

2.2. 

Technical assistance 

2.2.1.  Use of Technical Assistance by the MS. 

22 MS committed amounts under the Technical Assistance (TA) budget. The MS with larger 
amounts committed to TA were: Greece (EUR 7 115 250), Poland (EUR 4 756 335), Spain 
(EUR  4  416  169),  Italy  (EUR  2  581  161)  and  Latvia  (EUR  2  092  140).  Actions  financed 
included strengthening administrative capacity, IT development, publicity and information, as 
well as supporting the management and implementation of the OPs. 

2.2.2.  Use of Technical Assistance by the Commission.  

In 2011 the Commission used EUR 3 874 825 of the TA budget on the following items: 

Information technology 

The  Commission  committed  EUR  554  741  for  computer  and  services  related  to  the 
maintenance  and  development  of  DG  MARE  information  systems  necessary  for  EFF 
implementation. 

Support Unit for the European Fisheries Areas Network (FARNET) 

EUR  1  891  871  were  committed  for  FARNET.  In  2011,  FARNET  focused  on  the 
implementation of Axis 4 of the EFF through on-going methodological and thematic support 
to  Managing  Authorities  and  FARNET  Local  Action  Groups  (FLAGs).  Two  transnational 
seminars  were  organized  for  the  FLAGs:  on  strategy  development  in  Sofia  (BG)  in  March, 
and on the diversification of fisheries areas, in Gdynia (PL) in July. FARNET contributed to 
the  visibility  of  Axis  4  through  its  website,  Newsletter,  YouTube  Channel  and  Twitter 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
account. Publications included two issues of the FARNET Magazine (in 4 languages) and a 
Guide  on  Diversification  (in  11  languages).  In  November  2011,  a  major  conference  on 
“Sustainable fisheries areas” brought together more than 450 stakeholders. 

Conferences 
The  Commission  organised  a  conference  on  "Sustainable  future  fisheries  areas"  (EUR  324 
443) and a seminar on EFF implementation (EUR 24 091). 

Communication activties 

The Commission committed EUR 148 878 in order to produce four videos on Axis 4 projects, 
available  on  the  EUROPA  website:  Percebeiros  of  Baiona  (Spain),  Direct  sales  and  new 
technologies (Germany), Pescatourism (France) and Seaweed value chain (Denmark) . 

Non-permanent staff 

The Commission committed EUR 850 000 for the salaries of non permanent staff involved in 
the implementation of the EFF, in particular in order to ensure proper MS language coverage . 

2.3. 

Outcome of the strategic debate in Article 16.1 of the EFF  

All  interim  evaluations  for  the  EFF  were  received  by  the  Commission  by  the  end  of  June 
2011. They were the basis for a synthesis report which was used for the strategic debate by 
Directors of Fisheries held in Brussels on 8-9 December 2011. 

Main findings in the synthesis report 

Axis 1 is the most advanced in terms of financial absorption. The economic situation has had 
an  important  effect  on  the  implementation  of  Axis  1,  accelerating  the  implementation  of 
measures  on  permanent  and  temporary  cessation  of  fishing  activity.  Despite  a  specific 
provision in the EFF regulation, permanent cessation measures have not been accompanied by 
the  necessary  Fishing  Effort  Adjustment  Plan.  The  impact  has  also  been  felt  in  the 
implementation  of  measures  in  support  for  on-board  investments,  such  as  increasing  the 
selectivity  of  gear  (with  only  a  few  projects  up  and  running),  as  well  as  support  for  small-
scale coastal fishing.  

Under  Axis  2,  measure  2.3  gets  the  biggest  portion  with  projects  aiming  to  increase 
production  capacity,  improving  production  systems  and  hygiene  and  working  conditions, 
particularly  in  processing  facilities.  Production  capacity  in  the  aquaculture  sector  has 
increased in many MS, despite the perception that the requirement of environmental impact 
assessment made implementation difficult.  

EFF support under Axis 3 has mainly focused on port infrastructure (measure 3.3), collective 
actions  (measure  3.1)  and  pilot  projects  (measure  3.5).  Aqua-environmental  measures 
compensating  for  the  use  of  aquaculture  production  methods  helping  to  protect  the 
environment have rarely been used. 

21 MS have implemented or envisaged implementing Axis 4. However, the implementation 
rate for Axis 4 is slower than for other axes. Delays in setting up procedures, limited access to 
private financing and the lack of interest from the fishing sector explain the delay. 

The  impact  of  Axis  5  (Technical  Assistance  to  help  MS  manage  EFF  funds)  is  moderate. 
However, most evaluation reports highlight its usefulness for OP implementation and for the 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
information of actual or potential beneficiaries.  

The  evaluation  shows  low  overall  contribution  of  EFF  programmes  to  the  conservation  of 
resources or to environmental sustainability, with underutilization of available environmental 
measures.  Finally,  the  contribution  of  EFF  programmes  to  the  promotion  of  equal 
opportunities was generally viewed as neutral or only marginally positive.  

At the meeting, the Commission asked MS to examine ways to accelerate implementation of 
the EFF. It presented also a synthesis on views and reactions on the programming stages of 
the EFF. Many MS concluded that the National Strategic Plan (NSP) had been useful at the 
early  stages  of  the  programming  process  but  lost  its  relevance  in  the  programming  cycle. 
Other MS stressed the need for a regional dimension to the NSP, including where relevant a 
sea-basin approach. Many MS envisaged revisions of their OPs to reallocate funds in response 
to external changes. 

3. 

ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF THE FISHERIES SECTOR IN 2010 -2011 

3.1.1.  Catching sector 

Contrary to the situation during 2007-2009, the EU fleet was on average profitable in 2010. 
11 out of 21 MS for which there is information in the Annual Economic Report (AER 2012) 
generated  a  net  profit  in  2010,  4  continued  to  generate  losses  in  the  sector,  while  the  rest 
presented a break even situation.  

Total  income  was  EUR  7  billion  while  total  costs  were  EUR  6.5  billion  (93%  of  total 
income). Total income increased 2.6% over that of 2009. It comprised EUR 6.6 billion in fish 
sales, EUR 34 million in fishing rights income, EUR 193 million in non-fishing income, and 
EUR 126 million in direct income subsidies (less than 2% of total income and 27% less than 
in 2009). 

Aggregated  crew  wages  (EUR  1.9  billion,  9%  less  than  in  2009,  in  spite  of  the  increase  in 
employment), fuel (EUR 1.3 billion 11% more than in 2009, a percentage significantly below 
the  37.5%  increase  of  fuel  prices  between  2010  and  2009),  other  variable  costs  (EUR  943 
million)  and  depreciation  costs  (EUR  793  million)  were  the  4  most  important  cost  items, 
together representing 75% of total costs.  

The  total  number  of  fishers  employed  on  board  (excluding  Greece)  was  138  500  (105  700 
FTE).  This  represents  an  increase  of  2.4%  over  2009.  Spain  had  the  highest  level  of 
employment,  both  in  terms  of  total  employed  and  FTEs,  of  all  EU  MS  for  which  data  was 
available.  

3.1.2.  Aquaculture 

In  2009,  aquaculture  production  in  the  EU  27  was  1.30  million  tonnes.  Despite  worldwide 
production  increasing  significantly,  production  in  the  EU  aquaculture  sector  has  remained 
constant. As a percentage of global production, the EU share has reduced from 3% in 1997 to 
2.4% in 2009. Although recent data suggests that the economic performance of firms in the 
aquaculture  sector  has  improved,  most  jobs  in  the  sector  are  part-time  amounting  to  a  total 
number of 80000 people working in 14000 firms (of which 90% are microenterprises). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
In  the  EFF,  aquaculture  accounts  for  around  a  third  of  funds  committed  under  Axis  2 
(approximately 28% of the total EFF budget). As of February 2011, some 1 679 projects had 
been selected and over EUR 40 million paid. Most projects are in productive investments and 
over 50% in freshwater aquaculture. According to the Interim Evaluation of the EFF3, there 
are different views on the effectiveness of aquaculture measures in the EFF. The number of 
jobs  created  by  the  EFF  in  the  sector  is  negligible,  less  than  0.3%.  In  addition,  although 
production  capacity  seems  to  have  generally  increased,  this  has  not  necessarily  led  to  an 
increase in production, due to the financial crisis and to increased global competition. Other 
obstacles to growth in the sector are the impact of diseases, licensing issues, access to credit 
(compounded by the very small size of most producers) and the lack of national strategies.  

3.1.3.  Processing  

In  2009,  the  fish  processing  sector  in  the  EU  comprised  over  3500  enterprises  having  fish 
processing as main activity, accounting for about EUR 25.5 billion of turnover and more than 
EUR 6 billion of Gross Added Value (GVA)4. It employed around 118000 FTE in the whole 
of the EU (corresponding to 150000 total jobs).  

Value  of  production  has  been  steadily  increasing  for  the  last  few  years  (EUR17.8  billion  in 
2003  -EU25-,  EUR  18.94  billion  in  2005,  EUR  22.5  billion  in  2007).  Employment  and  the 
number  of  firms  have  nevertheless  decreased:  from  132000  FTE  and  4216  firms  (EU15)  in 
2003, to 129500 FTE and 4035 firms in 2005 and to 126000 FTE and close to 4000 firms in 
2007.  

Fish processing and marketing measures account for over 60% of the funds committed and for 
34%  of  projects  under  Axis  2  of  the  EFF.  Most  projects  focus  on  increasing  production 
capacity,  although  improving  production  systems  and  hygiene  and  working  conditions  are 
also important. The Interim Evaluation of the EFF identified a positive impact of the EFF on 
job creation (+3%) but less of an impact on production volume or value. High administrative 
burden and access to credit are the main factors limiting the effectiveness and implementation 
of  the  EFF  for  processing.  Furthermore,  global  competition,  access  to  raw  materials  in  the 
face of reduced EU production and low margins seem to be the main difficulties the sector is 
facing.  

4. 

PART II - ANALYSIS 

4.1. 

Public and private actions for adapting the fishing fleet 

4.1.1.  Permanent cessation 

The  EFF  includes  measures  to  adapt  the  EU  fishing  fleet,  including  public  support  for  the 
permanent or temporary cessation of fishing activities.  

According  to  the  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  EFF,  by  31  December  2010,  EFF  support  for 
permanent cessation accounted for just 3% of the projects undertaken but for 56% of the EFF 
payments under Axis 1 (EUR 202 million). Based on current projections, for the 2007-2013 

3 

4 

Available 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/eff_evaluation/eff_evaluation_synthesis_en.pdf. 
Page 40. 
A further 900 firms (€2.3 billion of turnover) were also involved in fish processing but not as their main 
activity. 

at 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
programming  period,  this  would  represent  approximately  EUR  720  million.  Adding  this 
amount to the EUR 546700 000 paid under the FIFG (2000-2006 period) results in an overall 
amount  of  close  to  EUR  1.3  billion  of  public  support  for  decommissioning  measures  in  the 
2000-2015 period. 

Successive evaluations of the EFF and its predecessor the FIFG have highlighted a recurrent 
problem with the way permanent cessation is used in practice. It is triggered not so much by 
the need to adapt the fleet to the resources available but by the economic difficulties of fleets, 
irrespective of the situation of stocks. The requirement in the EFF of putting in place fishing 
effort adjustment plans before using permanent cessation has not solved that problem. On the 
contrary, in some fishing effort adjustment plans, permanent cessation is explicitly presented 
as  a  tool  to  compensate  for  the  reduction  of  fishing  opportunities  and  to  improve  the 
economic  viability  of  the  remaining  vessels5.  As  a  result,  permanent  cessation  is  often  not 
targeted  on  the  vessels  which  exert  the  most  pressure  on  the  stocks  but  on  those  with  the 
worst  financial  prospects,  which  limits  the  effectiveness  of  the  capacity  adjustment  it 
generates. 

This  is  also  the  opinion  of  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  (ECA).  Its  Special  Report  of 
December  20116on  how  EU  measures  have  contributed  to  adapting  the  capacity  of  the  EU 
fishing fleet finds that, despite support for decommissioning, the effective fishing capacity of 
the  EU  flees  in  the  period  1992-2008  “taking  into  account  the  impact  of  technological 
improvements,  is  estimated  to  have  increased  by  14%”.  The  report  points  to  cases  where 
support was provided to vessels which either would cease activity anyway or which had little 
impact on the status of stocks.  

4.1.2.  More  than  half7  the  vessels  decommissioned  did  not  receive  scrapping  aid.  This 
confirms  the  limited  impact  of  EFF  support  on  capacity  adjustment.  This  is  only  a 
slight  improvement  from  the  FIFG  (2000-2006),  where  up  until  the  2002  CFP 
reform, vessels decommissioned without public aid could be replaced with aid. Fleet 
adaptations to fuel prices 

Fuel  prices  by  the  end  of  2011  reached  EUR  0.65/l.  They  were  20%  higher  than  these  by 
December 2010 and 62.5% over these by December 2009.  

The fisheries sector is making important efforts to limit the impact of fuel prices increases on 
economic  performance.  Data  from  the  AER  shows  that  fuel  costs  in  the  period  2008-2010 
have been decreasing or increasing less than fuel prices. Two distinct trends can be seen.  

The first refers to changes in fishing behaviour that are immediately available to operators at 
no  or  very  little  cost.  For  example,  the  reduction  of  the  navigation  and  fishing  speeds  can 
bring about savings in fuel consumption of up to 16%. There is also evidence of fleets landing 
catches in ports closer to the fishing grounds. The catch is later dispatched to the home port 
by truck. Operators are also introducing lighter gears or changing metiers (demersal trawling 
to longlining and beam trawling to twin-rigging). Where possible, fleets are moving to fishing 

5 

6 

7 

EN 

and 

interim 

ex-post 

evaluation 

EFF 
at 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/fifg_evaluation/fifg_evaluation_executive_summary
_en.pdf 
Special Report n°12/2011 Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets 
to available fishing opportunities?  
61% of the GT and 48% of the KW decommissioned in 2011. 

evaluation 

available 

FIFG 

the 

of 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
grounds  closer  to  the  home  port.  Many  of  these  adaptations  are  taking  place  without  public 
support.  

The second trend refers to technical adaptations of the vessel such as engine and propulsion 
modifications,  aerodynamics;  water  and  bottom  drag reduction of gears, using computers to 
set the shortest routes to the fishing grounds, to monitor vessel speed, and to set trawl nets at 
optimum speed according to wind, current, and wave strength and direction. Evidence shows 
that these adaptations can bring about savings exceeding 25% of consumption. EFF funds are 
being often used, but not always and, in some cases, only private funds are used. 

Both trends show significant savings in fuel consumption without necessarily replacing vessel 
engines. 

It  should  be  noted  that  many  of  these  adaptations,  covered  by  Article  25  of  the  EFF,  in 
particular investments on board intended to improve energy efficiency, have been identified 
by  the  above  ECA  report  as  increasing  the  “ability  to  catch  fish”  of  vessels.  This  is  for 
instance  the  case  of  nozzle  propulsion  systems  that  bring  about  significant  consumption 
savings (up to 20%) but can also increase navigation speed.  

4.2.  Modernisation under Article 25(2) of the EFF 

The  findings  of  the  ECA  report  had  a  significant  impact  on  the  Commission’s  approach  to 
measures covered by Article 25(2) of the EFF. Although most of the work is taking place in 
2012, in December 2011, the Commission sent a guidance note to MS on the interpretation of 
Article  25(2)  differentiating  between  investments  that  do  not  increase  the  capacity  of  the 
vessels to catch fish and those that do so. The note was accompanied by a letter asking MS to 
submit  by  15  January  2012  the  list  of  operations  funded  under  Article  25(2)  for  which  a 
payment  claim  had  been  submitted  including  a  brief  description  of  the  operations,  the 
checking carried out to verify their compliance and the relevant amounts of EU and national 
funding for each operation. In the letter, the Commission also stated its intention to examine 
the compatibility of the OP with the guidance note and to request revisions where necessary. 

The  Commission  is  currently  analyzing  the  submissions  by  MS.  It  will  decide  whether  to 
accept or not the relevant payment claims, including those for which the payment deadline has 
been  interrupted.  It  will  also  decide  to  apply  financial  corrections  for  payments  that  have 
already taken place. The uncertainty surrounding the interpretation of Article 25 (2) reflect the 
difficulties in modernizing or replacing engines without increasing fishing capacity. 

4.3. 

Implementation of Axis 4 of the EFF 

The  implementation  of  Axis  4  has  continued  to  pick  up  and  it  is  starting  to  bear  fruit; 
although,  overall  it  is  still  quite  low.  By  end  of  December  2011,  the  number  of  FLAGs 
selected had risen to 220 in 18 MS (an increase of 50 FLAGs compared to the end of 2010). 
Out of the 21 MS that will implement Axis 4, only Ireland, Slovenia and Romania had not yet 
selected any groups. In total more than 300 FLAGs are expected to be established.  

All the new groups are now shifting into the phase of project development and selection. At 
the  end  of  2011,  1  625  projects  had  been  selected,  compared  to  685  at  the  end  of  2010. 
Projects  can  be  divided  into  three  broad  themes:  adding  value  to  fisheries  products; 
diversification  of  the  local  economy  of  fisheries  areas;  and  capitalising  on  environmental 
assets (green growth), society and culture, with a particular emphasis on the first two. Projects 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
supported  are  generally  small-scale  in  terms  of  investment  and  benefit  local  fishing 
communities.  

The proportion of EFF funding allocated to Axis 4 ranges from 2.6% in France to 32.5% in 
Romania. The average budget per FLAG varies from less than EUR 1 million to over EUR 7 
million.  

There are also substantial differences in the speed of implementation that can be explained by 
the different level of experience with territorial development and by the difficulties faced by 
some regionalised countries in defining and distinguishing the respective roles of national and 
regional authorities in the implementation of Axis 4.  

There  are  significant  differences  also  in  the  interpretation  of  EU  rules  and  guidelines 
concerning Axis 4 by Managing Authorities. The difficulty to secure public co-financing, has 
proved a serious problem for some FLAGs. In addition private promoters have had difficulties 
to provide match-funding for projects as a result of the economic crisis. Although there is no 
aggregate data available at this stage of the programming period, a number of examples show 
the potential of Axis 4 to create jobs. 

Results from Axis 4 – Examples of job and income creation in projects underway 

-  Pescatourism  (France):  over  three  years,  local  actors  from  the  Var  FLAG,  worked  to 
promote pesca-tourism in the area. Between 2009 and 2010 a total of 12 boats were equipped 
and  approved  for  pesca-tourism  activities.  Fishermen  involved  saw  additional  revenues  of 
30% to 70% for days when they take tourists out (while fishing far less than during a normal 
fishing day) 

-  "Fish  from  the  boat"  (Germany).  This  project  enables  fishermen  to  sell  part  of  their  catch 
directly to final customers using a website which shows what freshly caught will be available 
when  and  where.  The  11  fishing  companies  involved  in  this  project  have  achieved 
significantly higher prices through direct sales and self-marketing compared to wholesale.  

- Sustained jobs for 27 shellfish gatherers in Galicia (Spain) by helping them to develop and 
market new products thereby creating additional revenue 

- Helped 6 disabled fishermen to return to the work place in Charente Maritime (France). This 
project envisages 60 more jobs for disabled fishermen. 

-  Created  6  additional  jobs  in  a  local  fish  restaurant  which  set  up  a  multi-functional  work 
space in a historic building hosting cooking classes, exhibitions and events (The Netherlands, 
Urk)  

-  Created  an  SME  employing  four  people,  which  develops  innovative  food  products  with 
seaweed, generating a turnover of over EUR1500 000 annually. (Denmark, North Jutland) 

- Created six new jobs in fisheries companies and two new jobs in processing by supporting a 
logistics centre in Kuusamo which includes a catch handling and processing centre for local 
fishermen (Finland, Northern Ostrobothnia)  

-  Created  one  additional  job  by  supporting  an  aquaculture  company  to  produce  its  fishmeal 
from local fish waste (fishmeal costs were reduced by 50%, with savings of EUR 20 000 per 
year) (Andalusia, Spain) 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
5. 

FINANCIAL EXECUTION IN THE MEMBER STATES 

TABLE: FINANCIAL EXECUTION CONVERGENCE AND NON-CONVERGENCE 

Country 

Belgique-Belgïe 

Republic of Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Danmark 

Deutschland 

Eesti 

Ireland 

Ellas 

España 

France 

Italia 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lietuva 

Decided 
a 

Committed 
b 

Paid 
c 

% 
(b) / (a) 

% 
(c) / (a) 

Period 2007-2013 

 26 261 648.00 

 17 205 799.00 

 11 243 909.00  65.52%  42.81% 

Financial year: 2011 

 4 412 449.00 

 4 412 449.00 

 7 567 279.00 

Period 2007-2013 

 75 876 747.00 

 47 107 496.00 

 15 625 873.19  62.08%  20.59% 

Financial year: 2011 

 13 084 212.00 

 13 084 212.00 

 4 424 514.08 

Period 2007-2013 

 27 106 675.00 

 18 492 712.00 

 14 758 064.92  68.22%  54.44% 

Financial year: 2011 

 4 043 811.00 

 4 043 811.00 

 7 671 187.19 

Period 2007-2013 

 133 675 169.00 

 93 573 369.00 

 65 434 024.70  70.00%  48.95% 

Financial year: 2011 

 19 463 114.00 

 19 463 114.00 

 20 580 026.46 

Period 2007-2013 

 149 121 176.00 

 103 720 590.00 

 60 355 018.91  69.55%  40.47% 

Financial year: 2011 

 22 443 794.00 

 22 443 794.00 

 12 931 618.46 

Period 2007-2013 

 84 568 039.00 

 54 878 609.00 

 30 975 023.79  64.89%  36.63% 

Financial year: 2011 

 12 995 534.00 

 12 995 534.00 

 10 777 597.65 

Period 2007-2013 

 42 266 603.00 

 27 691 739.00 

 20 590 159.00  65.52%  48.71% 

Financial year: 2011 

 7 101 580.00 

 7 101 580.00 

0.00 

Period 2007-2013 

 207 832 237.00 

 149 533 189.00 

 67 985 280.18  71.95%  32.71% 

Financial year: 2011 

 29 514 336.00 

 29 514 336.00 

 35 990 929.01 

Period 2007-2013 

1 131 890 912.00 

 803 995 016.00 

 404 470 852.66  71.03%  35.73% 

Financial year: 2011 

 162 654 289.00 

 162 654 289.00 

 118 436 927.74 

Period 2007-2013 

 215 686 616.00 

 150 871 906.00 

 87 774 969.38  69.95%  40.70% 

Financial year: 2011 

 31 457 343.00 

 31 457 343.00 

 13 506 474.71 

Period 2007-2013 

 424 342 854.00 

 297 930 059.00 

 163 479 766.46  70.21%  38.53% 

Financial year: 2011 

 61 620 807.00 

 61 620 807.00 

 59 235 210.54 

Period 2007-2013 

 19 724 418.00 

 13 807 204.00 

 13 278 025.78  70.00%  67.32% 

Financial year: 2011 

 2 871 876.00 

 2 871 876.00 

 4 367 980.79 

Period 2007-2013 

 125 015 563.00 

 81 747 415.00 

 65 170 045.47  65.39%  52.13% 

Financial year: 2011 

 19 243 706.00 

 19 243 706.00 

 25 474 344.28 

Period 2007-2013 

 54 713 408.00 

 36 709 949.00 

 23 120 863.91  67.09%  42.26% 

Financial year: 2011 

 8 161 553.00 

 8 161 553.00 

 4 675 239.50 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Luxembourg 

Period 2007-2013 

Financial year: 2011 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00 

Hungary 

Malta 

Nederland 

Österreich 

Polska 

Portugal 

România 

Slovenija 

Slovensko 

Suomi-Finland 

Sverige 

United Kingdom 

Total  

Period 2007-2013 

 34 769 572.00 

 21 987 859.00 

 12 865 081.83  63.24%  37.00% 

Financial year: 2011 

 5 952 501.00 

 5 952 501.00 

 7 190 107.83 

Period 2007-2013 

 8 372 329.00 

 5 300 916.00 

 2 126 063.75  63.31%  25.39% 

Financial year: 2011 

 1 271 388.00 

 1 271 388.00 

953 937.69 

Period 2007-2013 

 48 578 417.00 

 34 005 165.00 

 13 201 570.50  70.00%  27.18% 

Financial year: 2011 

 7 073 021.00 

 7 073 021.00 

 1 553 560.32 

Period 2007-2013 

 5 259 318.00 

 3 692 103.00 

 3 645 455.55  70.20%  69.31% 

Financial year: 2011 

763 814.00 

763 814.00 

753 548.00 

Period 2007-2013 

 734 092 574.00 

 483 677 649.00 

 211 027 766.33  65.89%  28.75% 

Financial year: 2011 

 121 944 858.00 

 121 944 858.00 

 71 086 296.54 

Period 2007-2013 

 246 485 249.00 

 173 238 515.00 

 83 595 336.48  70.28%  33.91% 

Financial year: 2011 

 35 759 773.00 

 35 759 773.00 

 19 208 344.06 

Period 2007-2013 

 230 645 644.00 

 143 020 768.00 

 32 299 988.49  62.01%  14.00% 

Financial year: 2011 

 39 257 052.00 

 39 257 052.00 

0.00 

Period 2007-2013 

 21 640 283.00 

 15 269 905.00 

 5 751 652.52  70.56%  26.58% 

Financial year: 2011 

 3 515 536.00 

 3 515 536.00 

 2 722 012.90 

Period 2007-2013 

 13 123 309.00 

 8 607 829.00 

 5 170 176.35  65.59%  39.40% 

Financial year: 2011 

 1 782 386.00 

 1 782 386.00 

 1 257 371.92 

Period 2007-2013 

 39 448 827.00 

 27 614 400.00 

 16 427 458.77  70.00%  41.64% 

Financial year: 2011 

 5 743 752.00 

 5 743 752.00 

 5 039 613.94 

Period 2007-2013 

 54 664 803.00 

 38 265 669.00 

 24 999 874.53  70.00%  45.73% 

Financial year: 2011 

 7 959 199.00 

 7 959 199.00 

 5 505 285.77 

Period 2007-2013 

 137 827 889.00 

 90 707 217.00 

 19 295 904.46  65.81%  14.00% 

Financial year: 2011 

 23 112 801.00 

 23 112 801.00 

0.00 

Period 2007-2013 

4 292 990 279.00  2 942 653 047.00  1 474 668 206.91  68.55%  34.35% 

Financial year: 2011 

 653 204 485.00 

 653 204 485.00 

 440 909 408.38 

EN 

12 

   EN