Ex-post evaluation of the European Fisheries Fund (2007-2013) : Lot 2 : Retrospective and prospective evaluation on the common fisheries policy, excluding its international dimension, Socio-economic measures, case study report.
Date: 2017-02-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
Subjects: European fisheries fund, authorised catch, common fisheries policy, data transmission, fisherman, fishing controls, fishing fleet, fishing industry, maritime surveillance, sustainable development

DG MARE 

Lot 2: Retrospective and prospective evaluation on the 
common fisheries policy, excluding its international 
dimension 

Ref. No MARE/2011/01 

Ex-post evaluation of the European Fisheries Fund 
(2007-2013)  

Socio-economic Measures, Case Study Report 

August 2016 

Fisheries 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

Directorate D — Fisheries Policy Mediterranean and Black Sea 

Unit D.3 — CFP and Structural Support - Policy Development and Coordination 

Contact: Elisa ROLLER 

E-mail: MARE-D3@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex post Evaluation of the 
European Fisheries Fund 

Socio-economic Measures, Case Study Report 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Socio-economic Measures, Case Study Report 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the 
views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use 
which may be made of the information contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet 
(http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

Catalogue number KL-01-17-043-EN-N 
ISBN 978-92-79-65725-2 
doi: 10.2771/914536 

© European Union, 2017 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Page 2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

1 

Introduction ................................................................................................. 4 

1.1  Scope of the case study ......................................................................... 4 

1.2  Financial execution of the measure(s) ................................................... 4 

1.3  Short description of the measure ........................................................... 5 

1.4  Main sources for analysis ....................................................................... 5 

2  Answers to the evaluation questions ........................................................... 6 

2.1  Evaluation question 1: Uptake ............................................................... 6 

2.1.1 

Judgement criterion 1: Objectives of article 27 (M1.5) were relevant to the 
needs of fishers .................................................................................. 6 

2.1.2 
Judgment  criteria  2:  Extraneous  factors  did  not  inhibit  the  implementation 
of article 27 .................................................................................................... 7 

2.2  Evaluation question 2: Effectiveness ...................................................... 8 

2.2.1 

Judgement  criterion  3:  The  measure  contributed  to  mitigate  the  effect  of 
the fishing effort adjustment on the job market ...................................... 8 

2.3  Evaluation question 3: Achievements .................................................... 9 

2.3.1 

Judgement  criterion  4:  The  measure  contributed  to  improve  working 
conditions and/ or income of fishermen ................................................. 9 

3  Synthesis and discussion ........................................................................... 11 

3.1  Main findings ....................................................................................... 11 

3.2  Recommendations ............................................................................... 11 

Annex 1 – EFF Commitments and payments by MS........................................... 12 

Annex 2 – List of interviews and rationale for the selection of field work ........ 13 

 
 
 
 
 
Socio-economic Measures, Case Study Report 

1  Introduction 

This  section  provides  a  brief  overview  of  the  objectives  of  the  case  study,  the  focal 
measure  and  its  goals,  the  main  sources  of  data,  a  description  of  the  case  study 
locations and the reason they were selected, and a short description of the stakeholders 
and organisations interviewed. 

1.1  Scope of the case study 

This  case  study  covers  Measure  1.5  (Article  27)  Socio-economic  compensation  for  the 
management  of  the  Community  fishing  fleet  (M1.5).  Based  on  the  analysis  of  the  EFF 
intervention logic, the objectives of this measure are: 

1.  Sustained balance between resources and fishing capacity and; 

2.  Sustainable  development  and  improvement  of  the  quality  of  life  in  areas  with 

activities in the fisheries sector. 

The  main  objectives  of  this  case  study  are  firstly  to  determine  why  the  uptake  of  this 
measure  was  so  low  throughout  the  EFF  funding  period;  then  to  determine  the  extent 
and manner that M1.5 has mitigated the effect of the adjustment of the fishing effort for 
fishermen;  to  determine  what  factors  may  have  influenced  the  observed  achievements 
and;  finally,  to  determine  the  extent  and  manner  in  which  M1.5  has  contributed  to 
improved standards of living or working conditions for fishermen. 

1.2  Financial execution of the measure(s)  

As  of  May  2015,  the  EFF  committed  65,784,000  euros  in  socio-economic  compensation 
for  the  management  of  the  Community  fishing  fleet  (M1.5),  or  1.67%  of  the  total  EFF 
committed1,  85.2%  of  which  has  been  effectively  paid.  The  average  cost  of  operations 
implemented  was  29,965  euros,  with  a  minimum  average  cost  at  MS-level  of  4,268 
euros in Romania and a maximum average  cost of 550,000  euros in Belgium (although 
only one operation in Belgium). The total public co-financing reached 64.3% of the cost 
of  the  operations,  including  39.1%  of  EFF.  The  highest  rate  of  public  co-financing  was 
observed  in  Latvia,  Estonia,  Lithuania,  the  Netherlands,  and  Romania,  with  100%, 
including 75%, 75%, 85%, 50% and 75%  of  EFF co-financing, respectively. The lowest 
rate  of  public  co-financing  was  observed  in  Belgium,  with  9.1%,  including  4.5%  of  EFF 
co-financing. 

The  first  five  MS  in  terms  of  the  amount  of  EFF  committed  for  M1.5  were  Spain,  Italy, 
Poland,  France  and  Latvia.  They  represented,  by  themselves,  93.6%  of  the  EFF 
committed  for  this  measure  at  EU  level.  The  first  five  MS  in  terms  of  the  share  of  EFF 
committed  for  this  measure  were  Italy,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  France  and  Spain,  with  5.9%, 
2.8%, 2.6%, 2.3% and 2.1%, respectively. 

It should be noted that eight out of twenty-seven MS (AT, BG, CZ, GR, HR, HU, SI and 
SK) did not report the implementation any operations for M1.5. Furthermore, Malta and 
Belgium only implemented one operation.  

1 See detailed financial data by MS in Annex 1 

Page 4 

 
                                           
1.3  Short description of the measure 

Measure  1.5  (Article  27)  concerned  socio-economic  compensation  for  the  management 
of  the  community  fishing  fleet.  The  EFF  may  contribute  to  the  financing  of  proposed 
measures for fishers affected by developments in fishing, which includes amongst other 
things;  the  diversification  of  activities  to  promote  multiple  jobs;  upgrading  professional 
skills  in  particular  for  young  fishers;  schemes  for  retraining  in  occupations  outside 
fishing; early departure from the fishing sector, including retirement and; non-renewable 
compensation to fishers who worked on board a vessel for at least 12 months, provided 
the vessel has been the object of permanent cessation. 

Generally,  there  was  low  uptake  of  M1.5  across  MS.  The  main  uptake  of  the  measure 
concerned compensations paid to fishermen who worked on scrapped and/ or reassigned 
fishing  vessels  and  a  few  cases  of  young  fishermen  start-ups  (first  fishing  vessel  and 
training sessions). In some MS there was increased uptake for diversification of activities 
and  upgrading  of  professional  skills,  but  this  was  not  consistent  across  MS.  Limited 
attractiveness  of  the  sector  for  young  people,  administrative  burden  and  levels  of  co-
financing (for diversification and premium for young fishermen) were cited as reasons for 
the limited uptake. 

1.4  Main sources for analysis 

Case  study  analyses  relied  on  wide  data  collection  across  the  27  MS  with  Operational 
Programmes  for  the  EFF.  In  addition,  for  this  case  study  specific  data  collection  was 
conducted  in  Spain  and  Italy2.  In  general,  stakeholders  had  difficulties  answering  the 
“effectiveness” and “impact” questions, and in the case of ES,  stakeholders did not deal 
directly  with  M1.5  of  the  EFF,  so  insight  is  incorporated  as  an  indirect  opinion. 
Furthermore,  in  ES,  the  Andalusian  Federation  did  not  respond  to  requests  for 
interviews, so stakeholder input focused on Galicia.  

The EFF monitoring system included thirteen Article 40 (Art.40) data indicators for M1.5. 
These relate to the total number of fishers (n = 6) and the number of female fishers (n 
= 6) concerning; diversification of activities; early departure from the sector; premiums 
to  young  fishers;  the  upgrading  of  skills;  schemes  for  retraining;  and  non-renewable 
compensations.  There  was  also  an  indicator  concerning  the  number  of  training  days 
received,  for all fishers  (n =1). Art.40 indicators were of limited use.  The nature of the 
indicators  allowed  the  broad  type  of  actions  undertaken  in  each  MS  to  be  described, 
which  provided  insight  into  the  distribution  of  the  funding  across  MS.  However,  these 
indicators  were  of  little  use  when  addressing  the  main  objectives  of  the  case  study; 
specifically  to  determine  why  uptake  was  low  and  the  extent  that  M1.5  mitigated  the 
effect  of  adjustments  to  fishing  effort.  Regarding  the  overall  quality  of  the  Art.40  data; 
18  MS  responded,  with  14  of  them  stating  that  the  data  were  ‘complete  and  reliable’. 
Furthermore, 16 of the  MS stated that their monitoring systems  could provide rejection 
rates  per  measure.  However,  it  was  clear  that  erroneous  data  were  included,  and  the 
data is therefore utilised with caution. 

2  See  detailed  list  of  relevant  interviews  and  contacts,  and  rationale  for  selecting  those  MS  in 
Annex 2 

 
 
                                           
Socio-economic Measures, Case Study Report 

2  Answers to the evaluation questions  

2.1  Evaluation question 1: Uptake 

-  Why was there not more uptake of this measure? 

2.1.1  Judgement  Criterion  1:  Objectives  of  Article  27  (M1.5)  were  relevant  to 

the needs of fishers 

Indicator 1: Qualitative analysis  

Interrogation of the MA Grid provided an initial overview of the uptake of M1.5 within 7 
out of 27 MS. Compared to their original objective. CY, DE, IE, IT and MT reported that 
uptake  was  significantly  below  expected  levels,  FI  reported  it  to  be  moderately  below, 
whereas ES reported uptake was close to the objective set. Although CZ, HR and RO did 
not respond to the uptake question, CZ and RO commented that the  measure ‘was not 
relevant’ to their objectives, but did not provide detail. Furthermore, HR stated that M1.5 
‘was not implemented in Croatia’, presumably due to its lack of relevance. SE considered 
their  implementation  of  M1.5  to  have  been  successful,  indicating  that  99%  of  the 
allocated funds of >1,000,000 EURO had been spent.  

According to interviews conducted within IT, the most  relevant actions under M1.5 that 
addressed  fishers’  needs  were  funding  for  upgrading  of  professional  skills  (557 
individuals applied) and funding for diversification of activities and training outside of the 
fisheries  sector:  Furthermore  56%  of  Italian  fishers  benefitting  under  M1.5  did  so 
through  upgrading  of  skills  and  35%  through  training  outside  the  sector.  Other  actions 
were deemed not relevant to needs.  

Overall  it  appears  that  M1.5  did  not  reflect  the  needs  of  the  sector  (as  perceived  by 
fishers)  as  much  as  other  measures  of  Axis  1.  According  to  sector  representatives,  the 
most  urgent  need  was  fleet  modernisation,  partly  addressed  through  M1.3.  MA 
representatives  highlighted  the  increased  attractiveness  of  M1.1,  M1.2  and  M1.3,  in 
contrast with M1.5.  

According  to  interviews  conducted  within  ES,  the  most  relevant  actions  of  M1.5  were 
non-renewable  compensations  and  early  retirement,  in  the  context  of  the  fleet 
adjustment.  Other  actions  could  have  been  relevant  for  the  future  of  the  fishing  sector 
according  to industry  representatives,  but  the  uptake  remained  low  for  various  reasons 
(not  an  attractive  context  for  young  fishermen,  training  programmes  available  under 
other  funding  sources,  the  age  of  fishermen,  lack  of  opportunities  for  diversification, 
etc.).  Spain’s  national  management  plan  aimed  to  minimise  the  risk  of  exclusion  of 
groups  such  as  young  people  and  women,  utilising  policies  including  basic  training. 
However, the action within M1.5 which focused on young fishers under 40 appeared not 
to be heavily applied for.  

Indicator 2: Specific fleet segments targeted 

Analysis of the MA Grid provided limited specific information concerning Indicator 2. The 
German  MA  commented  that  M1.5  mainly  benefitted  ‘inshore  and  artisanal  fisheries’. 
Conversely, RO stated that the measure benefitted ‘large scale’ vessels. Seven of the MS 
responded  that  the  measure  largely  focused  on  supporting  individuals,  rather  than 
groups or collectives, but it is unclear if this led to benefitting fishers from particular fleet 
segments.  

Page 6 

 
According  to  expert  stakeholder  interviews  in  IT,  both  small-scale,  large-scale  and 
distant-water  fleets  were  beneficiaries  of  M1.5.  However,  they  did  not  provide  further 
detail regarding the specific breakdown.  

It  is  unclear  if  targeting  of  specific  fleet  segments  for  M1.5  occurred,  and  whether 
targeting would have had a positive or negative impact on the uptake of the measure. 

2.1.2  Judgment  Criterion  2:  Extraneous 

factors  did  not 

inhibit 

the 

implementation of article 27 

lack  of  private 

Indicator  1:  Qualitative  analysis  of  barriers  to  implementation,  such  as 
awareness, 
funding,  demographic  characteristics  of 
beneficiaries/  non-beneficiaries,  difficulties  in  understanding  the  measure, 
administrative  burden,  the  possibility  of  relying  on  other  measures  or  funding 
sources 

Within  the  MA  Grids,  few  MS  provided  specific  information  regarding  likely  causes  for 
uptake  being  lower  than  the  objectives.  DE,  FI  and  IT  stated  that  the  administrative 
burden  of  the  Measure  prevented  uptake,  however,  it  wasn’t  often  clear  if  the 
administrative  burden  impacted  the  recipient  or  the  MA.  In  ES,  contradictory  opinions 
were  reported.  Some  sector  representatives  believed  EFF  application  was  too 
complicated  for  fishers,  but  opinions  may  be  based  on  their  experience  with  other 
measures  as  they  were  not  usually  directly  involved  with  the  implementation  of  this 
particular  measure.  FI  suggested  that  socio-economic  issues  were  better  addressed 
under  Axis  3  rather  than  M1.5,  however  this  opinion  was  not  reflected  amongst  other 
MS.  In  ES,  actions  for  young  fishers  were  assessed  to  have  been  hampered  by  the 
economic  crisis.  The  cause  of  low  uptake  in  DE  was  reportedly  the  lack  of  private 
funding, as ‘young fishermen could not get loans’ and ‘EFF was too low’ to support them. 
This response is somewhat reflected in some responses from ES;  stating that ‘the [EFF] 
support was not attractive (max 10% of eligible cost), but support has increased under 
EMFF  (max  25%)’.  Evidently  there  was  little  consensus  regarding  the  barriers  to 
implementation of M1.5.  

The  focused  IT  and  ES  interviews  revealed  more  in  depth  information  regarding  the 
barriers  to  uptake  of  M1.5.  The  Italian  MA  claimed  that  the  greatest  barrier  to  uptake 
was  administrative  burden,  but  there  was  no  supporting  evidence  to  enable  verification 
of this. A regional MA in Italy claimed that M1.5 attracted little interest from the sector, 
in  the  case  of  early  departure  from  fisheries  this  was  not  taken  up  ‘due  to  the 
uncertainty created by the poor economic situation’. Of the 20 regions in IT, only seven 
activated  M1.5  at  all,  this  could  be  a  peculiarity  of  their  management  system,  for 
example,  socio-economic  compensations  were  supposed  to  be  complementary  with 
cessations, however the former were managed by  regional authorities and the latter by 
the  central  Italian  MA.  Discrepancies  between  the  calls  for  proposals  and  M1.5  actions 
often created difficulties between these two supposedly complementary actions. 

However,  feedback  from  a  further  Italian  stakeholder  contradicted  this  finding;  stating 
that ‘though awareness was not a problem for the Puglia Regional Authority (one of the 
few regions that activated M1.5). During the last period, calls of proposals became more 
concentrated for some specific actions and the results were better’. The central MA partly 
supported  this  argument,  stating  that  a  form  of  a  pre-advertising  for  all  the  available 
actions supported was necessary so that fishers became aware of possible options. 

ES experts somewhat corroborated findings from IT. One of the industry representatives 
interviewed  stated  that  M1.5  was  not  used  to  its  full  extent  because  of  the  excessive 

 
 
Socio-economic Measures, Case Study Report 

administrative  burden.  However,  they  went  on  to  state  that,  except  within  ‘regions 
where  EFF  budgets  are  significant  and  they  have  the  staff  to  overcome  the 
administrative  burden  and  reach  out  to  potential  beneficiaries  and  smaller  regions,  in 
terms  of  the  fishing  sector  that  may  not  have  enough  staff/technical  assistance  to  deal 
with the bureaucracy of the EFF. (e.g. for M1.5)’.  

Although it is  not  clear  if  administrative  burden  was  a  difficulty  for  EFF  measures  more 
generally, or specifically for M1.5, it was regularly raised as an issue. A secondary issue 
that prevented uptake  of M1.5 appeared to be lack of awareness of the specific actions 
available. 

2.2  Evaluation question 2: Effectiveness 

To  what  extent  and  in  which  manner  has  M1.5  mitigated  the  effect  of  the 
adjustment of the fishing effort for fishermen? 

2.2.1  Judgement Criterion 3: The measure contributed to mitigate the effect of 

the fishing effort adjustment on the job market 

Indicator  1:  Number  of  fishers  taking  early  retirement,  benefitting  from  non-
renewable compensation, or from training outside fisheries 

The  MA  Grid  provided  (where  possible)  data  on  the  number  of  fishers  receiving  each 
form  of  support,  however,  there  were  apparent  errors  in  the  data  (particularly  FR), 
therefore  these  figures  should  be  used  cautiously.  In  total,  the  number  of  fishers 
reportedly  taking  early retirement  was  >120,000  (17,  426,  122,482, 6  and  371, in  CY, 
ES,  FR,  NL  and  PL,  respectively);  benefitting  from  non-renewable  compensation  was 
>120,000 (65, 1,202, 122,493, 77, 29, 383, 232, 135, 8, 20 and 22 in EE, ES, FR, IT, 
LT,  LV,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SE  and  SK,  respectively)  and  benefitting  from  training  outside  of 
fisheries was 955 (26, 828 and 101 in ES, IT and MT, respectively). 

Regarding  early  retirement,  recipients  receive  ca.  1,000  euros  per  month  until  they 
reach  the  age  of  retirement.  Of  the  1,000  euros,  300  euros  are  deducted  for  social 
contributions,  whereas  under  the  FIFG,  social  contributions  were  also  paid  for,  which 
made it a more attractive option than under EFF. 

Indicator  2:  Analysis  for  different  fleet  segments  and  comparison  with 
employment trends  

A  Spanish  stakeholder  from  OPAGA  stated  that  the  needs  of  a  potential  recipient 
depended heavily on the type of activity they were involved in i.e. diversification is very 
slow  (regardless  of  the  financial  support),  and  early  retirement  is  related  to  age. 
However,  the  information  available  from  the  stakeholder  interviews  and  data  collection 
templates  was  insufficient  to  draw  sound  conclusions  regarding  the  implementation  of 
M1.5 with regard to the specific fleet segments.    

Indicator 3: Qualitative analysis of the fisher’s status after exiting the fleet 

Four  fishers  who  took  early  retirement  in  Spain  were  interviewed  directly.  Two  of  them 
were  shellfish  hand  gatherers,  and  took  early  retirement  due  to  the  physical  difficulties 
of  the  job  and  due  to  the  regularity  of  closures.  Two  worked  within  the  small-scale 
fishery  and  quoted  similar  difficulties  regarding  the  physical  demands  of  the  job. 
Generally  they  found  the  process  very  easy.  They  were  not  looking  for  alternative 
sources of work following retirement.  

Page 8 

 
There  was  no  information  regarding  the  types  of  work  that  recipients  of  training  in 
alternative  sectors  moved  into.  However,  there  was  some  discussion  that  one  of  the 
most  effective  actions  of  the  EFF  was  retraining in terms  of  tourism  or  ‘pesca-tourism’; 
as an alternative source of income,  and a way of  reducing fishing effort.  This was seen 
as a positive development by most stakeholders. 

2.3  Evaluation question 3: Achievements 

What  factors influenced  the  observed  achievements  and  to  what  extent  and  in 
which  manner  has  M1.5  contributed  to  improve  the  standard  of  living  or 
working conditions of fishermen (e.g. through diversification, training, etc.)? 

2.3.1  Judgement  Criterion  4:  The  measure  contributed  to  improving  the 

working conditions and/ or income of fishermen 

Indicator  1:  Number  and  nature  of  new  jobs  undertaken  by  fishers,  training 
undertaken, especially for young fishers 

There  was  no  specific  information  in  the  MA  Grid  regarding  the  new  jobs  undertaken. 
However, LV claimed that M1.5 ‘ensured those who lost their jobs were given possibility 
to start activities outside the fisheries sector’. The number of fishers that participated in 
schemes  for  retraining  outside  of  the  fisheries  sector,  Art.40  data  suggests  that,  more 
than 1,300 fishers took part, resulting in over  9,000 days of training (Art.40 data used 
with  caution).  In  terms  of  training  in  order  to  upgrade  fisher  skills,  approximately  900 
fishers  participated.  The  main  MS  in  which  fishers  participated  in  these  two  actions 
(according to Art.40 data) were FR, IT, NL, PL, SE, and SK (SK training outside fisheries 
only). IT and MT went on to claim that improving  the skills of the fishers was the main 
achievement  of  the  measure,  whereas  ES  and  DE  claimed  it  did  not  have  such  impact. 
ES claimed that training was not implemented under the EFF, but instead under the ESF 
(MS-level funding). 

In  terms  of  premiums  to  fishers  younger  than  40,  Art.40  data  suggested  that  this  had 
been  taken  up  to  some  extent,  but  not  in  great  numbers.  However,  the  UK  reported 
48,000 fishers who engaged with this action, although this is unlikely to be correct. The 
next two MS  where this action was successfully taken up were FR (250 fishers) and ES 
(53).  According  to  the  German  MA,  the  uptake  of  this  action  was  low  due  to  young 
fishers  having  difficulties  in  securing  loans,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  EFF  funding  was 
too low. Unattractiveness of the sector was also highlighted as a driver for low uptake by 
young fishers (FI and EI). However, SE claimed that M1.5 had resulted in ‘rejuvenation 
of  the  profession  on  the  East  Coast,  which  is  a  prerequisite  for  the  small-scale  fishing 
future’.  

Indicator  2:  Analysis  for  different  fleet  segments  and  comparison  with 
employment trends 

Insufficient information was provided by MAs to enable an answer to this indicator.  

Indicator  3:  Qualitative  analysis  based  on 
representatives and MA  

interviews  with 

industry 

Italian  stakeholders  explained  that  the  assessment  of  the  achievements  of  M1.5  was 
difficult due to the collection of results and impact indicators not being obligatory under 
EFF  regulations.  However,  contradictory  to  Art.40  data,  the  expert  claimed  that 
‘temporary  and  permanent  cessation  were  most  ‘successful’  in  terms  of  spend  and 

 
 
 
Socio-economic Measures, Case Study Report 

absorption. Permanent cessation continued until November 2015  – reached and may go 
beyond target for some fleet segments’. 

The  Spanish  MA  were  of  divided  opinion  regarding  the  achievements  of  M1.5.  One 
respondent  was  of  the  opinion  that  M1.5  did  not  significantly  improve  the  working 
conditions,  income  or  profitability  for  fishers.  They  considered  M1.5  to  support  the 
removal  of  people  from  the  sector.  Where  diversification  was  observed,  stakeholders 
believed  that  it  did  improve  profitability.  A  second  Spanish  MA  respondent  suggested 
that  in  order  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  PO,  EFF  measures  focused  on  improving 
competitiveness  and  security  of  the  sector  and  minimising  the  socio-economic 
consequences  of  the  fleet,  thus  the  actions  most  supported  were  building  professional 
skills,  delivering  training  and  improving  working  conditions  on  the  vessels.  The  ES 
stakeholder from ANAFCO stated that ‘one of the main indicators of the result of the EFF 
in  Galicia  is  that  the  fishing  industry  has  strengthened  according  to  the  analysis  of 
"Intelligent Strategy" carried out for the new EU programming period’. 

Clearly  the  perceived  achievements  of  the  EFF  and  M1.5  in  particular  are  based  on 
subjective stakeholder perceptions, and vary between regions.  

Page 10 

 
 
 
3  Synthesis and discussion 

The  evaluation  of  Measure  1.5  of  the  EFF  has  been  difficult  for  several  reasons,  this  is 
largely due to the incomplete and erroneous nature of the Art.40 data, and furthermore 
the  fact  that  impacts  and  indicator  variables  are  not  collected  by  MAs,  therefore  the 
criteria upon which to quantitatively determine the effectiveness of the measures are not 
available.  

3.1  Main findings 

  Where uptake levels of M1.5 were recorded by MS, these were significantly below 
the objectives of most MS, whilst in many others M1.5 was not implemented at 
all.  
IT and ES found the most relevant actions under M1.5 that addressed fishers’ 
needs were; funding for upgrading of professional skills and diversification of 
activities. 

 

  No clear targeting of specific fleet segments was identified, although there was 

indication that small-scale fleets benefitted most.  

  There  was  a  general  lack  of  consensus  regarding  the  barriers  to  implementation 
of  M1.5,  both  within  and  between  MS.  However,  administrative  burden  was 
considered the  major barrier to the realization of the two Measures according to 
many MA.  

  Generally  it  was  considered  that  M1.5  did  not  reflect  the  precise  needs  of  the 

sector (as perceived by fishers) as much as other Measures of Axis 1. 

  The  success  and  achievements  of  M1.5  are  difficult  to  assess  in  detail  due  to 
results and indicators not being systematically collected. Furthermore, results are 
based  on  objective  stakeholder  perceptions  from  different  regions  and  levels  of 
interaction with the fund.  

3.2  Recommendations 

  Results  indicate  that  M1.5  was  not  entirely  relevant  to  the  needs  of  the 
stakeholders,  however,  some  of  the  actions  were  considered  relevant.  Therefore 
the funding for socio-economics should be maintained, but the focus should be to 
address and alter the specific actions that were not applied for.  

 

Indicators  and  variables  required  for  the  evaluation  of  the  uptake  and  impact  of 
measures  should  be  stated  prior  to  the  dissemination  of  funding,  and  their 
collection should be a prerequisite for funding allocation.  

  The  Commission  should  seek  to  implement  efficient  systems  which  reduce  the 
administrative  burden  of  applying  and  receiving  funding,  both  for  fishers  and 
MAs.  Several  MAs  reported  administrative  burden  as  a  significant  barrier  to  the 
implementation  of  M1.5.  Clearer  information  regarding  the  real  administrative 
burden should be disseminated.  

  MAs should implement formal systems to document reasons why funding streams 

were not utilised.  

  The Commission should capitalise where M1.5  has been successful by increasing 

awareness of successful projects amongst MS exhibiting low uptake.  

 
 
Socio-economic Measures, Case Study Report 

Annex 1 – EFF Commitments and payments by MS 
MS 

Number 
of 
operation
s 

Total cost 
of 
operation 
(kE) 

Total public 
cost taken 
into account 
(kE) 

 EFF 
commit
ted 
(kE)  

 % total 
EFF 
granted in 
the MS  

Average 
project 
cost 
(Euros) 

 % total 
public 
co-
financin
g  

 % EFF 
co-
financin
g  

 % EFF 
paid/EFF 
committ
ed  

Measure 1.5: Socio-
economic 
compensations for 
the management of 
the fleet 
ES 
IT 
PL 
FR 
LV 
PT 
SE 
CY 
EE 
DK 
DE 
LT 
MT 
IE 
NL 
UK 
RO 
BE 
FI 
AT 
BG 
CZ 
GR 
HR 
HU 
SI 
SK 

Page 12 

5,611 
1715 
1664 
771 
590 
401 
159 
97 
22 
65 
22 
14 
29 
1 
9 
35 
5 
8 
1 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

168,132 
28,740 
40,222 
17,096 
57,935 
5,156 
1,780 
1,441 
1,160 
650 
9,599 
572 
202 
265 
1,609 
231 
714 
34 
550 
177 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

108,081  65,784 
20,318 
19,989 
12,599 
4,859 
3,867 
1,215 
531 
526 
488 
441 
247 
171 
168 
121 
116 
65 
26 
25 
12 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

28,541 
39,297 
16,799 
12,052 
5,156 
1,508 
554 
1,052 
650 
881 
487 
202 
224 
241 
231 
91 
34 
50 
29 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1.67% 
2.11% 
5.88% 
1.72% 
2.31% 
2.58% 
0.50% 
0.98% 
2.76% 
0.52% 
0.30% 
0.21% 
0.31% 
1.53% 
0.26% 
0.21% 
0.05% 
0.01% 
0.10% 
0.03% 
0.00%  - 
0.00%  - 
0.00%  - 
0.00%  - 
0.00%  - 
0.00%  - 
0.00%  - 
0.00%  - 

29,965 
16,758 
24,172 
22,174 
98,195 
12,859 
11,193 
14,851 
52,720 
10,000 
436,315 
40,822 
6,951 
264,793 
178,758 
6,612 
142,759 
4,268 
550,000 
58,941 

64.3% 
99.3% 
97.7% 
98.3% 
20.8% 
100.0% 
84.7% 
38.4% 
90.7% 
100.0% 
9.2% 
85.1% 
100.0% 
84.7% 
15.0% 
100.0% 
12.8% 
100.0% 
9.1% 
16.2% 

39.1% 
70.7% 
49.7% 
73.7% 
8.4% 
75.0% 
68.3% 
36.8% 
45.4% 
75.0% 
4.6% 
43.2% 
85.0% 
63.6% 
7.5% 
50.0% 
9.2% 
75.0% 
4.5% 
7.0% 

85.2% 
80.2% 
105.9% 
54.4% 
82.5% 
98.2% 
96.6% 
100.9% 
81.8% 
96.9% 
94.2% 
89.9% 
100.0% 
100.0% 
90.1% 
81.5% 
108.5% 
92.2% 
100.0% 
100.0% 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

 
Annex 2 – List of interviews and rationale for the selection of field work 

MS 

Name of the 
organization/company 

ES 

Instituto Social de la Marina 

Name of 
interviewees 

Elena Martinez 
Carqués 

Contact Email 

Date of 
the 
interview 
Exchanges 
by email 

Consejeria de Agricultura y Pesca - 
Andalucia 

Jose Manuel 
Gaiteiro 

josem.gaiteiro@juntadeandalucia.es 

21/03/2016 

Topics 
(MA/MC/Case 
studies) 

Complete? 
(Y/N) 

IB (M1.5) 

Regional MA - 
focus on 1.5/ 
3.4 

ES 

ES 

ES 

Cooperativa de Armadores de 
Pesca del Puerto de Vigo 
OPAGA (Organizaciones 
Productores Artesanales de 
Galicia) 

Jorge Romón Olea 

arvi@arvi.org 

29/03/2016  M3.4 / M1.5 

D. Sergio Garcia 
López 

info@opaga.es 

31/03/2016 

OP- M1.5 

ES  Xunta de Galicia 

Beatriz Ferro Soto 

beatriz.ferro.soto@xunta.es 

31/03/2016 

Regional MA - 
focuses on 1.5/ 
2.3 

ES 

FACOPE (Federación de Cofradía) 
Andalucía 

Manuel Peinado 
Fuentes 

ES  Former fisherman 

Eloi Fandiño Cordal 

ES  Former fisherman 

Josefa Otero Otero 

ES  Former fisherman 

José Perez Patiño 

Marino Varela 
Rodriguez 

info@and-cofrad-pesca.com 

Abandoned 

OP- M1.5 

19/05/2016 

19/05/2016 

19/05/2016 

26/05/2016 

M1.5 /early 
retirement 
M1.5 /early 
retirement 
M1.5 /early 
retirement 
M1.5 /early 
retirement 

ES  Former fisherman 

IT 

Puglia Regional MA for Measures 
1.4 and 1.5 

IT  Sicily Regional MA for Measure 1.5 

IT  Campania Managing Measure 1.5 
Emilia Romagna, Fondo Europeo 
per la Pesca 

IT 

Antonella Grandolfo  a.grandolfo@regione.puglia.it  

Leonardo 
Catagnano 

leonardo.catagnano@regione.sicilia.it  

Ermelinda Cozzolino  e.cozzolinomaildip@regione.campania.it  

Angela Pignatelli 

apignatelli@regione.emilia-romagna.it  

CS 

CS 

CS 

CS 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
K
L
-
0
1
-
1
7
-
0
4
3
-
E
N
-
N

ISBN:978-92-79-65725-2 
doi:10.2771/914536