REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation System for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
Date: 2018-01-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU control, European fisheries fund, co-financing, common fisheries policy, data collection, financial control, shipping policy

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.1.2018 COM(2018) 48 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation System for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund  
 
 
 
Acronyms: 

AIR: Annual Implementation Report 
CFP: Common Fisheries Policy 
CI: Context Indicator 
CMES: Common Monitoring and Evaluation System 
CPR: Common Provision Regulation 
EFF: European Fisheries Fund 
EMFF: European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
EP: Evaluation Plan 
FAME: Fisheries and Aquaculture Monitoring and Evaluation 
FI: Financial Indicator 
FIFG: Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance 
IMP: Integrated Maritime Policy 
MA: Managing Authority 
MS: Member State 
OI: Output Indicator 
OP: Operational Programme 
RI: Result Indicator 
SFC: System for Fund Management in the European Union 

2 

 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

1 

2 

2.1 
2.2 
2.3 
2.4 
2.5 
2.6 
2.7 

3 
3.1 
3.2 
3.3 
3.4 
3.5 
3.6 
3.7 

4 

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

The seven components of the Common Monitoring and 
Evaluation System ................................................................................................. 5 
EMFF Intervention Logic ....................................................................................... 5 
Common Indicators ................................................................................................. 5 
Cumulative Data on Operations (Infosys) .............................................................. 6 
Annual Implementation Report (AIR) .................................................................... 7 
Evaluation Plan ....................................................................................................... 8 
EMFF OPs Evaluations ........................................................................................... 8 
Performance Framework and Review ..................................................................... 9 

Findings and recommendations ........................................................................... 9 
EMFF Intervention Logic ....................................................................................... 9 
Common Indicators ............................................................................................... 10 
Cumulative Data on Operations selected for Funding (Infosys)........................... 11 
Annual Implementation Report (AIR) .................................................................. 11 
Evaluation Plan ..................................................................................................... 12 
Evaluations ............................................................................................................ 12 
Performance Framework ....................................................................................... 13 

Conclusion: are the objectives of the CMES going to be achieved? ............... 13 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
1 

Introduction  

The EMFF Regulation1 requires the establishment of a Common Monitoring and Evaluation 
System  (CMES)  for  the  operations  co-financed  by  the  EMFF  under  shared  management2.  
The purpose of this document is to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the 
implementation  of  the  CMES.  This  report is  required  every four  years,  the  first  time  at  the 
end of 20173 . It provides an opportunity to take stock on the strengths and weaknesses of the 
system, and draw lessons for the future. 

The  objectives  of  the  CMES  are  spelled  out  in  Article  108  of  the  EMFF  Regulation  as 
follows: 
a)  to  demonstrate  the  progress  and  achievements  of  the  CFP  and  the  IMP,  to  consider  the 
general  impact  and  to  assess  the  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  relevance  of  EMFF 
operations; 

b)  to contribute to better targeted support for the CFP and the IMP; 
c)  to support a common learning process related to monitoring and evaluation;  
d)  to  provide  robust,  evidence-based  evaluations  of  EMFF  operations  that  feed  into  the 

decision-making process.  

To  achieve  these  objectives,  the  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  System  has  been 
defined in the Regulation, and consists of seven elements4: 

1)  An intervention logic showing the interactions between priorities, specific objectives and 

measures5.  

2)  A set of common indicators6.  
3)  Cumulative data on operations selected for funding7.  
4)  The Annual Implementation Report of the Operational Programme8.  
5)  The Evaluation Plan9. 
6)  The ex-ante and ex-post evaluations and all other evaluation activities linked to the EMFF 

programme10. 

7)  The performance review11. 

1 Regulation (EU) No. 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries 
Fund 

2 Article 107 of the EMFF Regulation 

3 Article 107(4) of the EMFF Regulation 

4 These are listed in Article 1 of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No. 1014/2014. 

5 Articles 18(1)(a) and 116 of the EMFF Regulation 

6 Article 109 of the EMFF Regulation. The list of common indicators is set out in the Annex of Regulation (EU) No. 1014/2014. 

7 Article 97(1)(a) of the EMFF Regulation (Infosys report). 

8 Article 114 of EMFF Regulation, complementing Article 50 of the Common Provision Regulation (CPR) 

9 Article 115 of the EMFF Regulation in conjunction with Article 56 of the CPR 

10 Article 115, 116 and 117 of the EMFF Regulation in conjunction with Articles 55, 56 and 57 of the CPR 

11  Article  21(1)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No.  1303/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  December  2013  laying  down 
common  provisions  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European  Social  Fund,  The  Cohesion  Fund,  the  European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on European 

4 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
Each  of  these  elements  has  been  discussed  with  the  Member  States  (MS)  in  expert  group 
meetings12  and  adopted  in  the  framework  of  delegated  and  implementing  regulations.  This 
participative approach was continued after the adoption of the legislative framework and the 
involvement  of  the  Managing  Authorities  (MAs)  in  the  further  development  of  the  CMES 
helped  to  fine-tune  the  CMES  components  whilst  limiting  the  associated  administrative 
burden.  This  ensured  the  acceptance  of  the  system  but  also  supported  the  development  of 
monitoring and evaluation capacity in the MAs and the Commission.  

To  reach  its  objectives,  the  CMES  must  be  applied  consistently  across  the  MS,  in  order  to 
produce comparable data that can be aggregated and evaluated at European Union (EU) level. 
To  ensure  consistency  and  further  develop  the  CMES,  the  Commission  established  a 
technical assistance facility FAME13 (Fisheries and Aquaculture Monitoring and Evaluation) 
supported by an external contractor over the seven years of the programming period. 

2  The seven components of the Common Monitoring and 

Evaluation System 

2.1  EMFF Intervention Logic   

The intervention logic is supporting the introduction of a reinforced result-orientation in the 
ESIF for the 2014-2020 period.  

The EMFF intervention logic describes the links between different levels of the programme: 
Union priorities (UPs), Specific Objectives and measures14. A table showing these links was 
distributed to the MS in an EMFF expert group meeting and this logic was integrated in the 
'Operational Programme' module of SFC 201415.  

2.2  Common Indicators 

A  set  of  common  indicators  has  been  established,  aiming  at  representing  the  main 
characteristics  of  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture  sector,  reflecting  the  goals  of  relevant  EU 

Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, The Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. 

12 See documents and report on these meeting here: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff_en 

13  FAME's  activities  are  defined  in  an  Annual  Work  Plan  agreed  with  the  Commission.  For  further  information  on  FAME,  please  visit 
https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/fame_en 

14 Article 18(1)(b) and 116 of the EMFF Regulation.  

15 SFC2014 is the structured communication channel between the Commission and the MS. Its main function is the electronic exchange of 
information 
the  European  Commission.  See: 
https://ec.europa.eu/sfc/en/2014/about-sfc2014 

shared  Fund  management  between  Member  States 

concerning 

and 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
policies (CFP, IMP) and providing a connection with the EU 2020 strategy. These also ensure 
consistent and comparable monitoring and reporting at the EU level. 

The set of common indicators used by the EMFF was extensively discussed with the MS in 
expert group meetings prior to their adoption16. Four types of common indicators are used in 
the CMES, addressing different levels of objectives and serving different purposes:  

  Context Indicators (CIs) are linked to the overall objectives of the EMFF and establish the 
baseline at the beginning of the OP implementation. The EMFF uses 25 common CIs. 
  Output indicators (OIs) are the direct product of the implemented activities. In the case of 
the  EMFF,  they  are  mostly  expressed  as  a  number  of  operations.  The  EMFF  CMES 
defines 28 OIs covering the 50 measures.  

  Result Indicators (RIs) measure the gross effect of the EMFF. The CMES comprises a set 
of 28 RIs, some of which are linked to only one EMFF Specific Objective, others to more 
than one. MS were free to add specific indicators if they wished. 

  Financial indicators (FI) are common to all ESIF and are set at UP level.  

A  working  paper  has  been  published  in  which  common  indicators  were  defined  and  made 
more  operational  by  the  provision  of  judgment  criteria  and  the  identification  of  possible 
sources  of  information.  These  definitions  were  extensively  discussed  with  the  MS  in  two 
workshops held in March and September 2016.  

2.3  Cumulative Data on Operations (Infosys)  

The  mid-term  and  ex-post  evaluations  of  the  European  Fisheries  Fund  (EFF,  2007-2013) 
were  hampered  by  the  lack  of  robust  monitoring  data,  making  the  collection  of  data 
challenging17.  A  reporting  system  was  established  to  address  this  shortcoming  and  provide 
the Commission with detailed information at the level of every single operation18. The aim of 
this  reporting  is  to  create  a  database  of  information  that  can  be  used  to  follow  the 
implementation of the OPs, carry out specific analysis required by policy-making and ensure 
that robust data is available for evaluation.  

Art. 97 of the EMFF Regulation requires that, at the end of March each year, MAs provide 
the Commission with cumulative data on operations selected for funding up to the end of the 
previous calendar year. Two Implementing Regulations19 provide the list and structure of the 

16 CDR (EU) No. 1014/2014 defines common Context Indicators, Output Indicators and Result Indicators. 

17 A similar Infosys system was established for monitoring the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), covering the 2000-2006 
period. This system was discontinued under the EFF. 

18 In order to limit the administrative burden for the MAs, the system uses information which is already available in the MS. 

19  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No.  1242/2014  of  20  November  2014  laying  down  rules  pursuant  to  the  EMFF 
Regulation with regard to the presentation of relevant cumulative data on operations and Commission Implementing  Regulation (EU) 

No. 1243/2014 of 20 November 2014 on the information to be sent by  Member States, as well as data needs and synergies between 

potential data sources.  

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
operation  implementation  data  required  on  each  operation,  including  key  characteristics  of 
the beneficiary and the operation.  

A working paper has been developed with support from FAME to help the MS prepare the 
Infosys reports. The first set of reports were analysed and a feed-back to the MS helped them 
identify the errors made.   

The Infosys reporting describes the progress and achievements at operation level by capturing 
what  is  happening  “on  the  ground”.  It  provides  key  information  about  the  beneficiary  (e.g. 
size of enterprise, gender) and the operation (type of activities, budget, number of fishermen 
concerned,  total  area  concerned,  etc.).    In  order  to  limit  the  administrative  burden  on  MAs 
and on beneficiaries, most of the data requested by the Infosys is already stored in national 
databases  set  up  to  comply  with  the  minimum  data  to  be  recorded  and  stored  for  each 
operation20.  

2.4  Annual Implementation Report (AIR) 

The monitoring of OPs implementation involves the drawing up of an AIR by the MS, to be 
submitted by 31 May each year, covering the period up to the end of the previous calendar 
year  (hence the  same  period  as  the Infosys  report).  The  AIR21  provides  an  overview  of  the 
implementation of programmes, including in relation to important issues, such as support for 
small-scale coastal fisheries or climate change. It is used by the Commission and the MS to 
review  achievements  and  make  adjustments  where  necessary.  It  also  contains  indicative 
information on finances planned at measure level, which is not included in the OPs. 

The AIR is divided into three parts: 

Part A (to be reported every year between 2016 and 2023) provides for, inter alia: 

  an overview of implementation at programme and UP levels;  
  cumulative data on the 28 Result Indicators (RIs) at Specific Objective level;  
  cumulative  data  relating  to  the  28  Output  Indicators  (OI)  for  each  of  the  50  EMFF 

measures;  
financial data on the OP implementation at measure level;  

 
  description of issues affecting the performance of the programme; and 
  activities  in  relation  to  the  Evaluation  Plan,  including  a  synthesis  of  the  evaluations 

finalised in the year. 

20  This  is  established  at  the  level  of  the  CPR  by  Annex  III  of  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  480/2014  of  3  March  2014 

supplementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  laying  down  common  provisions  on  the 

European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European  Social  Fund,  The  Cohesion  Fund,  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 

Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on European Regional Development Fund, 

the European Social Fund, The Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

21 See Article 114 of Regulation 508/2014 and Commission Implementing Regulation 1362/2014 of 18 December 2014 laying down 
rules  on  the  simplified  procedure  for  the  approval  of  certain  amendments  to  operational  programmes  financed  under  the  European 

Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  and  rules  concerning  the  format  and  presentation  of  the  annual  reports  on  the  implementation  of  those 
programmes for the template. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Under Part B (only included in the comprehensive reports due in 2017 and 2019), MS are to 
report  additionally  on  horizontal  aspects  of  the  implementation  (gender,  sustainable 
development, etc.), and on the support for climate change objectives.  

Part  C  (only  included  in  the  comprehensive  reports  due  in  2019)  should  contain  further 
information  in  relation to  the  OP’s contribution  to  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the 
Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.  

2.5  Evaluation Plan 

In  order  to  strengthen  the  contribution  of  evaluations  towards  effective  and  efficient 
programmes, the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR)22 makes it compulsory for MAs to 
design Evaluation Plans at the beginning of the programming period. This is a new feature for 
the EMFF MAs, who had to reflect on their evaluation needs over the implementation period 
and the way these were going to be addressed.  

The  Evaluation  Plan  includes  seven  sections:  purpose,  objectives,  activities,  governance 
provisions,  data  sources,  indicative  timeline  and  resources  available.  Short  guidelines  on 
these sections were provided as part of the EMFF OP template. 

Unlike the other ESI Funds, the evaluation plan is part of the EMFF OPs23, as this allowed 
the Commission to assess these plans as part of the OP negotiation process. 

2.6  EMFF OPs Evaluations  

Evaluations are necessary to assess the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of the funding in 
order  to  improve  the  implementation  of  programmes  and  to  determine  their  impact.  The 
CPR24  lays  down  the  general  rules  for  evaluation  in  all  the  ESI  funds,  whilst  the  EMFF 
Regulation  specifies  that  the  MS  have  to  conduct  an  ex-ante  evaluation  and  further 
evaluations during the implementation period, whilst the Commission has to conduct  an ex-
post evaluation, to be completed by the end of 2024.25  

The ex-ante evaluation is the only evaluation undertaken so far by the MS. Going beyond a 
simple photography of the situation before the start of the programme, the ex-ante evaluation 
is seen as a process, including regular interactions between the MA and the evaluators during 
the  different  development  stages  of  the  OP.  This  process  was  documented  in  a  guidance 
document discussed with the MS in expert group meetings.  

22 Article 56 (1) of the CPR 

23 Article 18(1)(j) of the EMFF Regulation, and the OP template in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 771/2014 of 14 July 
2014 laying down rules pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime 
and  Fisheries  Fund  with  regard  to  the  model  for operational  programmes,  the  structure of  the  plans  for compensation  of  additional  costs 
incurred  by  operators  in  the  fishing,  farming,  processing  and  marketing  of  certain  fishery  and  aquaculture  products  from  the  outermost 
regions, the model for the transmission of financial data, the content of the ex-ante evaluation reports and the minimum requirements for the 
evaluation plan to be submitted under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. 

24 Articles 54–57 of the CPR. 

25 Article 55, 56 and 57 of the CPR and Art. 107, 108,  109, 111, 113, 115, 116, 117 of the EMFF Regulation  

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
2.7  Performance Framework and Review 

The  Performance  Framework  is  one  of  the  tools  used  across  all  ESIF  to  foster  result-
orientation26. In the EMFF, it is based on a set of Output and Financial indicators, for which 
milestones  and  targets  are  defined  for  each  Union  Priority.  Performance  Frameworks 
indicators are reported in the AIRs. The assessment of the milestones in 2019 will form the 
basis for the allocation of the performance reserve27, whilst the achievement of targets will be 
assessed  in  2024.  The  Commission  issued  a  guidance  document28  to  provide  MAs  with 
further details on the way this new feature will be implemented. 

In  the  EMFF,  the  Performance  Framework  is  composed  of  financial  indicators  (payment 
certified) which provide a clear and classical indication of performance of the implementation 
through  the  level  of  spending.  To  reflect  the  result-orientation  given  to  the  ESIF,  financial 
indicators are complemented by output indicators. Both sets of indicators must show a good 
level of progress to allow the release of the Performance Reserve. 

3  Findings and recommendations 

This report has been drafted with the help of the FAME Support Unit, using feedback from 
the EMFF MAs collected through workshops held in March and September 2016, a specific 
stakeholder meeting with the participation of 21 Member States in September 2017, but also 
questions addressed by the MS to FAME and the Commission during the implementation of 
the Operational Programmes. 

The section below summarises the findings in relation to the implementation of each element 
of the CMES and, where relevant, proposes recommendations to improve the functioning of 
the CMES. 

3.1  EMFF Intervention Logic 

The  intervention  logic  of  the  EMFF  is  well  suited  to  the  structure  of  the  Fund  (Union 
Priorities  -  Specific  Objectives  -  Measures),  but  the  late  inclusion  of  the  EMFF  under  the 
umbrella  of  the  CPR  required  supplementary  reporting  at  the  level  of  Thematic  Objectives 

26 Articles 20-22 and Annex II of the CPR. 

27 According to Article 20(1) of the CPR, 6% of the resources allocated to measures financed under shared management in the EMFF 
constitute a performance reserve which was established in the Partnership Agreement and in the OPs. Guidance document: 
https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/09-performance-framework_en.pdf  

This 

28 
https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/09-performance-framework_en.pdf 

document 

guidance 

covering 

whole 

ESI 

the 

Funds 

can 

be 

found 

here: 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
common to all ESIF29. This added an extra layer of complexity to the intervention logic and 
made reporting more difficult for the MS.  

Recommendations: 

  The  intervention  logic  is  a  structuring  element  in  the  CMES  which  should  be 
maintained  in  the  future,  although  it  should  be  discussed  more  extensively  with  the 
MS in expert group meetings. 
It  should  be  simpler  and  more  result  oriented,  showing  clearly  which  measure  or 
action contributes to which objectives and how is this measured. 

 

3.2  Common Indicators 

The following issues appeared during this assessment of the functioning of the CMES: 

  The  working  paper  providing  precise  definition  of  the  common  indicators  and 
information  on  the  way  these  should  be  used  was  only  made  available  fairly  late 
during  the  programming  process.  This  led  to  misunderstandings  for  certain  MS  and 
some OPs were prepared using different methods for setting targets on the results they 
were planning to achieve.   

  Result indicators are linked to the specific objectives of the EMFF. The MS had the 
possibility  to  declare  that  certain  result  indicators  under  a  given  specific  objective 
were  “non-applicable”  to  a  specific  objective.  This  possibility  was  used  extensively 
and not as an exception. However since every EMFF specific objective is covered by 
more than one common result indicator, it is still possible to measure the contribution 
of the OPs to the EMFF specific objective. 

  The MS also had the possibility to use their own indicators instead of selecting them 
from  the  common  list,  leading  to  a  situation  where  some  results  cannot  be  taken 
properly into account in reporting or aggregated at EU level.  

  Some  measures  were  poorly  covered  by  common  result  indicator  (e.g.  measures 
related to innovation) and the time needed for an effect to materialise was not always 
properly  taken  into  account  (e.g.  increase  in  net  profit  due  to  an  innovation).  This 
implies that some important effects of the EMFF might not be taken into account. 
  Some indicators were expressed in ratios30, their calculation is difficult at operational 

level, and their aggregation is not meaningful.  

Recommendations: 

  Result indicators should always be expressed in absolute numbers in the monitoring 
including  targets  and  baselines.  Since  EMFF  result  indicators  rely  on  data  from  the 

29 Article 9 of the CPR. The EMFF contributes to Thematic Objectives 3, 4, 6 and 8. 
30 For example: "Change in the % of unbalanced fleets" or "Change in unwanted catches (%)". Both these indicators require a calculation 
and a baseline.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
EMFF beneficiaries before and after the operation, ratios, percentages and arithmetic 
sign  ambiguities  should  be  avoided  since  they  create  errors.  For  example  net  profit 
increase  should  be  expressed  as  'before'  and  'after'  values  and  not  as  an  increase  in 
percentage. 

  Before starting the programming exercise, MS should receive methodological framing 
from  the  Commission  on  the  definitions  of  the  indicators  and  on  the  calculation 
methods to be used for setting the targets. 
In  order  to  provide  an  overall  picture  of  the  use  of  the  funds  and  to  allow  for 
meaningful aggregation at EU level, common indicators should cover all investments. 
However,  the  MS  should  have  the  flexibility  to  use  supplementary  indicators  to  be 
used at the national level. 

 

3.3  Cumulative Data on Operations selected for Funding (Infosys) 

The Infosys is a valuable tool for the MAs as it can be used as a "dashboard" for checking the 
progress of the implementation. It is useful for the Commission as it provides information on 
EMFF achievements long before the first RI values can be reported meaningfully. It will be 
an especially useful tool for the MS when undertaking evaluations from 2018 onwards as it 
will ensure that a basic but robust set of data is available for the evaluators. 
Issues with the Infosys include the following: 

 

In  the  Infosys  reports,  it  is  not  possible  to  differentiate  fields  left  intentionally  void 
from negligent omissions, since the structure of Infosys did not allow indicating “non-
applicable” as an answer to certain fields.  

  A baseline is the value of an indicator before the start of an operation (e.g. number of 
existing Full Time Equivalents in a SME) and forms a reference point against which 
progress can be measured. Baselines are not available in the Infosys reports, despite 
the fact that they are always requested from applicants by the MAs to be able to assess 
the applications for funding and are a compulsory element of the national monitoring 
system31. 

  The Infosys requires those applying for funding to provide an estimation of the result 
they think they will achieve with their operation. This estimate is then verified by the 
MAs after completion of the project. Methodological support will be provided to MAs 
for this second step in order to ensure the robustness of the validation. 

Recommendations: 

  The Infosys should be continued in the future as it provides very valuable information 
input  from  Member  State 

limited  administrative 

whilst  generating  only  a 
administrations. 

31 As requested by CDA 480/2014. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
  Baselines should be included in the Infosys reports. 
  Users should have the possibility to use "non-applicable" when appropriate adding an 

explanatory note. 

3.4  Annual Implementation Report (AIR) 

Unlike the Infosys, AIRs are submitted through SFC using a structured workflow and have to 
be accepted by the Commission. Different types of issues may arise during the assessment of 
these  reports  by  the  Commission,  which  can  lead  to  substantial  delay.    In  particular,  there 
should  not  be  any  discrepancies  between  the  disaggregated  information  provided  in  the 
Infosys  and  the  aggregated  values  included  in  the  AIR  since  both  reports  cover  the  same 
period. 

For all the ESI Funds, key information coming from the AIR is made available to the general 
public on the Open Data  Portal  provided by the Commission  to  ensure transparency on the 
use  of  the  Funds32.    Financial  data  on  the  implementation  of  the  EMFF  is  only  available 
annually  in  the  AIR,  whilst  the  Commission  receives  information  on  the  ERDF,  ESF  and 
EAFRD three times per year. The information published on the ODP is therefore more up-to-
date for these Funds than for the EMFF. 

Recommendations: 

  Guidance should be made available to help the MS with their reporting. 
  Better complementarity should be ensured between the Infosys and the AIR. 
  Reporting on financial implementation should be aligned between the Funds. 

3.5  Evaluation Plan  

The Evaluation Plans vary in length, detail and quality, and often present only the minimum 
information required. The MAs gave priority to other sections of the OP and the Evaluation 
Plans were sometimes overlooked and drafted rapidly. The budget earmarked for evaluations 
varies substantially, reflecting proportionality of treatment: MS with numerous regions have a 
significantly higher budget for evaluation purposes than MS with only a small EMFF OP and 
smaller or no regional divisions. 

Recommendations: 

32 The ODP is a web site on which key information on the implementation of the ESIF is provided graphically. All data sets used for 
these illustrations can be downloaded and used by members of the public. See https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
  The Evaluation Plan included in the OP should only emphasise the governance of the 
evaluation process, provide basic time planning and indicative resource allocation. 
  To maintain flexibility and avoid numerous OP modifications, more detailed planning 
should  be  left  for  a  later  stage,  using  updated  plans  adopted  by  the  Monitoring 
Committee as it is the case for the other ESIF. 

3.6  Evaluations 

In April 2017, the majority of the MS had yet to start evaluations, as they considered that the 
level of implementation was too low to provide a basis for substantial evaluation results. It is 
therefore too early to draw conclusions on this component of the CMES. 

The  process  of  the  ex-ante  evaluation  is  presented  in  the  OPs  but  in  a  very  synthetic  way 
which  might  need  to  be  improved.  The  ex-ante  evaluation  teams  have  generally  not  been 
involved in the negotiation phase of the OPs or their finalisation and were not able to provide 
an assessment of the final version of the OP. 

A specific issue with evaluation of the EMFF is the difficulty to find evaluators with the right 
expertise in both fisheries and evaluation methodologies: this can only be found in a team of 
individuals with complementary skills. 

Guidance  is  also  needed  to  support  the  MS  when  undertaking  effectiveness  or  impact 
evaluations. This  will be  especially important when the Commission  will undertake the ex-
post evaluation which should be based on a set of robust national evaluations. 

Recommendations: 

  Guidance on the ex-ante evaluation should be more detailed and include a definition 

of the role of the ex-ante evaluators in the finalisation of the OP. 

  MS should seek to combine the different types of expertise required in an ad-hoc team 

of evaluators 

  Methodological framing on evaluation should be made available rapidly. 

3.7  Performance Framework 

Output indicators in the Performance Framework have to be wisely defined in order to avoid 
misunderstandings:  output  indicators  are  mainly  the  number  of  operations  selected  under 
certain measures, a number which can be influenced by external factors.  

The  calculation  method  used  for  the  financial  indicators  is  defined  in  the  CPR,  but  raised 
many  questions  from  the  MS.  This  is  probably  reflecting  the  different  terminology  and 
reporting methods applied by the different Funds.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendations: 

  The financial indicators should be similar and comparable throughout all ESIF. 
  The use of output indicators should be better assessed  
 

It might be useful to complement the Performance Framework by explanations. 

4  Conclusion: are the objectives of the CMES going to be 

achieved? 

The  present  stock-taking  report  indicates  that  progress  is  being  made  towards  the  four 
objectives of the CMES but that further work is still required to achieve them fully. 

The CMES has been designed to assess the progress in the implementation of the EMFF and 
support decision-making in this respect at both national and EU levels. The use of common 
indicators and the new monitoring system provide a robust set of data which can be used for 
monitoring purpose but also for decision-making. Despite a series of small shortcomings and 
issues  at  different  levels  that  have  prevented  an  optimal  functioning  of  the  system  in  the 
initial stages, problems were identified and solved one by one in cooperation with the MS.  

The  cumulative  data  on  operations  supplied  by  MS  via  Infosys  reporting  provides  a 
"dashboard"  allowing  the  Commission  and  the  MS  to  better  monitor  the  progress  in 
implementation of the EMFF. It also allows the Commission to draw conclusions at EU, sea-
basin and cross-MS level, and has already proved very useful to support decision-making.   

The  current  set-up  of  the  CMES  provides  useful  data  for  assessing  its  contribution  to  the 
development  of  the  fisheries  sector  and  to  the  objectives  of  EU  2020  as  translated  in  the 
Thematic  Objectives.  However,  further  research  and  analysis  might  be  required  when  it 
comes  to  assessing  the  contribution  of  the  EMFF  to  priorities  related  to  the  Common 
Fisheries Policy or to Maritime Policy, such as the implementation of the landing obligation 
or  the fight against  marine litter.  Taking  cost-effectiveness  and  the need for proportionality 
into account it would help if a future CMES would include indicators that are more closely 
related to these policies.  

The objective of fostering a common learning process involving the Commission and the MS 
has  been  central  to  the  development  of  the  system  from  day  one.  Every  element  has  been 
discussed extensively with the MS and the FAME Support Unit has been put in place in order 
to reinforce this dimension.  

Lastly, evaluations have not yet been finalised due to the delay in the implementation of the 
EMFF. A working paper is currently being developed that will provide Member States with 
guidance  and  explanations  for  their  evaluations,  which  should  start  in  2018.  Common 
indicators  and  Infosys  data  should  be  of  great  help  to  obtain  robust  evaluations  in  the  near 
future.  

14