COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2018-06-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, conservation of resources, distribution of EU funding, fisheries policy, fishery resources, marine ecosystem, maritime safety, resources of the sea, shipping policy, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 12.6.2018  SWD(2018) 295 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a  REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council  {COM(2018) 390 final} - {SEC(2018) 276 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 3 
1. 
THE OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 11 
2. 
PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES ........................................................................... 21 
3. 
4.  DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING ...................................................... 28 
5.  HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?....................................... 31 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 36 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES ................................................................ 45 
ANNEX 3: EVALUATION RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 53 
ANNEX 4: OTHER INTIATIVES AND ACTIVITIES .............................................................................. 57 

 
 
 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Glossary 

AIR 

CFP 

CLLD 

CMES 

CMO 

CPR 

EFCA 

EFF 

EMFF 

EMSA 

ESIF 

EUMSS 

EUMOFA 

ExAC 

FLAG 

Annual Implementation Report 

Common Fisheries Policy 

Community-led Local Development 

Common Monitoring and Evaluation System 

Common Organisation of the Markets 

Common Provisions Regulation 

European Fisheries Control Agency 

European Fisheries Fund 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

European Maritime Safety Agency 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

European Maritime Security Strategy 

European Market Observatory for 
Fisheries and Aquaculture Products 

Ex-Ante Conditionalities 

Fisheries Local Action Group 

FRONTEX 

European Border and Coast Guard Agency 

FTE 

IUU 

MA 

MPA 

MC 

MSFD 

MSY 

OP 

OR 

PO 

SDG 

SSCF 

STECF 

TAC 

Full Time Equivalent 

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing 

Managing Authority  

Marine Protected Areas 

Ministerial Conference 

Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

Maximum Sustainable Yield 

Operational Programme 

Outermost Regions 

Producer Organisation 

Sustainable Development Goal 

Small Scale Coastal Fleet 

Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 

Total Allowable Catch 

Blue Economy 

Blue Economy refers to all sectoral and cross-sectoral economic activities related to 
oceans,  seas  and  coasts  including  the  Union's  Outermost  Regions  and  landlocked 
countries. The established sectors comprises bioeconomy, marine extraction of oil 

1 

 
 
and  gas,  ports, warehousing  and  water  projects,  shipbuilding and  repair,  maritime 
transport  and  coastal  tourism.  This  includes  direct  and  indirect  activities 
contributing  to  the  sustainable  functioning  and  development  of  these  economic 
sectors  throughout  the  single  market.  It  also  includes  emerging  sectors  as  well  as 
economic  value  based  on  natural  capital  and  non-market  goods  and  services. 
Emerging sectors include renewable energy, blue biotechnology, deep-sea mining, 
desalination,  coastal  and  environmental  protection,  defence  and  security,  marine 
research and education and ecosystem services. 

Maritime  Policy  refers  to  a  Union  policy  whose  aim  is  to  foster  integrated  and 
coherent  decision-making  to  maximise  the  sustainable  development,  economic 
growth  and  social  cohesion  of  the  Union,  and  notably  the  coastal,  insular  and 
outermost regions in the Union, as well as blue economy sectors, through coherent 
maritime-related policies and relevant international cooperation. 

Maritime Policy 

Integrated maritime surveillance 
(IMS) 

Integrated  maritime  surveillance  refers  to  a  Union  initiative  aimed  at  enhancing 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  in  surveillance  activities  in  respect  of  the  European 
seas through information exchange and collaboration across sectors and borders. 

International Ocean Governance 

An EU initiative to improve the framework of international and regional processes, 
agreements, rules and institutions through a coherent cross-sectorial and rules based 
approach to ensure oceans are healthy, productive, safe, secure and resilient. 

Coast Guard 

Coast Guard refers to national authorities performing Coast Guard functions, which 
are:  maritime  safety  (including  vessel  traffic  management);  maritime  security; 
maritime  customs  activities;  prevention  and  suppression  of  trafficking  and 
smuggling  and  connected  maritime  law  enforcement;  maritime  border  control; 
maritime surveillance; protection of marine environment and response; search and 
rescue; accident and disaster response; fisheries control; and other activities related 
to the above functions. 

Common information sharing 
environment (CISE)  

Common  information  sharing  environment  means  a  network  of  systems  with  a 
decentralised  set-up  developed  for  the  exchange  of  information  between  users  in 
order to improve their situational awareness of activities at sea. 

European marine observation and 
data network (EMODNET) 

European marine observation and data network refers to a network that integrates 
relevant  national  marine  observation  and  data  programmes  and  make  all  data, 
metadata  and  products  quality  assured  and  standardised  available,  free  of 
restrictions on use into a common and accessible European resource 

Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP)  Maritime Spatial Planning refers to a process by which the relevant Member State’s 
authorities  analyse  and  organise  human  activities  in  marine  areas  in  order  to 
achieve ecological, economic and social objectives; working across borders. 

Sea Basin Strategy (SBS) 

Sea  Basin  Strategy  refers  to  an  integrated  framework  to  address  common  marine 
and  maritime  challenges  faced  by  Member  States  and  where  appropriate  third 
countries  located  in  a  sea  basin  (or  in  one  or  more  sub-sea  basins)  promoting 
cooperation  and  coordination  amongst  the  relevant  countries  in  order  to  achieve 
economic, social and territorial cohesion. It is developed with the initiative by the 
Commission  in  cooperation  with  the  Countries  concerned  and  their  regions  and 
other  stakeholders  as  appropriate  and  it  may  be  supported  by  the  European 
Structural and Investment Funds among other financing sources. 

Sustainable management of marine 
resources 

Sustainable  management  of  marine  resources  means  management  practices  that 
meet  the  needs  of  the  present  without  compromising  the  ability  of  future 
generations to meet their own needs. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

1.1. 

Scope and context 

This  impact  assessment  covers  future  funding  for  fisheries,  blue  growth/maritime 
policies  and  international  ocean  governance.  Such  funding  is  a  key  enabler  for 
implementing  the CFP,  for promoting  an  innovative and  sustainable  blue economy and 
for delivering on commitments on global processes.   

As a global ocean actor and the world's fifth largest producer of seafood, the European 
Union has a responsibility to protect, conserve and sustainably use  the oceans and their 
resources.  Reducing  the  pressure  on  our  oceans  would  also  be  in  our  own  socio-
economic interest1. 

In  2016  Europe's  blue  economy2  was  estimated  at  EUR  174.2  billion  of  gross  value 
added and 3.48 million jobs – with potential for further growth in the years to come. The 
European Parliament has issued a number of reports and opinions both on the EMFF and 
on how blue growth, maritime policy and the CFP should be financed through the EU’s 
budget3 and stresses that seas and oceans are powerful drivers of the European economy 
with significant potential as regard innovation, growth and jobs. Furthermore, Europeans 
consistently point to  security and safety  as  a top priority for their Union. Leaders have 
also  called  for  stronger  external  borders  as  a  precondition  for  lifting  internal  borders4 
taking  into  account  the  interagency  cooperation  on  Boarder  and  Coast  Guard  set  up  in 
2017. In addition, the Commission reflection paper on the future of EU finances points to 
the fact that security and safety threats also concern other areas, such as the protection of 
resilient food chains5. 

During  the  2014-2020  period  funding  for  fisheries  and  maritime  policies  has  been 
provided through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The EMFF is one 
of  the  European  Investment  and  Structural  Funds  (ESIFs).  The  other  ESIFs  are  the 
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European 
Social  Fund  (ESF)  and  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development 
(EAFRD).  The  Common  Provisions  Regulation  (CPR)  provides  a  common  legal  basis 
for all ESIFs in addition to fund-specific rules set out in fund-specific regulations.  

This IA report analyses various ways to address these challenges through future funding 
for  fisheries,  blue  growth/maritime  policies  and  international  ocean  governance.  It 
satisfies the requirements of the Financial Regulation in respect of preparing an ex-ante 

1 European fisheries and maritime policies are crucial in delivering the priorities set out in the Rome Declaration 
2 The blue economy includes fisheries and aquaculture, tourism, shipping, ocean energy, blue biotechnology, seabed mining, etc. 
3 Further references provided in Annex 4 
4 COM(2018) 98 final, Brussels, 14.2.2018 
5 Reflection paper on the future of EU finances, European Commission, COM(2017) 358 of 28 June 2017 

3 

 
 
 
                                                            
evaluation. On 2 May 2018, the European Commission adopted its proposals for a new 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF)  for  2021-20276.  Under  these  proposals,  the 
European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  will  have  a  budget  of  EUR  million  6.140  in 
current prices over this period. 

6 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/democratic-change/future-europe/eu-budget-future_en   

4 

 
 
 
                                                            
1.2.  Lessons learned from previous programmes 

During  2007-2013,  European  fisheries  policy  was  supported  through  the  European 
Fisheries  Fund  (EFF)7.  The  results  of  the  EFF  were  mixed8.  First,  and  perhaps  most 
importantly, it contributed to an important reduction in the capacity of the EU fleet. For 
example,  between  2007  and  2015,  the  capacity  of  the  EU  fishing  fleet  decreased  by 
17.5%  (in  gross  tonnage),  of  which  more  than  half  (53%)  was  removed  with  support 
from the EFF. Thus, nearly 10% of the EU fleet capacity was removed with the help of 
the  EFF.  This  also  resulted  in  a  9%  decrease  of  engine  power.  This  reduction  in  fleet 
capacity together with  other  measures  contributed to  a more sustainable exploitation of 
fish  resources,  although  the  main  driver  for  that  development  are  responsible  fisheries 
management decisions.  

However, there were also challenges in the implementation and the ex-post evaluation of 
the EFF9 concluded that there was scope for improvement: 

EFF-ex post evaluation – key conclusions and recommendations 

 

It  is  necessary  to  improve  the  link  between  funding  and  policy  objectives,  the 
sustainable exploitation of fisheries as well as the protection and enhancement of 
the  environment  and  natural  resources  (minimising  the  negative  impacts  on  the 
marine  environment).  A  key  issue  is  to  improve  conditionalities  for  fleet 
measures so that conservation objectives are better achieved.  Fleet measures in 
the EFF did not deliver good results because of low level of targeting. There was 
no  proof  that  scrapping  schemes  were  always  applied to  the  fleet  segments  that 
were  most  unbalanced.  There  was  also  a  lack  of  sufficient  conditionality  for 
granting the aid, which did not prevent re-introduction of capacity through vessel 
modernisation.  Finally,  there  was  no  linkage  between  permanent  cessation  and 
fleet  capacity  objectives  of  the  concerned  segments.  After  scrapping,  nothing 
prevented  overcapacity  to  be  rebuilt  in  a  given  fleet  segment  because  national 
fleet capacity objectives were in some cases global, not segmented. 

  EFF funding did increase the productivity of the EU aquaculture, but this must be 
seen  in  the  light  of  the  effects  of  the  financial  crisis  on  investment  and 
modernisation  during  the  funding  period.  There  is  a  widespread  view  that  EFF 
funding was essential during this difficult period from 2008 onwards that reduced 
investment and borrowing activity in the aquaculture sector. However, although 
the  aquaculture  measure  was  designed  to  foster  innovation,  EFF  funding  was 
rarely  used  for  this  purpose.  Future  support  should  maintain  and  increase  the 
focus on innovation and environmentally sustainable solutions. 

  Support  to  processing  and  marketing  contributed  to  foster  and  accelerate  the 
modernisation  of  the  industry.  The  results  in  terms  of  innovation  and  the 

7 Fishing was initially funded under the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). In 1993 a separate fund was 
established (FIFG), the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance. 
8 SWD(2017) 276 final of 13.07.2017 
9 Ex-post evaluation of the European Fisheries Fund (2007-2013), Final report, November 2016. A more complete account of the EFF 
ex-post evaluation is provided in Annex 3. Full report:  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f0ab224d-
f34c-11e6-8a35-01aa75ed71a1 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  
development of niche markets are less clear. Future support should maintain and 
increase the focus on innovation and environmentally sustainable solutions. 

  The  EFF  included  a  measure  specifically  targeting  the  small  scale  coastal  fleet 
(SSCF)10.  However,  this  support  only  accounted  for  2%  of  spending  with  only 
EE, PL and FI spending 10% or more of total fisheries on this measure while 16 
Member States did not it at all, i.e. GR which has the highest share of SSCF in 
the  EU.  The  EFF  did  help  to  maintain  numbers  and  employment  in  the  small-
scale  fleet, but  overall  the  viability of  the  small-scale  fleet  worsened  during the 
EFF period. SSCF are faced with the same issues and have the same needs as the 
wider  catching  sector,  but  their  ability  to  access  funds  can  be  constrained  by 
access to credit and/or lack of organisation. For the future public support should 
be  revisited  and  alternatives  sought  to  better  support  these  fleets  (specific 
measures, conditions with increased aid intensity). 

  The administrative burden associated with the delivery of the EFF was too high. 
At the application stage it acted as a disincentive for applying for support. 
Moreover, the complexity of certain projects seemed to have created 
disincentives for potential beneficiaries, in particular in cases where a large 
network of partners where involved and where significant administrative and 
coordination capacity where needed. Delays in project selection and payment 
disbursement also impacted on the efficiency of programme delivery. 
Additionally, the level of co-financing required was perceived as an issue, in 
particular for the most fragile categories of stakeholders. Public support should be 
focussed to ensure greater effectiveness and efficiency 

  The  lack  of  context,  result  and  output  indicators  in  the  EFF  increased  the 
difficulty  of  the  analysis  of  its  impacts.  Comprehensive  sets  of  relevant 
(meaningful  and  useful)  context,  results  and  output  indicators  should  thus  be 
identified to monitor progress and to measure the impacts of public support. To 
ensure consistency these indicators should be harmonised across Member States. 

In addition, evaluation of other financial tools in the area of fisheries (support to common 
market  organisation  and  producer  organisations,  compensation  schemes  in  outermost 
regions, funding of fisheries data collection and control) called for a rationalisation and 
streamlining  of  all  funding  aimed  at  supporting  the  CFP,  and  alleviating  the 
administrative  burden  of  programmes  directly  managed  by  the  Commission.  It  also 
became clear that increased efforts were needed in order to better address the key CFP 
challenges  related  to  environmental,  economic  and  social  sustainability.  Support  to  the 
outermost  regions  was  not  part  of  the  EFF.  However,  the  recent  Commission 
Communication on a stronger and renewed partnership with the EU's outermost regions 
concludes  that  the  progress  towards  a  sustainable  blue  economy  in  these  regions  is 
uneven and urges the outermost regions to set up strategic planning and investments in 

10 Small Scale Coastal Fleet comprises fishing vessels less than 12 metres not using towed fishing gear 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
the  form  of  blue  economy  strategies  to  improve  synergies  between  public  policies  and 
investments11.   

In 2013 the CFP was reformed. Most importantly, the reform took forward the concept of 
Maximum Sustainable Yield which should be reached at the latest by 2020. Moreover, an 
additional  objective  was  included,  the  so-called  landing  obligation.  Discarding  is  the 
practice of returning unwanted catches to the sea, either dead or alive, because they are 
undersized, due to market demand, the fisher has no quota or because catch composition 
rules  impose  this.  The  reform  of  the  CFP  aimed  at  gradually  eliminating  the  wasteful 
practice  of  discarding  through  the  introduction  of  the  landing  obligation.  This  radical 
change  in  fisheries  management  aims  to  improve  fishing  behaviour  through  more 
selective fishing practices.  

An additional part of the new CFP is the reformed Common Organisation of the Markets 
(CMO) which entered into force from 2014.  It abolished previous financing mechanisms 
designed to stabilize fish markets (the intervention mechanisms), signalling an important 
shift 
instruments  and  structural  support  for 
competitiveness and sustainability in the sector.   

towards  market-based 

in  policy 

A  directly  managed  programme  to  support  the  development  of  maritime  policy  was 
established in 2011 with a budget of EUR 40 million for the period 2011-201312. It aimed 
to  develop  cross-sectoral  tools  (Maritime  Spatial  Planning,  the  Common  Information 
Sharing Environment and marine knowledge on the oceans, seas and coastal regions) and 
sea-basin strategies, to promote the protection of the marine environment, the sustainable 
use  of  marine  and  coastal  resources  including  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive13  to  support  sustainable  economic  growth,  employment,  innovation  and  new 
technologies  in  maritime  sectors  and  in  coastal,  insular  and  outermost  regions  of  the 
Union and to improve and enhance external cooperation and coordination in relation to 
the objectives of maritime policy. As a result, a Maritime Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian 
Seas14 and an Atlantic Action Plan15 were adopted respectively in 2012 and 2013 while 
an MSP Directive16 was adopted in 2014.       

Adopted  in  May  but  entering  into  force  with  retroactive  effect  on  1  January  2014,  the 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) worth EUR 6.4 billion17 over the 2014-

11 Commission Communication on 'A stronger and renewed strategic partnership with the EU's outermost regions', COM (2017)623 
final, Strasbourg, 24.10.2017. The Communication is based on wide exchanges with representatives of the outermost regions 
including the 4th Outermost Regions Forum held in Brussels on 30-31 March 2017.  
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/communications/2017/un-partenariat-privilegie-renouvele-et-
renforce-avec-les-regions-ultraperipheriques  
12 Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2011 establishing a Programme to 

support the further development of an Integrated Maritime Policy 

13 2008/56/EC 
14 COM(2012) 713 final, Brussels, 30.11.2012 
15 COM(2013) 279 final, Brussels, 13.5.2013 
16 Directive 2014/89/EU of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning 
17 Of which EUR 5.750 million in shared management and EUR 647 million in direct management. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
2020  period  was  designed  to  respond  to  the  shortcomings  of  the  EFF,  as  structural 
support accompanying CFP reform and to boost the implementation of maritime policy. 
It introduced a number of novel features: 

New features of the EMFF 2014-2020: 

 

  Many  types  of  funding  brought  in  under  one  single  umbrella:  The  EMFF 
(complemented  by  the  support  provided  under  the  Sustainable  Fisheries 
Partnership Agreements) combines all different funding in support of the CFP in 
a  single  fund18.This  meant  the  inclusion  of  support  for  data  collection,  control, 
market policy, compensation for the Outermost regions and support to maritime 
policy/blue growth.  
Inclusion  in  the  ESIF  family:  The  EMFF  is  part  of  the  ESIF  framework  and  is 
covered  by  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation  (CPR)  applicable  to  all  ESIFs. 
The  CPR  is  complemented  by  fund-specific  regulations  such  as  the  EMFF, 
delegated acts and implementing acts. In the CPR there is a requirement to put in 
place  a  performance  framework  and  to  release  a  performance  reserve  based  on 
the achievement of milestones and targets. For this to function, a new monitoring 
and  evaluation  system  was  put  in  place  consisting  of  common  baseline,  output 
and result indicators. 

  Ex-ante  conditionalities:  To  ensure  that  investments  take  place  under  optimal 
conditions  a  requirement  to  fulfil  fund-specific  ex-ante  conditionalities  (ExAC) 
was  introduced  (administrative  capacity  for  data  collection  and  control, 
submission of fleet reports in line with COM guidelines, national strategic plans 
for aquaculture)19.  

  Compliance  with  the  CFP:  Moreover,  a  compliance  mechanism  was  introduced 
by which both Member States and operators have to comply with the rules of the 
CFP from admissibility to implementation to be able to get support. In terms of 
support measures, the EMFF is more than ever before aligned with the objectives 
of  the  CFP  and  maritime  policy.  It  supports  the  implementation  of  the  landing 
obligation through financing of selective gear and the marketing and processing 
of unwanted catches and assigns a key role to producer organisations (POs) in its 
implementation. 
fisheries 
management,  scientific  data  collection  and  control  have  been  substantially 
upgraded. Support for fleet measures such as permanent cessation20 of vessels or 
engine replacement has continued but under strict conditions that are in line with 
the  CFP  conservation  component.  It  supports  the  protection  of  marine 
biodiversity and ecosystems, including through the management of Natura 2000 
areas and other MPAs. 

the  cornerstones 

Investments 

for  sound 

into 

  Maritime  policy:  A  good  share  of  the  EMFF  allocation  is  geared  towards 
maritime  policy  priorities,  such  as  maritime  spatial  planning,  maritime 
surveillance, marine knowledge, sea basin strategies (and relevant macro-regional 
strategies) and piloting the blue growth strategy in coastal, insular and outermost 

18 Respectively EUR 5.750 million for shared and EUR 647 million for direct management. 
19 In addition to the fund-specific ExAC, there are also ExAC set out in the CPR applicable to all ESIF   
20 Support for permanent cessation was terminated on 31/12/2017 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
regions of the Union. Approximately EUR 275 million is managed directly by the 
Commission  whilst  more  than  EUR  70  million  has  been  programmed  in 
Operational programmes.  

  Small-scale  Coastal  Fleet:  The  EMFF  include  elements  that  permit  Member 
States  to  grant  preferential  treatment  to  the  small  scale  coastal  fishing  fleet 
(SSCF), which makes up 74% of the active EU fleet.  

  Community-led local development: The EMFF reinforces the local development 
of coastal areas through support through FLAGs (Fisheries Local Action Groups) 
which  use  the  bottom-approach  (CLLD)  to  implement  local  development 
strategies in their communities21. 

  Directly  managed  elements:  The  European  Marine  Observation  and  Data 
Network  (EMODnet)  has  been  one  of  the  success  stories  of  the  EMFF.  By 
gathering  over  150  public  and  private  organisations  in  a  partnership  to  deliver 
marine  data  that  is  reliable,  accessible  and  free  of  restrictions  of  use  it  has 
increased  productivity,  stimulated  innovation  and  reduced  risk  for  business, 
public authorities and civil society. These organisations are investing in processes 
and added-value services that are dependent on the continuation beyond 2020. 
  Monitoring  and  evaluation:  Development  of  a  Common  Monitoring  and 

Evaluation System (CMES) with common indicators at EU-level 

At this stage no evaluations have been completed of the EMFF at EU or Member State 
level. However, monitoring data from 2017 shows the following: 

  For  shared  management  the  rate  of  implementation  was  generally  low  in  the 
first  years22  and  the  risk  of  decommitment  is  high23.  However,  during  2017  the 
increased  considerably24.  The  number  of  operations 
rate  implementation 
(excluding technical assistance) more than doubled, from 6 200 in 2016 to 15 500 
in 2017. The number of commitments (European Maritime and Fisheries Fund + 
national  public)  increased  from  EUR  769  million  to  EUR  1.5  billion,  the  total 
public  expenditure  increased  almost  10  times  from  EUR  58  million  in  2016  to 
534 million in 2017 and the EMFF expenditure increased from EUR 39 million in 
2016 to EUR 375 million in 2017. The number of fishing vessels benefitting from 
support almost tripled from 3 600 in 2016 to over 9 600 in 2017. 

  Despite  the  fact  that  the  link  between  the  CFP  and  the  EMFF  has  been 
strengthened,  Member  States  do  not  always  invest  in  those  areas  where 
investments are mostly needed to achieve the objective of the CFP. For example, 
the implementation of the landing obligation has been given different priority in 
different Member States with the result that more investment is needed to support 
the adaptation of the fishing industry to these challenges25. 

  Administrative  complexities  at  national 

the  rate  of 
implementation.  In  shared  management  this  is  for  example  the  case  within 
aquaculture,  CLLD,  innovation  and  to  a  certain  extent  maritime  policy.  On  the 
contrary  under  direct  management  maritime  policy  innovation  actions  (Blue 

level  slow  down 

21 An overview of support to the local development of coastal areas through CLLD is provided in Annex 4.2. 
22 By January 2018 interim claims submitted represented only around 4% of planned EMFF assistance for the current period. 
23 The N+3 automatic decommitment risk. 
24 Infosys data from 2017 
25 Landing obligation, final report. FAME, February 2018  

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Careers,  Blue  Labs,  Blue  Technology  calls  for  proposals)  were  highly 
oversubscribed, reaching about 100% budget implementation for the period 2014-
2016.   

In  addition  to  evaluations  and  monitoring  data,  stakeholder  views  on  fisheries  and 
maritime policies post-2020 were collected through a number of consultation activities26 
(of which more details are provided in Annex 2). 

Stakeholder views – key issues: 

  Many stakeholders and the European Parliament27 call for continuity and are 
strongly in favour of keeping dedicated funding for fisheries and maritime 
policies post-2020. Given the direct link to the fulfilment of CFP objectives, 
future support for fisheries and external funding strands are not suitable to be 
mainstreamed into other EU funds  

  The achievement of CFP objectives was noted by the stakeholders as a priority 

for the future.  

  For the future support should in particular aim to rebuild fish stocks above the 

MSY level. 

  Many stakeholders argue that any kind of support leading to overfishing should 

be discontinued. 

  A polarisation of opinion concerning the support to fishing fleets could be 

observed, with stakeholders split nearly equally between those in favour and 
those against the continuation of fleet measures, those against claiming that fleet 
measures are drivers for overfishing.  

  There is a general consensus around continued support for data collection and 
control, SSCF, outermost regions, CLLD and professional organisations28.  
  Some stakeholders call for a differentiated support by sea-basin according to 

the specific challenges being faced, including by Brexit, and the need for 
cooperation with third countries.  

  Many stakeholders highlight the fact that innovation is horizontal to all blue 

growth sectors including fisheries and recognise sea-basin and macro-regional 
strategies as an important driver for the territorial development of coastal regions 
and islands. They recognize the need to enable further policy development and to 
increase visibility and the political priority of blue growth across funds.  
  For a number of stakeholders the next fund should give priority to the social 
dimension with the promotion of social dialogue, improvement of hygiene, 
health safety and working conditions, while investing in the training, education, 
awareness raising. 

  Complex administrative delivery is seen as the biggest shortcoming and many 
stakeholders call for radical simplification and flexibility. The intervention logic 
is considered too rigid not allowing Member States to address their own 
specificities. This could be addressed by eliminating pre-defined measures and 
increase the use of financial instruments. 

26 A full account of the stakeholder consultations is provided in Annex 2. 
27 Opinion of the Committee on Fisheries on the next MFF (2017/2052(INI)) 
28 Within the meaning of the CMO Regulation (Reg.1379/2013)  

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
  NGOs, advisory councils and social partners stress that a conditional approach 
to any future spending should continue to be linked to the delivery of objectives 
the CFP and demonstration of results. In this regard, Member States should be 
more responsible for reporting how the funding has led to meeting the goals and 
objectives of the CFP. Moreover, a conditionality clause could be included 
linking the financial access to the implementation of the CFP regulation and the 
respect of basic social standards by operators.  

  Stakeholders signal that the international framework for oceans is incomplete 

and needs further development. They also note there is little coordination 
between international organisations responsible for oceans, while agreed 
international rules and arrangements on oceans are often not implemented 
effectively or enforced uniformly. Stakeholders call for strengthening the safety 
and security of the maritime space. 

2.  THE OBJECTIVES  

2.1.  Challenges for the programme of the next MFF  

Compared to the time when the EMFF was drafted the EU fisheries sector has undergone 
a substantial restructuring and over the period 2008-2016 the economic performance of 
the EU fleet improved considerably. In 2015 it was generally profitable, generating EUR 
7.2  billion  in  revenue  and  EUR  798  million  in  net  profit.  This  represents  significant 
progress  taking  into  account  that  the  EU  fleet  was  barely  breaking  even  in  2009.  The 
positive  trend  is  also  reflected  in  improving  positive  expectations  by  the  industry  as 
shown by growing investments29in recent years. 

The  general  improvement  is  driven  by  several  factors.  It  coincides  with  an  overall 
reduction in fleet capacity and low fuel prices30 but also with an increase in the number 
of fish stocks being fished at sustainable (or MSY) levels. But although the performance 
of  the  EU  fleet  has  improved,  the  development  has  been  uneven  and  considerable 
problems remain in certain fleet segments and geographical areas of the Union. Taking 
into  consideration  evaluation  recommendation,  monitoring  data  and  stakeholder 
consultations the key challenges for the future can be summarised as follows: 

29 Mainly in new fishing vessels and investments on board, privately financed 
30 Prices of marine diesel halved in the period 2014-2016 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Key challenges for the future: 

For fisheries: 

  Overcapacity is still a serious problem in many segments and across sea-basins 
In the Mediterranean, overfishing is broadly between two and three times MSY 
overall.  For  stocks  such  as  hake,  red  mullet,  black-bellied  anglerfish  and  blue 
whiting,  current  fishing  mortality  rates  have  been  up  to  six  times  higher  than 
MSY. Despite recent improvements to the availability of data, the status of many 
stocks remains unknown.  

  A  successful  implementation  of  the  CFP  will  continue  to  require  and  depend 
on support for fisheries control and data collection as well as for supporting the 
fight  against  IUU  both  within  the  EU  and  internationally.  Additionally,  control 
and scientific data collection are areas in which the information collected needs to 
be  used  for  a  broader  scope  of  purposes  (surveillance  and  marine  knowledge 
respectively) and requires more inter-operable systems. 

  Representing 74% of all active vessels in the Union small scale coastal fisheries 
are  fundamental  for  the  viability  and  resilience  of  many  coastal  communities. 
Although the sector was profitable in 2015 and labour productivity is increasing, 
the  situation  is  mixed  at  regional  level,  with  53  out  135  SSCF  fleets  with  net 
losses31. 

  The  lack  of  attractiveness  of  the  fisheries  sector  calls  for  continued  attention. 
Safety  concerns  and  difficult  working  conditions  aboard  fishing  vessels  (health, 
hygiene etc.) make the sector unattractive to work in 

For aquaculture, marketing and processing: 

  To increase the focus on innovation and environmentally sustainable solutions. 

 

For the blue economy: 

  The blue economy is still not delivering to its full potential and there is a need to 
remove  bottlenecks  and  support  enabling  conditions  to  facilitate  investment, 
innovation and market development. Continued support is needed for developing 
marine knowledge, maritime spatial planning, maritime security and cooperation 
between Member States within the framework of sea-basin strategies. In the blue 
economy increased efforts are necessary to address sustainability issues including 
marine  litter,  the  shortage  of  skills,  supply  of  labour,  high  development  costs, 
commercialisation of research results and issues related to licensing and standards 
in emerging blue growth sectors. 

  Community-led  local  development  has  a  great  potential  to  help  developing  the 
blue  economy  at  local  level  and  ways  to  strengthen  this  approach  should  be 
explored. 

Emerging policy issues: the international scene and maritime security 

  The EMFF was set up in conjunction with the reform of the CFP, and marginally 
to support a nascent maritime policy. Since then, significant developments have 
taken place at international level. Besides the continued implementation of these 

31 2017 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet, STECF 17-12, JRC 2017 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
two policies, its successor will have to take into account the objectives of the 
Paris Agreement, the effects of Brexit and the new Ocean Governance. 

To  conclude,  the  main  issue  for the  future  is  to  further  improve the  policy in  line with 
evaluation recommendations and stakeholder views, the focus is on evolution rather than 
radical changes. This means that future support for fisheries and maritime policies should 
be targeted to deliver on key CFP objectives, notably MSY in all sea-basins by 2020 and 
beyond, to address persisting market failures in particular related to enabling conditions 
to  facilitate,  innovation  and  market  development  in  the  blue  economy  (including  the 
development  of  local  economies  in  coastal  communities)  and  to  respond  to  emerging 
issues. We can group these challenges into four general objectives for the future: 

1)  1. For fisheries: Fostering sustainable fisheries and the conservation of marine biological 

resources; 

2)  2. For aquaculture, marketing and processing: Contributing to food security in the Union 

through competitive and sustainable aquaculture and markets; 

3)  3. For the blue economy: Enabling the growth of the sustainable blue economy and 

fostering prosperous coastal communities; 

4)  4. For emerging policy issues: Strengthening international ocean governance and 

enabling safe, secure, clean and sustainably managed oceans.  

2.1.1  Fostering  sustainable  fisheries  and  the  conservation  of  marine  biological 
resources  

As  we  have  seen,  in  terms  of  economic  and  environmental  sustainability  the  situation 
today is very different from 2014 when the EMFF was designed. The status of fish stocks 
is improving and the majority of stocks in the North-East Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic 
are in  a healthy state32. In  2018, the EU fleet will operate in a financially stronger and 
more  resilient  position  than  ever  over  the  last  decade,  leaving  financial  margin  to  face 
remaining challenges ahead.  

Public support is necessary to continue supporting the CFP objectives of achieving MSY 
and the implementation of the landing obligation33. Despite progress in recent years and 
more  than  three  decades  of  public  support,  overcapacity  is  still  a  serious  problem  in 
many segments and across  sea-basins. In  2016, on the basis of biological,  economic  or 
technical  indicators  and/or  supplementary information,  15  Member  States34  identified  a 

32 For all 76 TACs with MSY advice the Commission proposed TACs in line with or slightly below MSY 2018. The Council adopted 
53 TACs in line with MSY (29 in Western waters plus one in the deep sea, 17 North Sea, 7 Baltic Sea), compared to 44 in 2016. 
33 Delivering on the MSY targets, the landing obligation and the discard ban contributes to three of the 11 Descriptors of Good 
Environmental Status in the MFSD (D1 (biodiversity), D3 (commercial fish), D4 (marine food webs). In addition, fishing has 
implications for a fourth one, sea-floor integrity (D6, impacted by bottom fishing). This points to the need to bring the implementation 
of the CFP, the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive and the MSFD closer together. Continued support for reducing incidental catches 
of protected species and for management measures related to Natura 2000 sites and other MPAs also contributes to addressing this 
challenge. 
34 Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and the 

United Kingdom. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
       
 
                                                            
number  of  their  fleet  segments  as  not  effectively  balanced  with  their  fishing 
opportunities, or showing latent signs of being imbalanced, and therefore requiring action 
plans under the Commission guidelines.  

Overcapacity  is  considered  a  leading  cause  of  overfishing  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea, 
given  the  general  lack  of  catch  controls  and  the  reliance  on  effort  to  regulate  fishing 
mortality.  That  is  why  for  the  future  the  policy  must  be  more  targeted  and  more 
focussed in order to better address the issue of overcapacity and overfishing in those 
segments  of  the  EU  fisheries  fleet  which  continue  to  fish  stocks  at  unsustainable 
levels. 

The role of Producer Organisations as key actors in the implementation of the CFP for 
promoting  and  achieving  sustainable  fisheries  and  aquaculture  activities  is  recognised 
and  stakeholders  plead  for  continuity  in  the  support  of  their  production  and  marketing 
plans.  

As  regards  small-scale  fisheries  the  situation  varies  enormously  across  different  sea-
basins, with small-scale coastal fishers in the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas suffering the 
most difficulties in terms of operating losses. For the future, stakeholders signal that it is 
important  to  increase  support  to  small-scale  fisheries  and  although  in  many  cases,  the 
problems  faced  by  the  SSCF  sector  are  beyond  the  scope  of  the  EMFF,  such  as  for 
example access to quota (which is largely determined by Member States).  

Socio-economic conditions in the fisheries sector 

In  2015  direct  employment  generated  by  the  sector  amounted  to  152  700  fishers, 
corresponding  to  114  863  FTEs.  Despite  the  generally  good  economic  outlook, 
employment in the EU fleet continues to decline. The decrease was on average 1% per 
year from 2008 to 2015 as a result of a reduction in the number of fishing vessels and the 
fact  that  labour  is  replaced  by  capital  in  many  vessels.  Average  annual  wage  per  FTE 
was estimated at EUR 24.8 thousand, ranging from EUR 1.4 thousand for Cypriot fishers 
to EUR 75 thousand for Belgian fishers35. In the sector ancillary to marine fishing there 
were  35  000  FTE  and  EUR  2.8  billion  of  income  in  2009,  while  in  2014  the 
corresponding  values  stood  at  36  000  FTE  and  EUR  2.5  billion.  Thus,  employment 
numbers in  the ancillary sector were essentially  stable between 2009 and 2014. This  is 
clear evidence that employment in the ancillary sector was quite resilient relative to the 
primary  industry36.  Thus,  in  the  catching  sector  wages  have  increased  over  time  while 
employment has decreased.  

Safety  concerns  and  difficult  working  conditions  aboard  fishing  vessels  make  the 
catching  sector  unattractive  to  work  in.  Despite  recent  investments,  the  risk  of  an 
accident causing an injury or death is 2.4 times greater in the sea fisheries sector than the 
average of all EU industries. Labour gaps exist when local fishers leave the industry to 
get better paid jobs and less harsh working conditions elsewhere and due to the lack of 
interest  of  local  labour  filling  the  gaps.  It  is  particularly  difficult  to  get  youth  to  work 
within  the  fisheries  sector  and  securing  the  intergenerational  turnover  becomes  a 
challenge. Thus, as fleets have increasing difficulties to complete crews with local, well 

35 2017 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet, STECF 17-12, JRC 2017 
36 Study on the economic importance of activities ancillary to fishing in the EU, March 2016 

14 

 
 
                                                            
qualified people it becomes necessary to resort to non-EU nationals and – in small scale 
fleets  –  use  workers  that  continue  working  beyond  the legal  retirement age37  38.  At  the 
same  time  a  recent  trend  in  some  parts  of  the  Union  is  that  the  local  labour  gap  is 
decreasing and that fishers who had left the sector are coming back. All these trends have 
to be taken into account when designing future support for the sector. 

Coherence of the Common Fisheries Policy with EU environmental policy 

The main objective of the EMFF is to support the implementation of the CFP which aims 
to ensure that fishing and aquaculture contribute to long-term environmental, economic 
and social sustainability. 

The  CFP contributes  to  the  objectives  of  EU  environmental  legislation  through  the 
different  measures  aiming  at  the  conservation  of  marine  biological  resources  and 
minimising  the  negative  impact  of  fishing  on  marine  ecosystems.  Through  those 
measures  it  contributes  in  particular  to  the  achievement  of  'good  environmental  status' 
under the MSFD39. 
The  conclusions  of  the  fitness  check  of  the  EU  nature  directives40  and  the  Court  of 
Auditors report on Natura 200041 indicated the need to strengthen investment in Natura 
2000, to improve synergies with EU funding instruments and to better ensure tracking of 
EU  funds  for  Natura  2000.   This  is  also  one  of  the  objectives  of  the  “Action  plan  for 
nature,  people  and  the  economy”42  adopted  by  the  Commission  in  2016,  which  was 
supported by the resolution of the European Parliament43 and the Council conclusions44.  

Under  Action  11  of  the  Action  Plan,  the  Commission  has  committed  to  develop  cross-
cutting indicators for all EU funds, to consider improvement to existing indicators and to 
explore  the  possibility  to  develop  ex-ante  conditionalities.  The  EMFF  already  has 
established  specific  indicators  to  measure  the  impact  of  funding  on  the  Natura  2000 
network. 

For  the  2014-2020  period Member  States  allocated  over  EUR  635  million  through  the 
EMFF for biodiversity protection, including support to the management, restoration and 
monitoring of Natura 2000 sites and other MPAs, to promote more selective fishing gear, 
to  avoid  accidental  by-catch  of  species  (marine  mammals  and  seabirds)  and  to  support 
aquaculture  providing  environmental  services. With  regards  to  the  collection  of  marine 
litter, approximately EUR 21 million was allocated by Member States in the 2014-2020 
period for different projects. 

SSCF  represent  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  registered  4500  vessels  in  these 
regions. In the OR long distance fisheries are better managed than small scale fisheries, 
which  lack  scientific  advice  and  adequate  management  measures  to  strengthen  their 

37 Approximately 8% of the catching sector workforce is made up of non-locals (other Member State nationals or third country 

nationals) 

38 Study on the employment of non-local labour in the fisheries sector, MRAG Ltd, Coffey and AND International, June  2016 
39 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/marine-strategy-framework-directive/index_en.htm 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056  
40 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/docs/nature_fitness_check.pdf 
41 https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR17_1/SR_NATURA_2000_EN.pdf 
42 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/action_plan/communication_en.pdf   
43 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2017-0441 
44 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/06/19/conclusions-eu-action-plan-nature/ 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
sustainability.  In  addition  these  regions  face  challenges  due  to  lack  of  staff  with  basic 
education  and  entrepreneurial  capacity,  insufficient  infrastructure  facilities,  limited 
physical  space  for  aquaculture  projects,  insufficient  scientific  knowledge  about  marine 
resources to carry out stock assessments.  

There is potential to develop blue growth sectors in the OR45. However, development is 
hampered  by  the  limited  availability  of  adequately  qualified  and  trained  staff  and  the 
absence  of  links  between  the  education  systems  and  businesses  involved  in  the  blue 
economy.  Other  challenges  include  access  to  finance  and  coordination  and  governance 
for spatial planning, needs and gaps in knowledge of the OR marine ecosystems, which 
are  very  different  from  mainland  Europe  and  for  which  scientific  data,  research  and 
management of marine areas (including fisheries) are often weak or insufficient. Without 
the 
strengthening 
development of blue growth would not be sustainable.  

this  management  capacity  of  often  very  fragile  ecosystems 

In the current period, EMFF support for the outermost regions consists of two separate 
envelopes, the regular structural measures that are the same as in other parts of the EU 
except that co-financing rates and aid intensities are higher, and a ring-fenced envelope 
to  compensate  OR  operators  (catch,  aquaculture,  processing  and  marketing  sectors)  for 
the  difference  in  costs  between  ORs  and  mainland.  The  EMFF  finances  100%  of  the 
compensation plans46. 

2.1.2  Contributing  to  food  security  in  the  Union  through  competitive  and  sustainable 
aquaculture and markets 

Aquaculture  is  a  key  sector  that  can  contribute  to  supplying  future  generations  with 
healthy protein in the face of declining fish stocks. With more than EUR 1.2 billion of 
EMFF  resources  under  shared  management  in  the  2014-2020  period,  support  for 
aquaculture  is  more  significant  than  ever  before.  In  addition,  other  actions  such  as 
support  to  Producer  Organisations,  marketing  or  local  development  can  also  help  the 
aquaculture sector. 

Although in 2015 fish products farmed in the EU reached the highest values and volume 
ever registered47, the aquaculture sector has been characterised by slow growth. Despite 
decades  of  support  to  investments  in  production,  innovation,  training,  marketing  and 
environmental improvements, the EU only  accounts for 1.2%  of the global aquaculture 
production and consumption is dominated by wild products. Key bottlenecks are lengthy 
licensing  procedures  and  lack  of  spatial  planning  which  leads  to  uncertainty  and 

45 Study on Realising the potential of the Outermost Regions for sustainable Blue Growth, COGEA srl, in partnership with AND 

International, Fundación AZTI and Poseidon Aquatic Resources Management Ltd, September – 2017 

46 The total compensation regime amounts to EUR 192.5 million for 2014-2020, +/- 9% of the EMFF allocation to the three concerned 
Member States The financial envelope for compensation plans are ring-fenced for the whole of the 2014-2020 programming period 
as  follows:  Azores  and  Madeira  (EUR  45.2  million,  EUR  6.4  million/  per  year),  Canary  Islands  (EUR  60.9  million,  EUR  8.7 
million/per year), French outermost regions (EUR 86.5 million, EUR 12.3 million/per year). This represents an increase in overall 
total  amounts  of  almost  50%  for  PT  and  ES  ORs,  and  150%  for  FR  ORs.  Geographic  coverage  was  extended  to  all  FR  ORs 
(Mayotte, Martinique, Guadeloupe and Saint Martin, previously not covered). 

47 Following data from EUMOFA in 2015 fish products farmed in the EU reached the highest values ever registered. The total value 
of EUR 4.14 billion represented an increase of more than EUR 300 million or 8% from the previous year. Volumes also reached an 
all-time peak, totalling EUR 1.31 million tonnes, an increase of 54.4 tonnes or 4% above the 2014 volumes. Around 95% of total 
EU aquaculture production is represented by 10 species. Compared to 2006, the most significant changes recorded in 2015 were in 
value terms. Salmon, now accounts for almost 1/4 of the total; oyster moved up from ranking 6th to 4th; eel value contracted by 40%. 

16 

 
 
 
                                                            
competition  for  space.  These  are  issues  under  Member  State  competence  where  the 
contribution  of  the  EMFF  is  limited  although  the  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  (MSP) 
Directive48  and  MSP  cross-border  projects49  could  help  to  improve  the  situation.  What 
needs  to  be  addressed  is  the  environmental  impact  of  aquaculture  through  support  to 
extensive  and  certain  forms  of  intensive  aquaculture  based  on  closed  recirculation 
systems  with  very  limited  or  no  environmental  impacts.  Another  topical  issue  in 
aquaculture is risk management. Stock insurance is one of the tools used where demand 
is higher than current supply and where the gap between the two is widening.  

2.1.3  Enabling  the  growth  of  the  sustainable  blue  economy  and  fostering  prosperous 
coastal communities 

The total turnover of the EU blue economy was EUR 566.2 billion in 2016 and the blue 
economy sectors employed directly around 3.48 million persons. In relative terms, direct 
activities of the blue economy represents about 1.3% of the EU28 GDP and 0.5% of the 
total  EU  employment.  However,  these  shares  are  significantly  higher  when  indirect 
activities  are  considered.  Blue  economy  based  wages  and  salaries  have  grown  steadily 
since reaching a low in 2011. Average salaries, at EUR 28.3 thousand in 2016, increased 
15% compared to 2008 (EUR 24.7 thousand). 

Whilst public investment in the blue economy should be mainstreamed across different 
funding  instruments,  also  by  strengthening  cooperation  between  countries  within  the 
framework of sea-basin strategies, future support though fisheries and maritime policies 
would  need  to  concentrate  on  enabling  conditions  and  on  removing  bottlenecks  to 
facilitate investment and the development of new markets and technologies or services. 
Support would therefore need to focus on close-to-market innovation, supply of missing 
skills and qualifications, support to new inclusive business models, access to marine data 
to spur innovation and technology development, maritime security and maritime spatial 
planning  to  create  opportunities  that  are  compatible  with  marine  ecosystems  and  the 
investment predictability necessary to leverage private sector capital/debt funding.        

Ensuring that blue growth opportunities can thrive in coastal communities, community-
led local development (CLLD) should be extended. At just below 10% of the total EMFF 

48 Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial 

planning 

49 Cross-border MSP projects are listed here: https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/maritime_spatial_planning_en 

17 

 
 
 
                                                            
budget, CLLD is implemented by 20 Member States who by the end of 2017 had selected 
a total of 368 FLAGs.  

Examples of current projects50: 

  Business development in marginalised and remote communities where a seaweed 

company has grown from one to four employees. 

  The  shells  of  mussels  are  no  longer  considered  waste.  With  the  help  of  the 
Fisheries  Local  Action  Group  (FLAG),  local  students  and  teachers  are  using 
crushed  shells  to  create  useful  objects  of  all  sorts,  from  moulds  created  by  3D 
printing. 

  Oyster farms are regularly affected by toxic phytoplankton, leading to economic 
losses. In search of a solution, shellfish farmers teamed up with a biotech start-up 
to test a new, quick and easy way to detect toxic marine microalgae and anticipate 
its proliferation. 

Based on available data (that currently does not cover all FLAGs) CLLD covers nearly 
250 000 square km and a population of nearly 24 million. By the end of December 2017, 
the  FLAGs  had  selected  more  than  1300  projects  for  implementation.  Seven  years  of 
implementing bottom-up local development in fisheries areas51 has demonstrated that this 
form  of  support  delivers  results.  It  helps  reaching  target  groups  that  are  hard  to  reach 
through traditional, top-down funding schemes, it can foster partnerships and joint action 
between different stakeholder groups and the fact that decision-making happens at local 
level  can  encourage  more  flexible  and  innovative  responses  to  local  problems.  It 
furthermore  increases  the  visibility  of  EU  funding  at  local  level  and  is  increasingly 
recognised as a valuable opportunity for blue growth sectors, including fisheries sectors 
to play an active role in local development and its governance issues. Moreover, FLAGs 
have a potential to help address the challenges faced by the SSCF52.  

2.1.4  Strengthening  international  ocean  governance  and  enabling  safe,  secure,  clean 
and sustainably managed oceans  

Over  the  last  years,  the  European  Union  has  made  a  number  of  new  commitments  at 
international level: 

New commitments at international level 

  The  2030  Agenda 

including  Sustainable 
for  sustainable  development, 
Development Goal (SDG) 14 "Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and 
marine  resources  for  sustainable  development"  –  it  contains  set  goals  on 
significantly reducing marine pollution by 2025, reaching 10% of coastal marine 
surface  as  MPAs,  protecting  access  rights  of  small  scale  fisheries,  sustainably 
increased  scientific  cooperation  on  ocean 
manage  marine  eco-systems, 

50 Further details provided in Annex 4.14 
51 Starting with Axis 4 under the EFF and continuing with CLLD under the EMFF 
52 While during the 2007-2013 period 57% of FLAGs stated they would spend more than 30 % of their budget on projects targeting 
SSCF, the share increases to 71% in the 2014-2020 period as stated in the Ad-hoc expert report providing information on present 
and future EMFF support to Small-Scale Coastal Fisheries through FLAGs, FARNET, 2017 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
acidification,  ending  Illegal  Unreported  and  Unregulated  fishing,  prohibit  by 
2020  certain  forms  of  fisheries  subsidies  which  contribute  to  overcapacity  and 
overfishing53,  eliminate  subsidies  that  contribute  to  Illegal,  Unreported  and 
Unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing 
that  appropriate  and  effective  special  and  differential  treatment  for  developing 
and  least  developed  countries  should  be  an  integral  part  of  the  World  Trade 
Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation. ,. 

  The FAO Port State Measures  Agreement to  prevent  and eliminate IUU fishing 
that entered into force in June 2016. The EU is a party to the agreement, which 
calls under Article 21 of the agreement on  measures to  build capacity for Least 
Developed  Countries  and  Small  Island  Developing  States  to  aid  them  in  taking 
adequate port state measures in order to close the net on illicit fishing activities. 
The  EU  has  also  been  actively  involved  in  the  development  of  complementary 
Monitoring  Control  and  Surveillance  Operations,  as  well  as  complementary 
measures and tools that have been developed recently internationally, such as the 
FAO  Voluntary  Guidelines  on  Catch  Documentation  Schemes  and  the  Global 
Record of fishing vessels. 

  The EU is a party to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 
and  supports  the  work  of  the  international  bodies  the  convention  and  its  two 
implementing agreements have created: The International Tribunal on the Law of 
the Sea and the International Seabed Authority. It is also a contracting party to a 
number  of  Regional  Fisheries  Bodies  across  the  world  and  Regional  Seas 
Conventions in its neighbouring seas. Meanwhile, the EU and its Member States 
are actively engaged in the negotiations on a third implementing agreement under 
the  UNCLOS  on  the  conservation  and  sustainable  use  of  marine  biodiversity  in 
areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ).  

  The  implementation  of  the  Paris  Agreement  on  climate  change:  which  includes 
the protection of marine and coastal ecosystems including in the vulnerable polar 
areas,  reducing  risks  resulting  from  climatic  events,  restoring  and  developing 
“green-blue infrastructure” and developing renewable marine energy. 

  Strengthening  cooperation  with  key  ocean  actors  in  key  areas  of  ocean 
governance,  such  as  the  implementation  of  ocean-relevant  SDGs,  capacity 
building,  promoting  conservation  and  sustainable  ‘blue  growth’,  international 
fisheries  management,  decent  working  conditions  at  sea,  the  fight  against  IUU 
fishing and maritime security.  

However,  the  current  EMFF  does  not  cover  or  provides  very  little  funding  for  these 
activities and in order to deliver on all new international commitments additional funding 
is needed. If not delivered, not only the economic, environmental and security interests in 
relation to oceans, seas and marine resources are threatened but also the role of the Union 
as a key ocean actor would be undermined and its stated commitment to the delivery of 
the key global processes like the Agenda 2030, the Paris Agreement, the UN process on 
establishing a binding instrument for BBNJ, the FAO Port State Measures Agreement, its 

53 The EU plays an active role in the WTO’s negotiations on disciplining fisheries subsidies contributing to overcapacity, overfishing 
and IUU as requested by SDG 14.6. In this respect the EU made proposals to discipline capacity-enhancing proposals, including the 
prohibition of construction aid. 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
participation  in  various  Regional  Fisheries  Bodies  and  Regional  Seas  Conventions  and 
the WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies questioned. 

Maritime security is vital to the welfare and prosperity of the EU and the world. As much 
as  90%  of  international  trade  is  seaborne,  50%  of  the  EU  population  lives  in  maritime 
regions  and  400  million  passengers  pass  through  EU  ports  and  harbours  each  year. 
Europeans consistently point to security and safety as a top priority for their Union54. At 
the same time, security risks and threats on our seas and oceans are becoming more and 
more  complex  over  time  and  the  deteriorating  situation  in  many  parts  of  the  EU's 
neighbourhood  in  recent  years  has  given  rise  to  new  challenges,  notably  an  increased 
need for security as pre-condition to the development of the Blue Economy.  

The European Maritime Security Strategy (EUMSS) and its accompanying Action Plan55 
were issued in 2014 in response to the growing need for maritime security in Europe and 
overseas. Cross sectoral cooperation between different maritime authorities at European 
level and increased cooperation at sea internationally, between the EU and its maritime 
partners, will remain a priority for the future. Particular attention will have to be given to 
maritime  surveillance  (CISE)  and  the  protection  of  critical  maritime  infrastructure  (as 
ports,  lines  of  communication/transport,  offshore  installations),  critical  maritime  routes 
and  marine  resources  (including  fisheries).  Finally,  the  EU  will  need  to  continue  to 
promote targeted responses to threats at sea, both in Europe and globally, and coordinate 
geographical and sectoral policies in the maritime domain. The interagency cooperation 
on  coast  guard  functions,  established  following  the  revision  of  the  mandates  of  the 
EFCA, EMSA and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX), in line 
with the EUMSS AP, will be key in this respect. 

2.2.  Objectives of the programmes of the next MFF 

The Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides the overall legal 
basis for the CFP. It contains the following provisions: 

  Article  3(1)  (d):  the  Union  has  exclusive  competence  in  the  conservation  of 

marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy.  

  Article  4(2)  (d):  other  aspects  of  fisheries  and  maritime  policy  are  shared 

competence between the Union and the Member States. 

  Article  43(2):  The  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  acting  in  accordance 
with  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure  and  after  consulting  the  Economic  and 
Social Committee, shall establish the common fisheries policy. 

The  baseline  scenario  is  the  current  EMFF  for the  2014-2020  period  (EUR  6.4  billion) 
excluding the resources allocated to the UK (EUR 230 million).  This status  quo would 
allow to address the challenges set out in this section. This IA report does not cover the 
impacts of Brexit. Such impacts will be considered at a later stage.  

54 Special Eurobarometer 464b: European's attitudes towards security, December 2017 
55 (OR. en), 17002/14, Brussels, 16 December 2014 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
The  objectives  for  fisheries  and  maritime  policies  post-2020  are  of  four  types  -  policy, 
general,  specific  and  cross-cutting  -  and  are  defined  at  two  levels,  policy  objectives 
common to all ESI Funds and fund-specific general, specific and cross-cutting objectives  
Each  specific  objective  is  linked  to  a  general  objective  and  is  presented  as  an  indent 
under the general objectives below:  

3.  PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES 

3.1 

Necessity for EU action: 

The CFP is an area of exclusive competence to the EU. Union intervention is therefore 
necessary  as  this  common  policy  imposes  obligations  on  the  Member  States.  Financial 
support to help them meet those obligations is crucial for the attainment of the Union's 
objectives of the policy  – the sustainable  use  of the oceans. Support is needed in  areas 
like adjusting the capacity of our fishing fleets, investing in health and safety on board, 
developing scientific knowledge and advice on the state of the fish stocks and improving 
controls and inspections at sea and in ports.  

3.2 

Added value of EU action: 

The overall aim of future support for fisheries and maritime policies is to help delivering 
the CFP objectives. Achieving sustainable fisheries may have social impacts for coastal 
communities in the short to medium term which needs mitigation through diversification 
both  within  and  outside  the  fishing  sector  by  for  example  encouraging  fishers  to  find 
employment in expanding maritime economy sectors. This is of particular importance to 

21 

 
 
 
 
coastal  communities  depending  on  fisheries,  in  particular  in  areas  where  the  fishing 
sector  still  faces  serious  problems  such  as  the  Mediterranean  and  Black  Seas  where  a 
policy at EU level can provide real added value, also given the EU exclusive competence 
on fisheries management. Individual Member States are not in a position to sufficiently 
address  the  problems  themselves  while  EU  action  provides  a  secure  source  for  stable 
growth-supporting  investment.  Many  marine  aquaculture  sites  operate  in  marine 
ecosystems  which  go  beyond  national  borders  and  the  planning  of  the  maritime  space 
requires  coordinated  planning  efforts  at  EU-level.  Control  and  enforcement  as  well  as 
data collection and scientific advice are core elements for the effective implementation of 
the CFP. These activities co-ordinated and co-financed at EU-level represent significant 
savings and synergies in terms of costs and compliance compared to a model where these 
activities were to be carried out exclusively by the Member States.  

Maritime  policy  and  the  development  of  the  blue  economy  is  to  its  character  cross-
sectoral and transnational, e.g. through the development of sea-basin strategies that cover 
several Member States and appropriate partner countries, to gain efficiency in the use of 
involvement  of  bodies/institutions  and  reduce 
funds,  application  of  rules  and 
fragmentation  and  duplication  of  actions.  Action  at  EU-level  is  likely  to  produce  clear 
benefits  compared  to  action  only  at  Member  State/regional  level.  Marine  knowledge 
assembles  data  and  makes  it  accessible  across  the  EU,  CISE  provides  a  common 
European  maritime  surveillance  environment,  while  sharing  at  EU  or  sea  basin  levels 
coast  guard  capacities  between  agencies  and  Member  States  increase  effectiveness  and 
efficiency of operations at sea. Maritime spatial planning is a way to better coordinate the 
common  European  maritime  space  and  ensure  coherence  across  borders  (within  and 
outside  the  EU).  In  blue  growth  areas  such  as  ocean  energy  coordination  of  activities 
related to research but also other non-technological issues at European level accelerates 
the  development  of  the  sector  (i.e.  achieving  the  critical  mass  for  investment  and 
developing the market). Funding at EU-level supports the drivers of innovation enabling 
the European maritime industry to grow and thrive. 

to  ocean  management,  notably 

In  line  with  its  international  commitment  to  conserve  and  sustainably  use  the  oceans, 
including  the  objectives  under  Sustainable  Development  Agenda  2030,  the  EU  is  well-
placed  to  shape  international  ocean  governance  on  the  basis  of  its  experience  in 
developing  a  sustainable  approach 
its 
environment policy (in particular the MSFD), integrated maritime policy (in particular its 
MSP  Directive),  reformed  common  fisheries  policy,  action  against  illegal,  unregulated 
and  unreported  (IUU)  fishing,  its  maritime  transport  policy  and  the  multiple  bilateral 
partnerships  and  multilateral  agreements  it  is  a  party  to.  The  Sustainable  Fisheries 
Partnership Agreements with partner countries around the world are key for sustainable 
food supply, for developing a sustainable blue economy and help to address the issue of 
migration.  The  EU  maritime  security  strategy  and  new  border  protection  policy  has 
identified  CISE  and  the  cooperation  between  EFCA,  EMSA  and  the  European  Border 
and  Coast  Guard  Agency  (FRONTEX)  in  the  form  of  the  European  Border  and  Coast 
Guard  Function  as  key  to  deliver  on  these  aims.  In  all  the  areas  set  out  above  pooling 
resources at European level can deliver results that spending at national level cannot.  

through 

3.3       Prioritisation of actions: 

22 

 
 
Below  follows  an  account  of  the  features  to  be  retained  by  the  future  fisheries  and 
maritime policies of the Union in view of identified challenges. A full account including 
discarded features is provided in Annex 4.2 to this IA report.   

General Objective 1: Fostering sustainable fisheries and the conservation of marine 
biological resources   

As shown in previous sections of this IA report, in terms of economic and environmental 
sustainability the situation facing the fisheries sector today is  very  different from when 
the  EMFF  was  designed  and  although  concerns  remain  for  some  stocks,  segments 
(overcapacity)  and  sea-basins,  mainly  the  Mediterranean,  the  general  outlook  for  the 
future  is  positive.  Nevertheless,  the  CFP  needs  a  dedicated  tool  for  delivering  on  its 
prime objectives. This is unlikely to be achieved by any other EU funding source. It will 
be necessary to focus support on key enablers for healthy oceans and prosperous coastal 
communities.  

The preferred model for the future is a more targeted system compared to the current one. 
Given the challenges to achieve a sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources 
in  line  with  the  conservation  objectives  of  the  CFP,  future  funding  should  support  the 
management of fisheries and fishing fleets. In this context, fleet adaptation measures will 
remain  necessary  as  regards  certain  fleet  segments  or  certain  sea  basins  (i.e.  the 
Mediterranean).  However,  such  support  needs 
to  be  tightly  targeted  to  the  
conservation  and  sustainable  exploitation  of  marine  biological  resources  and  to  a 
more  effective  fleet  management  by  Member  States.  In  this  context,  certain  fleet 
measures56  may  play  a  specific  role.  Past  experience  shows  that  on  the  one  hand,  they 
need to be carefully circumscribed to avoid negative impacts, and on the other hand, they 
must be better targeted at reaching EU conservation objectives. Fleet measures would be 
subject to horizontal conditions set out in the regulation. 

Given  the  remoteness  and  specific  conditions  of  the  outermost  regions  there  are  good 
reasons  to  continue  compensation  but  it  will  be  necessary  to  assess  how  the  cost-
effectiveness of the regime could be improved. It will also be necessary to reflect on how 
to better integrate the development of the fisheries sector into blue growth strategies. 

Specific objective 
SO 1:1 Sustainable, 
competitive and inclusive 
fisheries 

Features 
A targeted model introducing a new feature compared to the 
current period. Fleet adaptation measures will remain 
necessary as regards certain fleet segments or certain sea 
basins (e.g. Mediterranean). However, such support needs to 
be tightly linked to specific conservation objectives 
(especially as regional multiannual management plans enter 
into effect) and to a more effective fleet management by 
Member States.  
Modernisation of the fleet with regard to innovation, health 
and safety, energy efficiency and investments on board 
improving the quality of products. 
Maintaining higher co-financing rates and allow higher aid 

56 Permanent cessation, extraordinary cessation, start-up support and engine replacement 

23 

 
 
 
                                                            
SO 1:2 Sustainable and 
competitive SSCF 

SO 1:3 Implementation 
of the CFP (fisheries 
control, data) 

SO 1:4 Conservation of 
marine ecosystems 

intensity for investments in outermost regions compared to 
the mainland. 
Higher intervention rates 
Differentiated areas of support (e.g. certain operations only 
for small-scale operators) 
Differentiated forms of support (e.g. access to grants only for 
small-scale operators and only financial instruments for other 
beneficiaries) 
Continue financial support for fisheries control and link it 
with the revision of the Control regulation.  
Reinforce the link to maritime surveillance 
Strengthen the collection and processing of marine data in 
synergy with EMODNET and the MSFD. 
Continue support for biodiversity protection, including 
support to the management, restoration and monitoring of 
Natura 2000 sites and other MPAs, to promote more 
selective fishing gear, to avoid accidental by-catch of species 
(marine mammals and seabirds) to continue addressing the 
issue of collection of marine litter and to support aquaculture 
providing environmental services.  
Develop cross-cutting indicators for all EU funds for Natura 
2000, building on and adapting existing indicators developed 
under the EMFF. 

General  Objective  2:  Contributing  to  food  security  in  the  Union  through 
competitive and sustainable aquaculture and markets  

The sustainable  production of farmed fish offers an alternative source of food security. 
Aquaculture is part of the Common Fisheries Policy, and while the EMFF has supported 
the EU's aquaculture sector with more than 1.2 billion euros of investment, a number of 
problems  remain.  The  main  problems  in  the  aquaculture  sector  relate  to  unnecessary 
complexities in Member State procedures but also other obstacles remain such as access 
to  funding,  access  to  space  and  the  ability  of  the  sector  to  improve  the  image  and 
competitiveness of farmed seafood. 

With  regard  to  support  for  markets,  continued  financial  support  for  the  organisation  of 
the  sector  and  its  structure  through  support  to  producer  organisations  (POs)  could  be 
justified  on  the  basis  of  market  failure  (need  to  correct  monopsony/oligopsony57  and 
increase  producers'  bargaining  power  vis-à-vis  the  processing  industry  and  retailers). 
Such  POs  have  a  key  role  in  the  implementation  of  the  CFP  and  the  Common  Market 
Organisation.  Support  should  facilitate  the  creation  and  restructuring  of  professional 
organisations in the meaning of the CMO regulation, the implementation of Production 

57 A monopsony is a market situation in which there is only one buyer. A oligopsony is a state of the market in which only a small 
number of buyers exists for a product. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
and  Marketing  Plans,  the  improvement  in  market  performance  and  the  provision  of 
market intelligence (EUMOFA). 

Specific objective 
SO 2:1 Sustainable, 
innovative and 
competitive aquaculture 

SO 2:2 Market 
organisation 
SO 2:3 Quality and 
sustainability of products 

Features 
Target support to productive and innovative investments to 
growth. Support should be provided through financial 
instruments.  
Support on compensatory measures for less profitable 
aquaculture activities 
Grants for enabling conditions for aquaculture - including 
stock insurance schemes - could be considered as well in 
addition to covering aquaculture more prominently in local 
development strategies (CLLD) as an important area for 
diversification, jobs and growth. 
Financial support for the organisation of the sector and its 
structure through producer organisations (POs)  
Keep support for processing but provide it only through 
financial instruments for all including for SMEs. 

General  Objective  3:  Enabling  the  growth  of  the  sustainable  blue  economy  and 
fostering prosperous coastal communities  

If the aim is to really unlock the full potential of the maritime economy, future support 
would  need  to  be  increased  compared  to  current  levels.  One  option  could  be  to  focus 
future funding almost entirely on maritime policy and blue growth and only keep a minor 
part for data, control and the CLLD-approach. The problem here is that available funding 
would still not to enough to provide sufficient funding for unlocking the potential of the 
maritime economy while key objectives of the CFP would risk not to be delivered.    

Another  option  would  be  a  maritime  policy  with  clear  focus  on  providing  funding  for 
enabling  conditions  to  facilitate  innovation  and  market  development  in  the  blue 
economy  by  addressing  market  failures.  Support  in  direct  management  could  be 
centred on promoting clean oceans and a blue economy adapted to the consequences of 
climate  change  (eg.  fight  against  marine  pollution,  reduce  GHG  emissions  of  maritime 
equipment, promotion of circular blue economy, reduction of marine litter, promotion of 
blue  energy).  More  flexibility  could  be  provided  through  a  wider  choice  of  support 
mechanisms including financial instruments. 

Given  that  Community-led  Local  Development  is  a  powerful  tool  for  creating 
employment  and  wealth  and  helps  to  deliver  social  and  territorial  cohesion  and  taking 
into account the call from stakeholders and the European Parliament to further strengthen 
the approach, there are good reasons to continue the approach.  

Specific objective 
SO 3:1 Enabling an 
innovative, sustainable 
and knowledge-based 

Features 
Focus on providing funding for enabling conditions to 
facilitate innovation and market development in the blue 
economy by addressing market failures for the sustainable 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
blue economy 

SO 3:2 Prosperous blue 
coastal and inland 
communities 

development of economic activities, safeguard ecosystems 
and reinforce security at sea. It also includes enhancing 
marine and scientific knowledge (e.g. EMODNET and 
MSFD).  
Outermost regions would be encouraged to draw up maritime 
sustainable development strategies. 
Broaden the scope of the approach to include maritime 
policy/blue growth.  
Ensuring that a meaningful share of the post-2020 funding is 
delivered through CLLD.  

General  Objective  4:  Strengthening  international  ocean  governance  and  enabling 
safe, secure, clean and sustainably managed oceans 

to 

international  organisations 

Besides  voluntary  contributions 
(RFMOs,  UN 
organisations),  the current  EMFF does  not  allow for interventions at international level 
and one option could be to keep it like this also for the future. However, not having any 
dedicated  budget  line(s)  under  the  current  EMFF  could  already  negatively/seriously 
affect  the  implementation  process.  Moreover,  if  no  specific  allocations  are  provided,  it 
would entail a major risk for its credibility and efficiency. In addition, the current EMFF 
is  only  partially  reflecting  the  new  ambitions  on  international  ocean  governance  and 
notably 
to  ensure  a 
coordinated/integrated approach towards ocean policy making and implementation.  
The Action Plan  of the  European Maritime Security  Strategy (EUMSS)58  is  now under 
revision  to  align  it  with  present  and  upcoming  challenges  and  to  continue  promoting 
targeted responses to threats at sea, both in Europe and globally.  

its  cross-sectoral  and  holistic  scope  with 

the  objective 

Specific objective 
SO 4:1 International 
ocean governance 

SO 4:2 Maritime 

Features 
Continue support for international and regional organizations 
(RFMOs, RSCs) 
Broaden scope of support for international ocean governance 
through ; development of ocean partnerships with key 
partners; building capacity for better ocean governance, 
conservation and restoration of marine biodiversity and 
sustainable blue economies with key partners, promote MSP 
worldwide and strengthening; international ocean research 
and data.  
Include support needed to effectively implement the external 
part of the EU policy to fight against IUU fishing in the form 
of technical assistance to third countries to implement 
international obligations (ex. revision of legal frameworks, 
MCS capacity trainings, correct implementation of the EU 
catch certification scheme) and operational 
maintenance/update/development of the IT tool for the EU 
IUU catch certification scheme. 
To promote, in line with the EUMSS Action Plan, enhanced 

58 (OR. en), 17002/14, Brussels, 16 December 2014 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
surveillance and 
coastguards cooperation 

international cooperation on maritime security (including on 
the fight against IUU), integrated maritime surveillance 
(particularly CISE), capability development and research & 
innovation, risk management and assessment as well as 
dedicated education and training activities in the field of 
maritime security.  
Include support for interagency cooperation on coast guard 
functions, established following the revision of the mandates 
of the EFCA, EMSA and FRONTEX  

What is new content-wise in comparison with the 2014-2020 period? 
2014-2020 
Aid intensity for support to SSCF at 80%   Aid intensity for support to SSCF 

Post-2020 

Member States with more than 1 000 
SSCF vessels should prepare an action 
plan 
Aquaculture: Weak link to national 
strategic plans 
Aid intensity for delivering on CFP 
objectives (landing obligation, gear 
selectivity) at 50% 
Community-led local development only 
within fisheries/aquaculture 
Very limited support for international 
cooperation 

No specific link between the EMFF and 
the development of the blue economy in 
outermost regions  
For maritime policy, only MFSD and CISE 
in shared management 

Limited synergies in the field of data and 
control between fisheries and maritime 
purposes, data collected and control carried 
out independently  

(including operations related to control and 
enforcement) at 100% 
All MS should prepare an action plan that 
sets specific milestones and targets in 
relation to fund-specific indicators  
Aquaculture: Stronger link to national 
strategic plans  
Aid intensity for delivering on CFP 
objectives (landing obligation, gear 
selectivity) at 75% 
Community-led local development 
extended to the whole blue economy 
Support for international oceans 
governance included including coastguard 
cooperation 
In outermost regions MS shall prepare an 
action plan for the sustainable 
development of the blue economy 
In addition to MSFD and CISE, also 
support for implementing the MSP 
Directive, EMODNET and coastguard 
cooperation covered by shared 
management 
Increased synergies 
Fisheries science and marine science: 
when collecting fisheries data also date for 
EMODET and the MSFD could be 
collected. 
Fisheries control and coast guard 
functions: Most surveillance operations at 
sea are multipurpose and should fit with 
actual control and security needs in order 
to gain efficiency and cost-effectiveness 

27 

 
 
 
4.  DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING 

4.1  What  do  the  evaluations  recommend?  What  conclusions  can  be  drawn  on  the 
basis of implementation data? 

  The administrative burden associated with the delivery of the EFF was too high. 
At the application stage it acted as a disincentive for applying for support and the 
level of co-financing required was perceived as an issue, in particular for the most 
fragile categories of stakeholders. 

  Public support should be focussed to ensure greater effectiveness and efficiency. 
 

In the EMFF administrative complexities at national level slow down the rate of 
implementation.  In  shared  management  this  is  for  example  the  case  within 
aquaculture, CLLD, innovation and to a certain extent maritime policy. 

  The  lack  of  context,  result  and  output  indicators  in  the  EFF  increased  the 
difficulty of the analysis of its impacts. This was rectified in the EMFF. For the 
future the common monitoring and evaluation system developed under the EMFF 
should be kept but simplified.  

4.2  What do stakeholders propose?  

  No need for radical changes of the 2014-2020 delivery mechanisms. Stakeholders 

ask for stability and continuity. 

  However,  current  delivery  mechanisms  should  be  made  simpler,  more  flexible 

and more focussed on performance and success.  

  More  specifically,  the  intervention  logic  is  considered  too  rigid  not  allowing 
Member  States  to  address  their  own  specificities.  This  could  be  addressed  by 
getting  rid  of  pre-defined  measures,  reduce  the  number  of  objectives/priorities 
and increase the use of financial instruments and standard cost options.  

  Continue the conditional approach by which spending is linked to the delivery of 

objectives the CFP. 

4.3  What are the key features of proposed delivery mechanisms post-2020?  
 (a) Key features at ESI-level  

  For shared management, rules applicable to  all ESI Funds will be moved to the 
CPR. Such rules are part of the CPR drafting and are dependent on the ongoing 
discussions between the ESIF-DGs.  

  Common rules have to be defined in such a way that they fit the specificities of 
each ESIF. Given the small size of fisheries and maritime policies the principle of 
proportionality  should  be  applied.  For  example  there  is  no  need  for  a  detailed 
evaluation  plan,  no  need  for  a  specific  network  of 
information  and 
communication officers and it should be possible to roll-over the designation of 
authorities from previous period if no substantial changes are made in the set-up 
  The strong growth potential of the blue economy cannot be born exclusively by 
the small Fund for fisheries and maritime policy. The general principle could be 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
that major investments are supported by larger funds such as the ERDF, whereas 
the EMFF could fund smaller, innovative, added value projects and cooperation 
not taken on by the other funds (e.g. at sea basin and sub-regional levels). Issues 
related to maritime skills could in principle be covered by the ESF. H2020 

  Monitoring and reporting on the implementation of sea-basin and macro-regional 
should be harmonised across ESI Funds. This was not the case during the 2014-
2020 period which caused problems when assessing the implementation of such 
strategies.  

  Rules at ESIF-level are not enough given that the new fund for fisheries and 

maritime policies is a prime tool for implementing the CFP. That is why a policy-
level legal basis is needed. 

(b) Key features at Policy-level 

Making delivery mechanisms simpler and more flexible:   
Member  States  would  draw  up  their  operational  programme  indicating  the  most 
appropriate means to achieve the objectives set out in the regulation. The basic principle 
would  be  that  anything  that  is  not  explicitly  forbidden  in  the  regulation  would  be 
allowed.  There  would  be  a  list  of  'no-go'  areas  in  fisheries  policy  so  as  to  avoid 
detrimental  impacts  in  terms  of  fisheries  conservation  (e.g.  a  general  prohibition  of 
investments  enhancing  fishing  capacity)  and  restrictions  for  operating  costs  or  where 
there  is  no  proven  market  failure.  This  represents  a  major  shift  from  current  and  past 
funding  rules,  where  eligible  investments/measures  were  spelled  out  in  detail  in  the 
regulation and which stakeholders have criticised for being burdensome and inflexible.    

Making delivery mechanisms more focussed on success:   
Building  on  the  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  System  developed  for  the  2014-
2020 period the future policy will be structured around general and specific objectives. A 
limited  number  of  key  result  indicators  at  ESIF-level  and  at  fund-level  are  being 
developed  that match the objectives. In  the  operational  programmes  Member States  set 
their milestones and targets in relation to these indicators. Success will be measured on 
the basis of Member States reporting on progress towards these milestones and targets. 
On this basis, the Commission will carry out an annual performance review allowing for 
early detection of potential implementation issues and corrective measures.  

For most types of support funding (EU interim payments) would continue to be based on 
actual incurred costs and expenditures certified by Member States (without prejudice to 
using SCOs).  However, in  order to ensure the consistency of fleet structural adaptation 
with  conservation  objectives,  support  for  the  permanent  cessation  of  fishing  activities 
should  be  implemented  only  through  financing  not  linked  to  costs  provided  for  in  the 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Common  Provisions  Regulation59.  This  means  that  for  this  specific  type  of  support 
Member States  should  not  be reimbursed by the Commission  on the basis  of real  costs 
but on the basis of the fulfilment of conditions or of the achievement of results. For this 
purpose,  the  Commission  should  establish  in  a  delegated  act  conditions  related  to  the 
conservation  objectives  of  the  CFP,  that  should  be  reflected  in  the  operational 
programmes of the Member States concerned. 

Further flexibility will be provided through: 

  Simplified intervention logic: fewer objectives at ESIF and policy-level 
  Financial  instruments:  In  line  with  the  opinion  expressed  by  the  majority  of 
stakeholders60 
instruments  (loans,  guarantees)  and  repayable 
assistance  such  as  repayable  grants62  at  programme  level  would  play  a  more 
prominent role.  

61  financial 

  Simplified cost options: An increased use of Simplified Cost Options (flat rates, 
lump-sums  and  unit  costs)  would  help  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  at 
Member State level63.  

  Compliance: The compliance mechanism that was introduced through the EMFF 
2014-2020 and by which both Member States and operators have to comply with 
the  rules  of  the  CFP  from  admissibility  to  implementation  to  be  able  to  get 
support would be continued. 

  Dual management mode: The current dual management mode (shared and direct 

management) would be kept for the future64 65.  

4.3  What is new in comparison with the 2014-2020 period? 

The  table  below  shows  the  areas  where  new  or  adapted  delivery  mechanisms  are 
proposed for the post-2020 period. 

59 Article 92 in the draft Common Provisions Regulation 
60 Shared management in the current EMFF is primarily implemented through grants, albeit with an increasing amount implemented 
through financial instruments. A novelty introduced in the EMFF is that in the case of investments in processing of fishery and 
aquaculture products support to enterprises other than SMEs is only granted though financial instruments.  Specific EMFF financial 
instruments intend to invest nearly EUR 80 million compared to EUR 63.5 million in the previous programming period. Although to 
date no substantial reporting by Member States is available, operational knowledge indicates that there is progress on the ground, that 
ex-ante assessments have been finalised and decisions on whether and how to proceed have continued during 2017. 
61 As many as 75% of respondents in our stakeholder consultation were in favour of increasing the use and allocations for financial 

instruments post 2020.   

62 The main difference between repayable assistance and grants lies in the repayable character of the assistance as opposed to the non-
reimbursable character of a grant. On the other hand the repayable assistance also differs from financial instruments, notably loans 
which contain an unconditional obligation to repay. 

63 During the 2014-2020, following a survey on simplification launched by DG MARE in 2015 and followed-up in 2017 by an 
additional survey, less than 50% of replying Member States reported they planned to use SCOs within the EMFF. The main reason for 
not using SCOs was that it was considered too administratively burdensome. The preferred SCO was standard scales of unit costs 
followed by flat-rate financing. Member States mostly planned to use SCOs for support to sustainable aquaculture and for data 
collection and control.  Further results of this survey are presented in Annex 4.8.   
64 The funding according to management mode is 90% in shared management and 10% in direct management. 
65 The current dual mode provides for continuity and the possibility to benefit from already gained experience much in the line with 
what stakeholders ask for. As part of the ESI Funds, most of the future funding would continue to be implemented in shared 
management. The purpose is to support adaptive processes in a specific sector, investments in businesses and preservation of 
environmental resources, funding should be as close as possible to local and national realities and complementary to national policies 
and funding. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
2014-2020 
Simplification, flexibility 
4 thematic objectives at ESIF-level, 6 
EMFF union priorities 
49 pre-defined measures setting out 
eligibility conditions 
Only operations that meet the eligibility 
conditions can be supported 
Limited use of simplified cost options 
Limited use of financial instruments: 
Mandatory for support to processing for 
non-SMEs   

Focus on performance and success 
Ex-ante conditionalities at fund-level 

All financing based on eligible costs  

CMES 2014-2020 
Common indicators at EMFF-level 
Synergies with other funds 
The blue economy could be funded 
through other funds 

Post-2020 

2 policy objectives at ESIF-level, 4 EMFF general 
objectives 
No measures 
A few no-go areas set out in the legal basis 
Everything is eligible that is not covered by the no-go 
areas 
Increased use of simplified cost options 
Increased use of financial instruments: Mandatory for 
support to processing as well as to productive and 
innovative investments in aquaculture for all types of 
beneficiaries (including SMEs)  

No ex-ante conditionalities at fund-level. Funding 
conditional upon the compliance of Member States 
and operators with the objectives and rules of the 
CFP. Applications from non-compliant operators not  
admissible 
Possibility to provide financing not linked to costs in 
the form of flat rate payments linked to the 
attainment of milestones and targets 
Simplified CMES (fewer indicators) 
Common indicators at ESIF-level and policy-level 

A more clear demarcation. Enabling funded through 
fisheries and maritime policies. Upscaling funded 
through other funds, notably the ERDF and the 
research framework programmes 

5.  HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

5.1  What is already available?  

For the 2014-2020 a Common Monitoring and Evaluation System was developed for the 
EMFF66. It is built on the following elements: 

  An  intervention  logic  showing  the  interactions  between  priorities,  specific 

objectives and measures.  
  A set of common indicators.  
  Cumulative data on operations selected for funding.  
  The Annual Implementation Report of the Operational Programme.  
  An Evaluation Plan. 
  The  ex-ante  and  ex-post  evaluations  and  all  other  evaluation  activities linked  to 

the EMFF programme. 
  The performance review. 

66 Article 107 of the EMFF Regulation requires the establishment of a Common Monitoring and Evaluation System (CMES) for the 
operations co-financed by the EMFF under shared management. A more complete account of the system is provided in Annex 3.   

31 

 
 
 
                                                            
First,  for  the  2014-2020  period  a  set  of  common  indicators  with  common  definitions 
were established covering the main characteristics of the fisheries and aquaculture sector, 
reflecting  the  goals  of  relevant  EU  policies  (CFP,  maritime  policy)  and  providing  a 
connection with the EU 2020 strategy. Indicators used serve 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 one67. MS were  free  to  add specific indicators if 
they wished. 

Member States are required to report on these indicators. 

Second, we have a system for cumulative data on operations referred to as Infosys68. As 
explained  in  this  IA  report  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  challenging.  As  a  response,  for  the  2014-2020  period,  a 
reporting  system  was  established  to  address  this  shortcoming  and  provide  the 
Commission with detailed information at the level of every single operation. In concrete 
terms this means that we have created a database of information at the level of operations 
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.  

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  fishers  concerned,  total  area  concerned,  etc.).  In  order  to  limit  the 
administrative  burden  on  Managing  Authorities  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 operation. Member States are required 
to provide Infosys data annually. 

Third, the CPR lays down the general rules for evaluation in all the ESI funds, whilst the 
EMFF Regulation specifies that the Member States have to conduct an ex-ante evaluation 
and  further  evaluations  during  the  implementation  period.  The  Commission  has  to 
conduct  an  ex-post  evaluation,  to  be  completed  by  the  end  of  2024.  The  ex-ante 
evaluation is the only evaluation undertaken so far by the Member States.  

5.2  What do we want to develop for the future? 

67 A complete list of indicators used during the 2014-2020 period is provided in Annex 3.3  
68 The Infosys reporting system is established through Art 97.1 (a) of the EMFF Regulation. In order to limit the administrative 
burden for MAs, the system uses information which is already available in the Member States. 

32 

 
 
 
                                                            
For  the  future  we  would  like  to  build  on  the  model  developed  during  2014-2020.  It  is 
essential  that  this  existing,  functioning  monitoring  and  evaluation  system  remains  in 
place. The focus will be on evolution and simplification. The number of indicators will 
be reduced, indicators should be more operational (i.e. close to the operations and easy to 
report  on)  and  methodological  guidance  would  be  provided  to  Member  States  prior  to 
programming69.  

The  specific  indicators  at  fund-level  should  be  few,  simple  and  defined  prior  to 
programming.  For  the  future  the  aim  is  to  have  a  maximum  of  10  result  indicators  at 
policy-area level. These indicators would cover the following:  

PRIORITY 
Fostering  sustainable  fisheries  and  the 
biological 
conservation 
resources 

of  marine 

Contributing to  food security in  the Union 
sustainable 
through 
aquaculture and markets 

competitive 

and 

Enabling  the  growth  of  a  sustainable  blue 
economy  and  fostering  prosperous  coastal 
communities 

international 

ocean 
Strengthening 
governance  and  enabling  safe,  secure, 
clean  and  sustainably  managed  seas  and 
oceans 

INDICATOR 
Evolution of volume of landings stemming 
from stocks assessed at MSY 
Evolution  in  profitability  of  the  Union 
fishing fleet 
Surface (ha) of Natura 2000 sites, and other 
MPAs  under 
the  MSFD,  covered  by 
protection,  maintenance  and  restoration 
measures 
Percentage  of  fishing  vessels  equipped 
with electronic position and catch reporting 
device 
Evolution  in  the  value  and  volume  of 
aquaculture production in the Union 
Evolution  in  the  value  and  volume  of 
landings 
Evolution  of  GDP  in  maritime  NUTS  3 
regions 
Evolution in the number of jobs (in FTE) in 
the blue economy 
Number  of  shared  operations  contributing 
to the European cooperation on coastguard 
functions 

In addition, indicators at the level of operational programmes are under development. 

All indicators - including methodological guidance on definitions  - will be defined and 
elaborated prior by the Commission to programming. 

For the future we would also like to keep the Infosys. The basic requirement will be that 
Member States annually provide cumulative data on operations selected for funding until 
the  end  of  the  previous  year.  They  will  provide  data  on  each  operation  (type  of 
investments,  area  covered,  number  of  employees  benefitting  from  the  operation  etc) 
including key characteristics of the beneficiaries.  

69 This was not the case during the 2014-2020 period when the methodological guidance came late at a time when many operational 
programmes had already been approved) 

33 

 
 
 
                                                            
5.3  What requirements are being proposed for evaluation? What data is available? 

All key requirements on evaluation will be put in the CPR and will be common to all ESI 
Funds. It will not be obligatory for Member States to carry out an ex-post evaluation as 
experience from current and previous periods show that these evaluations have been of 
limited  value.  Member  States  will  be  required  to  carry  out  evaluations  during  the 
programming period. Such evaluations shall help to improve the quality of the design and 
implementation  of  programmes,  as  well  as  to  assess  their  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance, coherence, EU added value and impact in relation to their contribution to the 
priorities of the European Union.  

In  principle  the  evaluations  to  be  made  by  Member  States  will  cover  the  following 
elements:   

  Process  evaluation  covering 

the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  partner 

involvement, OP implementation and communication 

  Effectiveness  evaluation  at  specific  objective  level  focussing  on  how  well  the 

 

operational programme is being implemented 
Impact evaluation at general objective level. It should demonstrate how much the 
operational programmes have contributed to change in the sector and in society as 
a whole in line with the general objectives.   

Member States will have to ensure that procedures are in place to produce and collect the 
data  necessary  for  evaluations,  including  data  related  to  common  and  programme-
specific indicators. The Commission will carry out the ex post evaluation. 

In  addition  to  the  ongoing  evaluation  set  out  above,  each  Member  State  will  have  to 
submit to the Commission an annual performance report. This report should describe the 
achievement of milestones and targets and it will be examined by the Commission who 
will submit its observations to the concerned Member State. Moreover, the Commission 
will carry out a mid-term assessment to examine the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, 
coherence and EU added value by the end of 2025. Taken together the provisions above 
should  be  sufficient  to  ensure  that  evidence  is  available  at  the  time  of  revising  the 
spending programme for the period post-2027.  

Availability of data for evaluation purposes: 

 
 

Infosys data will be used for evaluations.  
In addition, data from the Data Collection Framework70 will be used. This is data 
the Member States are collecting and which is assembled and stored by the JRC  
  Also data from the European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture 
(EUMOFA)  will  be  used.  EUMOFA71  operates  a  consolidated  database  of 
aggregated and harmonised data.  

  EUROSTAT data will be used wherever available 

The  table  below  summarises  the  requirements  on  monitoring  and  evaluation  during  the 
2014-2020 period and the post-2020 period: 

70 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/dcf-dcr 
71 http://www.eumofa.eu/sources-of-data 

34 

 
 
 
  
                                                            
2014-2020 
CMES 2014-2020 
Common indicators at EMFF-level 
Infosys 2014-2020 
CPR requirements: 
Ex-ante evaluation to be done by MS 
Evaluation during the programming 
period to be done by MS. At least once 
during the programming period an 
evaluation shall assess how ESI Fund 
support has contributed to the objectives  
Ex-post evaluation to be done by COM 
Synthesis at Union level of the ex-post 
evaluation by the COM 
Policy-level requirements: 
Ex-ante evaluation to be done by MS 
Ex-post evaluation to be done by COM 
Synthesis at Union level of the ex-post 
evaluation by the COM  

Post-2020 
Simplified CMES (fewer indicators) 
Common indicators at ESIF-level and policy-level 
Infosys post-2020 
CPR requirements: 

Evaluation during the programming period to be 
done by MS.  
Ex-post evaluation to be done by COM 
Mid-term assessment to be done by COM by the 
end of 2025 
Synthesis at Union level of the ex-post evaluation 
by the COM 

Policy-level requirements: 
None. All requirements moved to the CPR and 
common to all ESI Funds. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  Organisation and timing 

The Directorate-General for for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) is the lead 
service for the preparation of the initiative and the work on the impact assessment. 

DG  MARE  has  used  the  new  template  for  impact  assessments  supporting  programme 
proposals  of  the  next  Multi-annual  Financial  Framework  as  sent  in  ARES  on  15/01/18 
(Ares(2018)239380).  

An inter-service steering group (ISSG), chaired by the Secretariat-General, was set up in 
January  2018  with  the  invitations  sent  out  to  the  following  Commission  Directorates-
General: Legal Service; DG Competition; DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion; 
DG  Energy;  DG  Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement  Negotiations;  DG  Economic  and 
Financial Affairs; DG for Mobility and Transport; DG Environment; DG Climate Action; 
DG Taxation and Customs Union; DG Regional and Urban Policy; DG Health and Food 
Safety;  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development;  DG  Communication;  DG 
Communication  Networks,  Content  and  Technology;  DG  Financial  Stability,  Financial 
Services  and  Capital  Markets  Union;  DG  Trade;  DG  International  Cooperation  and 
Development;  DG  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs;  DG  Budget; 
DG Research and Innovation; DG Informatics; DG Human Resources and Security; Joint 
Research Centre; Eurostat and the Internal Audit Service. Invitation was also sent to the 
European External Action Service.  

The first ISSG meeting dedicated to the preparation of the fisheries and maritime policies 
post-2020  was  held  on  2nd  February  2018.  The  first  meeting  was  dedicated  to  the 
discussion  of  the  inception  impact  assessment  and  the  draft  impact  assessment.  The 
second meeting of the ISSG was held on 23rd February and covered the complete draft IA 
report including the annexes. 

The  formal  presentation  of  the  Impact  Assessment  to  the  RSB  is  planned  for  11  April 
2018  with  the  opinion  from  the  RSB  planned  for  13  April 2018.  Afterwards,  the  inter-
service consultation will be launched for two weeks (16 – 27 April 2018).  

The  adoption  of  the  MFF  is  foreseen  for  the  beginning  of  May  2018  and  the  EMFF 
legislative proposal will follow afterwards.  

DG MARE will also start preparing the outreach once the new EMFF is adopted. A first 
presentation and discussion could take place in the informal DG meetings planned by the 
AT Presidency in early July.  

2.  Consultation of the RSB 

DG MARE held an upstream meeting with the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) and the 
SG  on  19  January,  with  the  participation  of  DG  BUDG  and  JRC.  The  purpose  of  the 
meeting was to clarify expectations for the Impact Assessment for post-2020 EMFF, in 
particular in light of the revised template circulated by the SG.  

36 

 
 
 
RSB acknowledged  the challenge of the exercise when a number of important  political 
decisions  still  need  to  be  taken.  RSB  noted  that  any  political  guidance  included  in  the 
future  MFF  framework  including  on  the  future  funding  structure  should be  the  starting 
point from this assumption. 

RSB  informed  that  the  reference  point  should  be  the  annual  average  amount  of  the 
current MFF. In case there are significant changes in later decisions on the MFF, the IA 
might  have  to  be  adjusted.  It  also  has  to  be  complemented  at  a  later  stage  in  order  to 
include the budget because of the requirements of the Financial Regulation.  

The  RSB  and  the  SG  informed  DG  MARE  that  there  is  no  more  need  to  present  three 
budgetary options72 and compare them but to assess the impact of the changes compared 
to the current situation. A date will be booked with the RSB between 11 and 13 April for 
the presentation of the Impact Assessment to the Board. 

The  board  made  the  following  recommendations  which  have  all  been  addressed  in  the 
revised IA report:  

RSB recommendations 

IA report 

Addressed in the IA. 

Addressed in the IA. 

in 

taken  and 

still  options 

that  are  not 

(1) The IA has to start from the decisions that remain 
the  MFF 
to  be 
communication.  The  DG  has  to  look  at  options  if 
there  are 
the  MFF 
Communication.  These  should  mainly  to  assess  the 
changes  compared  to  the  current  programmes.  They 
should  focus  on  both  on  the  overall  programme 
priorities  and  structure,  and  on  the  implementation 
methods and delivery mechanisms.   

left  after 

(2) The IA should address the cross-cutting issues of 
the  new  MFF  exercise,  flexibility,  coherence  and 
performance, as well as the scope of the actions. On 
this,  the  DG  may  have  to  look  at  various  options. 
Such  options  can  discuss  various  ways  of  funding, 
including  funding  outside  of  the  MFF  and  financial 
instruments.  The  DG  responded  that  they  aim  to 
move  towards  simplification  and  more  result-based 
management. RSB emphasised that flexibility always 
has  pros  and  cons  and  that  the  DG  needs  to  outline 
these transparently. 

(3) RSB explained that if the DG believes there is a 
minimum  critical  mass  of  the  funding  that  is 

Not applicable.  

72 Option 1:  decrease by 15% (baseline); Option 2:  decrease by 30%; Option 3: constant of slightly increased budget. 

37 

 
 
 
                                                            
Addressed in the IA. 

Addressed in the IA. 

Addressed in the IA. 

Addressed in the IA. 

necessary  to  deliver  the  key  objectives,  they  should 
outline this in the IA. 

(4)  RSB  indicated  that  new  priorities  or  changes  in 
the focus of the policies would need to be reflected in 
the  first  block  of  the  impact  assessment  on  the 
structure  of  the  programme.  It  emphasised  that  the 
synergies  with  other  policies  have  to  be  more 
explicit, as the evaluation concluded.  

(5)  RSB  explained  that  the  assessment  of  impacts 
should focus on the implications of the new features 
and not the overall impact of the funding itself: what 
the DG expects the programme will deliver following 
the changes. The impact section needs to analyse the 
effects of various changes on national administration 
(burden), the fishery business, and more.  

(6)  RSB  emphasised  that  the  IA  has  to  be  linked  to 
evaluation results and future challenges. It asked for 
absolute  clarity  in  the  IA  on  the  sources  of  the 
lessons  learned  for  the  future,  if  these  are  previous 
evaluations,  ongoing  evaluations  and/or  consultation 
efforts.  

(7) RSB mentioned in this context that evaluations of 
the  MFF  of  the  previous  period  are  often  based  on 
very little evidence, mainly on stakeholder views. For 
this 
reason,  strong  monitoring  and  evaluation 
provisions are of high importance for the new impact 
assessment.  These  provisions  have 
to  be  very 
specific, not only on types of indicators, but also on 
realistic  methods  of  data  collection.  The  DG 
furthermore  needs  to  identify  how  they  are  going  to 
measure the success of the policy. This is where they 
will  have  to  think  of  the  indicators  for  the  overall 
impact of the policy. 

3.  Evidence, sources and quality 

The problem definition was based on numerous consultation activities carried out by the 
Commission as well as using external expertise (ex-post evaluation of the EFF prepared 
by an external contractor), complemented by additional analysis of available reports and 
studies.  Regarding  the  post-2020  evaluation,  the  evidence  was  based  on  information 

38 

 
 
 
 
gathered in particular in the framework of the EMFF Tallinn conference and the ex-post 
evaluation  of  the  EFF.  The  Assessment  report  builds  also  on  the  contributions  from 
Member  States  and  other  relevant  stakeholders  such  as  Advisory  Councils,  Social 
partners, NGOs, Industry etc.  

Also, a great number of studies and reports both from experts and academia, have been 
used  in  the  Impact  Assessment  exercise.  In  order  to  complement  the  internal  COM 
studies, reports and notes, DG MARE has also used various studies and reports from the 
European Parliament and a number of studies done by DG REGIO. Internal consultations 
in  DG  MARE  have  also  been  carried  out  and  written  contributions  received  internally 
have been analysed. 

39 

 
 
 
 
Ex-post Evaluation of the European 
Fisheries Fund (EFF), Staff Working 
Document, European Commission 
Report on the Blue Growth Strategy: 
Towards more sustainable growth 
and jobs in the blue economy 
Study on costs, benefits and nature 
of an extended European Ocean 
Observing System 
Study on the economic importance 
of activities ancillary to fishing in the 
EU 
Study on the employment of non-
local labour in the fisheries sector 

Study on the subsidies to the 
fisheries, aquaculture, and 
marketing and processing 
subsectors in major fishing nations 
beyond the EU 
Study on the implementation of Axis 
4 of the EFF 

Retrospective evaluation of 
scrapping and temporary cessation 
measures in the EFF 
Scoping study for the use of financial 
instruments under the EMFF and 
related advisory support activities 
Interim assessment of the 
implementation of Production and 
Marketing Plans pursuant to the 
CMO Regulation and the EMFF 
Regulation 
Ad hoc expert report providing 
information on present and future 
EMFF support to Small-scale Coastal 
Fisheries through FLAGs 
Realising the potential of the 
Outermost Regions for sustainable 
Blue Growth 
Note to Management: 2017 Annual 
Economic Report of EU fleets: Main 
results 
Presentation on Study on the 
employment on non-local labour in 
the fisheries sector,  

LIST OF SOURCES 

SWD(2017) 274 final, July 2017 

https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?d
oc_id=45977 

SWD(2017) 128 final, March 2017 

https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/mariti
meaffairs/files/swd-2017-128_en.pdf  

European Commission, January 2018 

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/
node/4119 

European Commission, March 2016 

European Commission, June 2016 

European Commission, January 2017 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/07f9aa31-9aa6-11e6-868c-
01aa75ed71a1 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/323daeca-9ab5-11e6-868c-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/45f78bf8-d24b-11e6-ad7c-
01aa75ed71a1 

European Commission, July 2014 

https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/stu
dies/axis-4_en  

European Commission, December 2013 

https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/stu
dies/cessation_fr 

Fi-Compass, European Commission, June 2015 

European Commission, January 2017 

https://www.fi-
compass.eu/publication/manuals/manual-scoping-
study-use-financial-instruments-under-emff-and-
related-advisory    
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/15571c4b-e137-11e6-ad7c-
01aa75ed71a1 

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/cms/farnet2/li
brary/technical-report/providing-information-
present-and-future-emff-support-small-scale-
coastal_en 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/informatio
n/publications/reports/2017/realising-the-
potential-of-the-outermost-regions-for-
sustainable-blue-growth  

FARNET, July 2017 

ARES(2017)4618231, September 2017 

ARES(2017)4630815, September 2017 

Dir A, Unit A4 (DG MARE), March 2017 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
The Economic Performance of the 
EU Fish Processing Industry (STECF-
14-21) 
The 2017 Annual Economic report 
on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF-17-
12) 
International ocean governance: an 
agenda for the future of our oceans 

European Union Maritime Security 
Strategy 
1st Report on the  Implementation of 
the EU Maritime Security Strategy 
Action Plan 
2nd Report on the  Implementation 
of the EU Maritime Security Strategy 
Action Plan 
White paper on the Future of 
Europe, Reflections and Scenarios 
for the EU27 by 2025 
Study: EU Organic Aquaculture: 
economic performance and market 
perspectives   
Interim evaluation of the 
implementation of the direct 
management component of the 
European Maritime and Fisheries 
Fund (EMFF) Regulation  
Study on the ownership and 
exclusive rights of fisheries means of 
production  
Declaration of the European 
Ministers responsible for the 
Integrated Maritime Policy on Blue 
Growth 

State of execution of total payments 
and the level of the 'reste à liquider' 
(RAL) for Heading 1b (programmes 
2007-2013) - Designation of 
managing authorities and state of 
execution of interim payments of 
2014-2020 ESIF Operational 
Programmes (Status as of 31 May 
2017) 
How subsidies affect the economic 
viability of small-scale fisheries, 

Industrial Fleet vs Artisanal Fleet, 
Myths and Realities 

Joint Research Centre (JRC), November 2014 

https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/economic/-
/asset_publisher/d7Ie/document/id/932642 

Joint Research Centre (JRC), 2017 

SWD(2016) 352 final, November 2016 

European Commission, EEAS, June 2014 

SWD(2016)217, June 2016 

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-
scientific-and-technical-research-reports/2017-
annual-economic-report-eu-fishing-fleet-stecf-17-
12   
https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/mariti
meaffairs/files/join-2016-49_en.pdf  

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN
&f=ST%2011205%202014%20INIT  

https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/mariti
meaffairs/files/docs/body/swd-2016-217_en.pdf  

SWD(2017)238, June 2017 

https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/mariti
meaffairs/files/swd-2017-238_en.pdf  

COM(2017)2025, March 2017 

http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/content/news/white_paper.html 

European Commission,  January 2017 

(launched by end 2017, interim report foreseen by 
March 2018) 

(launched in early 2017) 

Council of the European Union, April 2017 (ST 
8037/17) 

Council of the European Union, Budget Committee, 
June 2017, WK 6574/2017 

https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=
&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiI_Z3T
05jZAhXP_aQKHVmNBRAQFggnMAA&url=http%3A
%2F%2Fdata.consilium.europa.eu%2Fdoc%2Fdocu
ment%2FST-8037-2017-
INIT%2Fen%2Fpdf&usg=AOvVaw2q5_E06sW6mtO
Er2rQdxQV  

Marine Policy 82 (2017) 114–121, May 2017 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii
/S0308597X1730177X 

CACT-ARVI, May 2017 

www.arvi.org/publicaciones/IndustrialFleet_vs_Art
isanalFleet.pdf  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Etude: Dispositifs assurantiels dans 
les secteurs de la pêche et de 
l'aquaculture 

Direction des Pêches Maritimes et de l'Aquaculture, 
Septembre 2015 

http://www.oceanic-dev.com/etude-des-
systemes-assurantiels-peche-et-aquaculture-
prevus-dans-le-cadre-du-feamp-dpma/ 

Studies, Reports and Analysis from the European Parliament: 

In-depth analysis: Fisheries in 
Madeira 

In-depth analysis: Fisheries in 
Germany 

In-depth analysis: Best Practice in 
the Use of Rights-based 
Management to Reduce Discards in 
Mixed Fisheries 
In-depth analysis: The Obligation to 
Land All Catches – Consequences for 
the Mediterranean 
Study: Illegal, Unreported and 
Unregulated fishing: Sanctions in the 
EU 
Study: The Long-Term Economic and 
Ecologic Impact of larger Sustainable 
Aquaculture 
Study: Fisheries in Azores 

Study: Small-scale Fisheries and the 
Zero Discard Target 

Study: The Future of the Almadraba 
sector – Traditional Tuna Fishing 
Methods in the EU 
Study: Pelagic Fisheries and the 
Canning Industry in Outermost 
Regions 
Study: Fisheries Management and 
the Arctic in the Context of Climate 
Change 
Study: The Landing Obligation and 
its implications on the Control of 
Fisheries, 
Study: Options of handling Choke 
Species in the view of the EU landing 
obligation – The Baltic Plaice 
example 
Study: Workshop on a new 
Technical Measures Framework for 

European Parliament, Research for PECH Committee, 
DG  for  Internal  Policies,  Policy  Department  for 
Structural  and  Cohesion  Policies,  May  2017  (PE 
601.978) 
European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, 
February 2014 (PE 514.010) 
European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, 
March 2014 (PE 529.054) 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/f1bb3739-5498-11e7-a5ca-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF  

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/sea
rch.html?authors=118465 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/ed4de31b-56f7-4bb8-9366-
492b0a8ce49f/language-en 

European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, 
March 2014 (PE 529.055) 

European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, July 2014 (PE 529.069) 

European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, October 2014, (PE 529.084) 

European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, February 2015, (PE 540.355) 

European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, March 2015 (PE 540.360) 
European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, April 2015, (PE 540.367) 

European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, June 2015, (PE 563.378) 

European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, June 2015, (PE 563.380) 

European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, September 2015 (PE 563.381) 

Research for PECH Committee, European Parliament, 
DG for Internal Policies, Policy Department 
Structural and Cohesion Policies – Fisheries, 
December 2015 (PE 563.399) 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/9bf6e304-6e29-4984-a039-
35b45ebc1ade/language-en 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2014)529069 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU%282014%29529
084 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2015)540355 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/fr/docu
ment.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2015)540360 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2015)540367 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2015)563378 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU%282015%29563
380 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2015)563381 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU%282015%29563
399 

European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, October 2015 (PE 563.403) 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU%282015%29563
403 

42 

 
 
 
the new Common Fisheries Policy 

Study: Sardine Fisheries: Resource 
Assessment and Social and 
Economic Situation 

Study: The Clam Fisheries Sector in 
the EU – The Adriatic Sea Case 

Study: Social and Economic Impact 
of the Penalty Point System 

Study: The Discard Ban and its 
Impact on the Maximum Sustainable 
Yield Objective on Fisheries 

Study: Feasibility of Measuring 
Socio-Economic and Environmental 
Impacts of Recreational and Semi-
Subsistence Fisheries in the EU 
Study: Impact of Fisheries 
Partnership Agreements on 
Employment in the EU and in Third 
Countries 
Study: The Management of Fishing 
Fleets in Outermost Regions, 
Research for PECH Committee 
Study: Small-scale Fisheries and 
"Blue Growth" in the EU 

Study: Characteristics of 
Multispecific Fisheries in the EU 

Study: The Conflict Between Static 
Gear and Mobile Gear in Inshore 
Fisheries 
Note: The Impact of Oil and Gas 
Drilling Accidents on EU Fisheries 

Note: The Use of FADs in Tuna 
Fisheries 

Note: The CFP – Infringement 
Procedures and Imposed Sanctions 
Throughout the EU 
Study: Seafood Industry Integration 
in the EU 

Research for PECH Committee, European Parliament, 
DG for Internal Policies, Policy Department 
Structural and Cohesion Policies – Fisheries, 
November 2015 (PE 563.412) 
Research for PECH Committee, European Parliament, 
DG for Internal Policies, Policy Department 
Structural and Cohesion Policies – Fisheries, January 
2016 (PE 573.412) 
Research for PECH Committee, European Parliament, 
DG for Internal Policies, Policy Department 
Structural and Cohesion Policies – Fisheries, 
February 2016 (PE 573.413) 
Research for PECH Committee, European Parliament, 
DG for Internal Policies, Policy Department 
Structural and Cohesion Policies – Fisheries, May 
2016 (PE 573.440) 
Research for PECH Committee, European Parliament, 
DG for Internal Policies, Policy Department 
Structural and Cohesion Policies – Fisheries, 
September 2016 (PE 573.457) 

Research for PECH Committee, European Parliament, 
DG for Internal Policies, Policy Department 
Structural and Cohesion Policies – Fisheries, July 
2016 (PE 585.883) 

European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, May 2017 (PE 585.901) 

Research for PECH Committee, European Parliament, 
DG for Internal Policies, Policy Department 
Structural and Cohesion Policies – Fisheries, April 
2017 (PE 573.450) 
European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, March 2014 (PE 529.053) 
European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, July 2014 (PE 529.070) 

European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, January 2014 (PE 513.996) 
European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, January 2014 (PE 514.002) 
European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, January 2014 (PE 514.003) 

Research for PECH Committee, European Parliament, 
DG for Internal Policies, Policy Department 
Structural and Cohesion Policies – Fisheries, 
September 2016 (PE 585.893) 

43 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/fr/docu
ment.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2015)563412 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/fr/docu
ment.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2016)573412 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/fr/docu
ment.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2016)573413 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2016)573440 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/fr/docu
ment.html?reference=IPOL_STU%282016%295734
57 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2016)585883 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/fa4f02a8-3aab-11e7-a08e-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2017)573450 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL-
PECH_ET(2014)529053 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2014)529070 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL-
PECH_NT(2014)513996 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL-
PECH_NT(2014)514002 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL-
PECH_NT(2014)514003 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2016)585893 

 
 
Note: Inland fisheries and the 
Common Fisheries Policy 

Study: Regional Ocean Governance 
in Europe: the Role of Fisheries 

In-depth analysis: Perspectives for 
the development of the tourism 
activities related to fishing 
Study: Marine recreational and 
semi-subsistence fishing - its value 
and its impact on fish stocks 
Study: Alternative solutions for 
driftnet fisheries 

European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, January 2014 (PE 514.001) 
European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, July 2017 (PE 601.994) 
European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, March 2014 (PE 529.048) 

European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, July 2017 (PE 601.996) 

European Parliament, DG for Internal Policies, Policy 
Department Structural and Cohesion Policies – 
Fisheries, February 2015 (PE 540.345) 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL-
PECH_NT(2014)514001 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU%282017%29601
994 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/cb7af15a-eed8-48de-a14a-
508cd24afe63/language-en 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/doc
ument.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2017)601996 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/fr/docu
ment.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2015)540345 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

2.  CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES AND METHODOLOGY USED 

2.1.  Targeted consultations with specific stakeholders and specialists 

For  the  post-2020  programming  period,  one  of  our  major  consultation  activity  was  the 
EMFF  stakeholder  conference  entitled  "Beyond  2020:  Supporting  Europe's  Coastal 
Communities"  and  held  in  Tallinn  on  12-13.10.2017.  With  70  speakers  and  more  than 
300 participants, the event allowed stakeholders to express their viewpoints and offered a 
unique  opportunity  for  EMFF  stakeholders  to  contribute  to  the  assessment  of  the 
financial  support  the  EMFF  provides  to  the  CFP  and  EU  Maritime  Policy  over  the 
current programming period (2014-2020). It also allowed them to anticipate the form this 
support could take after 2020.  

A  variety  of  stakeholders  have  been  covered  by  the  EMFF  conference.  Out  of  the  300 
participants,  there  were  more  than  50%  of  representatives  of  public  authorities,  12% 
industry, 11% NGOs, 14% fishing associations and organisations and 7% of academia.  

We have  also taken into account the results of the  Ex Post Evaluation of the European 
Fisheries Fund (EFF) 2007-2013 (SWD (2017) 274 final), as another key element of our 
impact assessment to assess the possibility to continue financial support for the fisheries 
sector  post-2020.  The  Ex  Post  Evaluation  is  based  on  the  stakeholder  consultation  that 
took  place  between  February  and  May  2016,  aiming  at  examining  the  general  public 
opinion concerning the effectiveness and efficiency of the EFF. 

2.2.  Consultation of Member States  

Two opportunities were also given to the Members of the EMFF Expert Group (Member 
State  administrations)  to  contribute  to  this  debate  and  provide  some  input  into  the 
reflection process on the opportunity of their meetings held respectively on 06.11.17 and 
15.01.2018.  The  debates  in  EMFF  Expert  Groups  were  supported  by  discussion  papers 
and  orientation  questions  provided  by  COM  in  advance  to  the  meeting.  Written 
contributions  were  also  received  from  the  Member  States  on  questions  raised  in  the 
EMFF Expert Group meetings or in the COM non-papers on future EU funding.  

2.3.  Consultation of partners 

Letters were sent to Advisory Councils, NGOs and European Social Partners requesting 
their input on post-2020 EU funding for fisheries and maritime sectors, and an Opinion 
of  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  is  under  development  (with  adoption  in  plenary 
foreseen for 16/5). Individual meetings with Social Partners have also been organised for 
the purposes of the consultation.   

For the purposes of consultation, contributions were also received from the Conference 
of  Peripheral  Maritime  Regions  (CPMR),  such  as  the  Technical  paper  from  December 
2017  on  the  "Future  of  the  EMFF  post-2020:  Elements  of  analysis  and  possible 
scenarios", and the CPMR notes on the EMFF post-2020 from October 2017 and March 
2017. The final Policy Position on the future of the EMFF will be adopted by the CPMR 
Political Bureau in March 2018.  

45 

 
 
 
 
2.4.  Targeted workshops and reports 

A number of other workshops and reports provided input to the assessment, such as the 
Policy  session  during  the  European  Association  of  Fisheries  Economists  conference 
(April  2017)  and  the  Stakeholder  Workshop  on  support  to  Maritime  Policy  during  the 
European Maritime Days (May 2017).  

2.5. 

In-house reflections 

In-house reflections through targeted discussions have been conducted in DG MARE on 
the basis of thematic discussion papers (e.g. removing "measures" from the future legal 
framework,  financial  framework,  Outermost  regions,  Maritime  Policy,  data  collection, 
control,  land-locked  Member  States,  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  System, 
Community Led Local Development, etc.).  

Overall, by organising the Tallinn Stakeholder Conference and by conducting number of 
consultations,  DG  MARE  has  ensured  that  all  relevant  stakeholders  have  had  the 
opportunity to provide their opinion on key elements of the IA. 

3.  OUTCOME  OF  THE  CONSULTATION  ACTIVITIES  -  MAIN  FINDINGS  AND 

POSITIONS 

  Strong call for continuity and clear need for a dedicated funding instrument in the 
future  for  fisheries  and  the  maritime  policy,  continuing  to  achieve  the  CFP 
objectives and taking advantage of Blue Growth opportunities was stressed by almost 
all  stakeholders.  However,  there  were  diverging  views  between  the  consulted 
stakeholders  on  how  the  support  should  be  divided  taking  into  account  that 
strengthening  of  the  maritime  policy  part  of  the  EMFF  would  also  imply 
strengthening of the overall budget. Some stakeholders expressed their concerns that 
strengthening  the  support  to  maritime  policy  would  be  detrimental  to  the  level  of 
support  to  fisheries  and  aquaculture  and  stressed  that  this  should  not  be  decreased. 
Continuity  was  also  considered  important  by  the  stakeholders  in  order  to  benefit  a 
smooth transition from one programming period to another.  

  Due to the nature of the fund, several landlocked Member States suggested including 
an  opt-out  option  from  the  EMFF  into  the  new  Regulation  with  adding  the 
possibility to shift their allocations to another fund.  

  Member States also agreed that the objectives of the post-2020 Fund should support 
the  environmental,  economic  and  social  sustainability.  The  achievement  of  CFP 
objectives  was  noted  by  the  stakeholders  as  a  priority  for  the  next  Fund.  While 
underlining the importance of maritime policy, blue economy and international ocean 
governance,  a  number  of  Member  States  stressed  that  CFP  should  remain  a  key 
policy  implemented  by  the  EMFF.  According  to  a  number  of  Member  States,  the 
policy objectives should be clear enough to mark a separation between the different 
objectives,  which  would  help  the  Member  States  to  better  define  the  results  to  be 
achieved  in  each  priority  area.  Views  on  the  specific  objectives  varied  between  the 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
consulted  stakeholders,  with  various  suggestions  to  include  a  specific  reference  to 
growth,  processing,  innovation,  blue  growth,  marketing  and  commercialisation, 
maritime  policy  or  international  aspects.  Sustainability  was  stressed  as  the  top 
priority  for  any  future  EU  financial  support,  followed  by  support  to  the  social 
dimension of the CFP and support for competitiveness.  

  As  regards  the  EMFF's  most  significant  achievements  during  the  current 
programming period,  stakeholders considered in particular an important achievement 
the support to sustainability and to competitiveness and to less extent also the support 
to  blue  growth  and  to  the  social  dimension  of  the  CFP.  However,  the  majority  of 
stakeholders  agreed  that  although  the  current  Fund  had  improved  comparing  to  the 
previous Fund by making fishing and aquaculture more sustainable, competitive and 
innovative,  the  objectives  of  the  CFP  as  laid  down  in  the  TFEU  could  not  be 
considered as fully met  and thus there is still need to further align the Fund with 
the  CFP  (Tallinn,  EMFF  EG,  environmental  NGOs).  In  this  regard,  the  post-2020 
Fund  should  take  this  into  account  and  further  align  to  the  CFP  objectives. 
Stakeholders also welcomed the EU support for maritime policy and the broader blue 
economy,  which  has  so  far  included  more  than  250  million  euros  from  the  EMFF, 
mainly for projects enabling conditions for growth in the different maritime activities.  

  As a result of the consultations, an agreement was reached between stakeholders that 
one  of  the  biggest  shortcomings  of  the  EMFF  was  its  slow  take  up  and  the  late 
implementation of the Operational Programmes which was essentially due to the late 
approval of the legislative framework. Also, it was agreed that the overlap with the 
previous  programming  period  (in  terms  of  administrative  resources  in  the  Member 
States) and the difficulties to adapt to new rules and overly complex administrative 
requirements  (too  many  measures  and  priorities)  represented  a  challenge  for  the 
Member  States.  These,  coupled  with  a  heavy  and  too  much  detailed  EU  level 
legislation,  the  rigidity  and  inflexibility  in  interpretation  and  too  much  focus  on 
eligibility  rather  than  on  reaching  objectives  and  targets,  represent  the  challenges 
Member  States  have  to  face.  In  this  regard,  a  strong  call  for  less  legal  complexity 
with  a  simpler  legal  framework  was  put  forward  by  the  majority  of  stakeholders. 
Moreover, the level of micro-management deriving from the complex EU legislation 
should be minimized.  

 

In  their  contributions,  Member  States  underlined  that  the  intervention  logic  should 
be made  more simple and less rigid and not be designed and fixed by a Regulation 
but  built  by  Member  States,  in  order  to  support  and  match  further  their  national 
strategies and choices. Flexible intervention logic would also allow Member States to 
address  their  own  specificities  while  setting  national  objectives  and  to  design 
necessary measures based on their own national circumstances. Since the intervention 
logic  should  define  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  (M&E)  system  needed, 
stakeholders  agreed  that  if  the  intervention  logic  is  rigid  and  complex,  the  M&E 
system will be as well.  

  A large consensus  could be observed between the stakeholders calling for  a greater 
simplification  at  all levels  (both  EU  and  national)  regarding  the implementation  of 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the EMFF in order to keep certain level of stability was made by the Member States. 
However, diverging views were observed as on how to find the right balance between 
a  greater  emphasis  on  result  orientation  and  reducing  the  administrative  burden  for 
beneficiaries  and  administrations  whilst  assuring  correct  spending.  The  majority  of 
stakeholders  were  of  opinion  that  the  current  system  had  been  too  much  regulated 
and  thus  it  excluded  result  orientation  while  focusing  too  much  on  eligibility 
orientation. In this regard, the simplification could be achieved by replacing the long 
list of pre-defined measures by either a flexible catalogue of measures or by giving 
the  Member  States  the  opportunity  (and  the  responsibility)  to  choose  the  most 
appropriate means to achieve the objectives set out in the Regulation and to deliver 
results.  A  way  forward  could  be  the  result-based  management,  with  the 
introduction  of  targets  and  set  of  result  indicators.  In  this  regard,  Member  States 
suggested  the  management  of  the  fund  on  macro  level  in  a  way  that  the  Union 
priorities and specific objectives would be set at the EU level and the Member States 
would be free to determine (and will have the responsibility on) how will they reach 
the objectives of the Fund, while reflecting the needs of each Member State and its 
communities in the programme. Also, a list of non-eligible expenditures or operations 
should be defined at the EU level and thus set in the Regulation. Views on the format 
of the list of non-eligible expenditures varied between making it very clearly defined 
to  keeping  it  a  more  general  list.  However,  if  the  existing  system  of  pre-defined 
measures  would  remain  in  the  future,  the  Member  States  considered  that  a  serious 
reduction of the number of measures, their simplification and balance should be taken 
into account. 

  As  regards  the  means  and  tools  to  check  compliance  of  funding  with  policy 
objectives,  Member  States  indicated  in  their  national  contributions  that  clear  and 
controllable  rules,  such  as  a  list  of  no-go  areas,  should  be  defined  at  the  EU  level. 
One  Member  State  suggested  that  the  COM  could  provide  Member  States  with 
validation  tools  for  the  checking  of  different  reports.  Also,  some  Member  States 
indicated  that  indicators  and  OPs  should  be  the  main  tools  to  check  compliance  of 
funding with policy objectives, together with annual implementation reports and the 
subsequent results. There were divergent views as to whether the structure of the OPs 
should be further modified or kept in its current form.  

  Regarding the performance framework and evaluation procedures, some Member 
States were of opinion that this should be further improved and done only at the end 
of the programming period. While number of Member States agreed that data on the 
level of operations (Infosys) were a valuable source of information for evaluations for 
the  MAs,  other  some  Member  States  inquired  about  the  usefulness  of  the  data. 
Common indicators should be reviewed radically   

 

In their contributions, Member States noted that the M&E system had a key role to 
demonstrate the effectiveness of the fund as it provided information on the causalities 
behind  the  development  of  the  fisheries  and  blue  economy  sectors.  Therefore,  the 
M&E  system  should  be  seen  as  a  strategic  element  of  the  implementation  both  at 
national and EU level.  

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Also,  a  large  support  was  expressed  in  favour  of  proportionality  according  to  the 
dimension of the new fund and to the budget allocation in the Member States. Also, a 
number  of  Member  States  emphasised  that  rules  of  proportionality  or  differentiated 
approach  or  s  simplified  procedure  should  be  considered  also  for  the  small  OPs, 
because  the  same  conditions  and  obligations  as  for  the  big  projects  represent 
additional burden for potential beneficiaries and the benefits of applying for funds do 
not match the costs.  

  Member States considered that there were several financial tools available (such as 
loans, financial instruments, subsidies etc.) but expressed difficulties in using them. 
In  this  regard,  Member  States  need  more  flexibility  as  how  to  use  the  various 
financial tools. Some Member States shared their positive experiences with deploying 
financial instruments under the EMFF but noted that their promotion to reach and 
approach the potential beneficiaries should be further strengthened. In particular, the 
Member  States  noted  the  need  to  make  the  financial  instruments  more  directly 
available and adapted to the economic structure of beneficiaries but agreed that these 
should  not  be  mandatory.  The  financial  instruments  should  be  made  available  and 
further  developed,  taking  into  account  the  specificities  of  the  sectors.  Making  the 
financial  instruments  mandatory  would  possibly  have  a  negative  impact  on  the 
competitiveness  by  hampering  the  competition  between  enterprises.  Majority  of 
Member  States  noted  that  financial  instruments  together  with  grants  should  be  the 
main  types  of  support  and  agreed  that  direct  shift  from  grants  to  financial 
instruments  would  not  work.  In  this  case,  moving  from  grants  to  financial 
instruments  would  only  be  appropriate  in  areas  which  are  profitable.  Stakeholders 
also  agreed  that  financial  instruments  are  useful  tools  to  support  and  invest  in 
particular  in  Blue  Growth  and  maritime  economy  and  thus  should  be  further 
encouraged to support investments in blue economy.  

  According  to  some  Member  States,  a  financial  flexibility  between  UPs  for 
amendments  of  operational  programmes  should  be  ensured,  such  as  a  minimum 
threshold  which  could  be  approved  directly  by  the  Monitoring  Committee  without 
passing through the COM inter-service consultation.  

  A polarisation of opinion concerning the support to fishing fleets could be observed, 
with stakeholders split nearly equally between those in favour and those against the 
continuation  of  fleet  measures.  Also,  opposition  to  subsidies  to  improve  the 
sustainability  of  commercial  fisheries  which  are  used  to  unsustainable  jobs  was 
underlined.  Some  stakeholders  believed  that  the  measures  of  temporary  and 
permanent  cessation  and  modernisation  should  continue  but  should  be  entrusted  to 
the competence of the Member States.  

  Regarding the aquaculture sector, all stakeholders agreed that more work needs to 
be  done  on  administrative  and  legal  simplification  in  order  to  reduce  the  length  of 
licencing  procedures  but  without  compromising  on  the  high  animal  health, 
environmental and consumer standards enshrined in the EU law. They reaffirmed that 
the administrative burdens remain the main barrier to the development of the sector, 
together  with  procedural  requirements  (for  both  licencing  and  access  to  funding) 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
which  are  too  complex.  Idea  to  better  define  aquaculture  was  put  forward  at  the 
EMFF  EG  in  order  to  avoid  overlaps  between  different  ESI  funds  (ex.  ERDF  and 
EMFF).    Stakeholders also  agreed that  the  public  acceptance  (social  licence)  of  the 
aquaculture sector need to be further improved. In this regard, producer organisations 
playing a key role, stakeholders expressed the view that they should also be further 
supported. Stakeholders agreed that there is still need for public support to the sector, 
with some stakeholders suggesting the use of financial instruments in a future support 
scheme. Also, a strong support from a group of Member States was expressed to the 
continuation  of  the  current  EU  support  to  aquaculture  in  the  next  Fund  and  in 
particular  to  the  freshwater  aquaculture,  while  emphasising  to  further  explore  the 
opportunities of freshwater aquaculture. While national operational programmes are 
drawn up to reflect the challenges at the Member State level, it is important at the EU 
level that instruments are presented broadly enough so as not to exclude or prevent 
investment in any national or regional specific area.  

  As regards small scale coastal fisheries and fisheries in the outermost regions, a 
number  of  Member  States  were  in  favour  of  administrative  simplification  and 
measures  reduction  in  order  to  match  the  objectives  of  the  CFP  with  needs  of  the 
small-scale and  artisanal  fisheries activities. In this regards, Member States  were  in 
favour  of  applying  more  targeted  and  tailor-made  support  to  SSCF  and  to  continue 
having  a  higher  support  rate  and  possibility  of  more  favourable  handling  through 
advanced  payments.  Preferential  financial  treatment  to  SSCF,  including  to  inland 
fishermen, should be kept after 2020 according to some Member States. Stakeholders 
also  acknowledged  the  need  for  flexibility  to  reflect  local  specificities  and  for 
facilitating the generational renewal in an ageing workforce. In order to optimise the 
potential of the sector, it was suggested that the regulatory framework should be less 
prescriptive  and  that  the  decision  should  be  left  to  the  Member  States  as  how  they 
will meet objectives and achieve results. It was also argued that there was a need to 
make the EU definition of SSCF less restrictive, to reflect the diverse sector with its 
different resources, economies, markets and varying fleet sizes. It  was also felt that 
the controls and checks on the SSCF are disproportionate in relation to the amount of 
assistance received. Stakeholders also confirmed that CLLD was the best method for 
managing, supporting and advancing SSCF. A specific attention should be also paid 
to the SSCF when designing the future M&E system, in order to mainstream the need 
for the environmental, social and economic sustainability of the sector.  

  All Member States and stakeholders considered that the support to data collection, 
fisheries control and enforcement and support to Producer Organisations should 
remain part of the fisheries fund under the shared management, as they all support a 
result  oriented  approach.  Although  it  was  noted  that  the  changeover  from  direct  to 
shared management of support to data collection, control and enforcement induced a 
heavier  administrative  burden  and  delays  in  the  financing,  stakeholders  agreed  that 
the  reform  proven  positive  as  it  provided  the  necessary  stability.  Member  States 
further suggested to regroup these measures under one Union Priority and not further 
apply  selection  criteria  and  competitive  project  selections  procedures  to  these 
measures, as  this was proven time consuming  and to  be an administrative burden  – 
need  for  simplification.  As  regards  the  financing,  number  of  Member  States 
advocated for either continuing if not strengthening of the current level of financing 

50 

 
 
 
 
or giving the Member States the possibility to allocate more funding to control and 
data  collection  if  needed  or  to  have  the  flexibility  to  re-allocate  the  funding. 
According to the participants of the Tallinn conference, weaknesses in availability of 
data and effectiveness of control are due to insufficient human resources (60%), weak 
systems (32%) and lack of money (8%). In this regard, the continuous improvement 
of IT systems is crucial as well as the standardisation of the approaches together with 
the sharing of results and should be further promoted.  

  Strengthening  of  EU  action  through  the  EMFF  in  various  areas  under  the  IMP 
(training,  maritime  spatial  planning,  maritime  safety  and  surveillance,  financing  of 
innovative  projects  etc.)  was  considered  as  added  value  for  Europe  and  for  the 
regions by a number of stakeholders. Taking into account that the blue economy is 
developed  in  a  very  complex  environment,  complementarity  between  various 
instruments  should  be  further  ensured, 
to  avoid  duplication  and 
fragmentation. Some stakeholders have put forward an idea to establish a European 
Blue Economy investment fund or mechanism with two intervention methods: direct 
financing at European level and the establishment of sea basin/ regional investment 
platforms.  In  order  to  realise  blue  growth  objectives,  the  visibility  and  political 
priority  of  Blue  growth  and  maritime  issues  should  be  further  mainstreamed  in  the 
context of other funds and instruments. 

in  order 

  Regarding  the  support  to  marine  innovation  and  skills  after  2020,  stakeholders 
noted  that  in  order  to  address  new  challenges  arising  for  coastal  communities,  the 
future  EMFF  needs  to  invest  even  more  on  innovation  and  skills  development. 
Stakeholders  agreed  that  innovation  is  horizontal  to  both  maritime  and  fisheries 
policies  and  should  be  further  supported.  They  further  noted  that  a  long-term 
approach  to  marine  and  maritime  research  and  technology  development  would  be 
needed in order to address opportunities (such as digital revolution, circular economy 
and  blue  growth)  and  challenges  (climate  change,  marine  pollution,  fish  over-
exploitation). Silos also need to be broken amongst sectors for developing innovation 
in the blue economy in the future research programme (FP9) so as to achieve greater 
coherence and higher visibility. The need to include support to generational renewal 
and support to innovation and ocean literacy while promoting traditions and cultural 
specificities in each region will also need a special attention in the future. In order to 
be  at  the  service  of  the  Maritime  Policy,  the  financial  support  should  be  result-
oriented  and  thus  complementarity  between  wide  range  of  funding  instruments 
should be ensured in order to avoid duplication and fragmentation. According to the 
stakeholders, sea basin strategies are the way forward for ensuring coordination and 
Smart  Specialisation  Strategies  are  the  instrument  to  link  the  marine  research  and 
investments to ESIF. 

  An  underlining  sentiment  was  that  regional  solutions  are  best  suited  to  regional 
challenges.  An  example  could  be  to  use  funding  centred  on  sea  basin  areas  since 
collaboration  could  be  beneficial  and  positive  in  addressing  issues  that  affect  more 
than one Member State. Member States also agreed that if a sea basin needs a specific 
support,  this  could  be  dealt  with  either  by  regional  cooperation  or  application  of 
synergies  with  other  regional  funds.  One  Member  State  suggested  an  option  that  a 
part  of  the  EMFF  financing  is  allocated  to  macro-regional  areas  (delivered  by 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
EASME or Interreg) which would boost regional and also international cooperation 
on projects. 

  A majority of stakeholders also recognized the important role played by Community 
Led  Local  Development  (CLLD)  for  coastal  communities  to  adopt  local  solutions 
for  local  problems  and  recognised  it  as  a  valuable  opportunity  for  the  fisheries  and 
aquaculture sectors to play an active role in local government and governance issues. 
In  particular,  the  need  to  ensure  continuity  between  programming  periods  was 
stressed by the stakeholders, as well as to ensure a permanent dialogue between local 
actors,  FLAGs,  managing  authorities  and  COM.  The  stakeholders  underlined  the 
importance  to  ensure  that  future  delivery  mechanisms  are  better  adapted  to  the 
purpose they are designed to serve. Also, stakeholders stressed the need to reduce the 
administrative burden related to granting these funds to local projects needs in order 
to  remain  proportional  to  the  modest  sums  the  FLAGs  invest  in  their  areas,  and  in 
order  to  allow  the  FLAGs  the  flexibility  they  need  to  be  innovative  and  results 
focused.  Member  States  also  pointed  out  in  their  contributions  that  CLLD 
implementation  should  be  voluntary  for  the  Member  States  (FI)  and  that  CLLD 
should  be  seen  as  a  delivery  mechanism,  not  as  a  measure  or  a  separate  Union 
priority.  In  this  regard,  the  CLLD  should  not  be  bound  to  one  objective  or  one 
priority  but  should  be  able  to  contribute  to  all  CFP  objectives  where  relevant. 
Stakeholders stressed the need to continue and further enhance CLLD to build on the 
successes  achieved  so  far  and  allow  for  tailor  made  strategies  and  solutions  for  the 
development of coastal communities. Also, many stakeholders would like to see the 
CLLD  playing  a  wider  role  in  the  development  of  the  Blue  economy  at  local  level 
and  consequently  asked  for  an  increased  allocation  of  funds  for  it  during  the  next 
MFF.  

  As  regards  the  synergies  with  other  funds,  an  underlining  sentiment  between  the 
stakeholders was that these were of a limited nature. It is important to further develop 
synergies  and  cooperation  between  ESI  funds,  in  order  to  avoid  overlaps  and 
encourage  complementarities  between  the  funds  and  also  between  individual 
programmes.  For  example,  the  possibility  to  finance  aqua-environmental  measures, 
fish processing and the blue economy sectors from the ERDF and other funds should 
be communicated more clearly by the COM. 

The  results  of  all  the  consultation  activities  were  used  in  designing  the  Impact 
Assessment and selecting the measures. The most rejected ones were discarded after the 
initial screening and the retained measures were grouped options with increasing level of 
regulatory  intervention,  so  that  decision  makers  have  the  possibility  to  judge  on  the 
desired level  of ambition.  The results of the consultation are referred to throughout the 
various sections of the impact assessment. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: EVALUATION RESULTS 

EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY  OF  THE  EX-  POST  EVALUATION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  FISHERIES 
FUND 2007-2013  

The Staff  Working Document73 presents  the main findings of the ex post evaluation of 
the  European  Fisheries  Fund  (EFF)74  for  the  2007-2013  programming  period.  The 
evaluation was undertaken by independent evaluators and finalised at the end of 201675. 
The  findings  will  be  used  to  inform  the  Commission,  Member  States  and  other 
stakeholders  for  further  implementation  of  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund 
(the  EMFF which  succeeded  the  EFF  for  the  2014-2020  period)  and  for  reflections for 
the future.  

The  key  evaluation  tasks  were  to  review  the  implementation  of  the  European  Fisheries 
Fund over the 2007-2013 period, as well as to answer six evaluation questions in order to 
assess  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence,  EU  added  value  and 
sustainability  of  the  EFF.  Stakeholders  were  consulted  through  targeted  interviews  (in 
particular  with  Managing  Authorities)  as  well  as  by  means  of  an  open,  internet-based 
public consultation.  

1. BACKGROUND  

The  EFF  was  established  in  the  2007-2013  programming  period  as  a  follow-up  to  the 
previous structural support programmes, the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance 
(FIFG), in support of the fisheries sector since the early 1990s76. Unlike its predecessor 
which  had  over  60  Operational  Programmes  (OPs),  the  EFF  adopted  a  simplified 
approach, with only one OP per MS77.  

The EFF was launched in 2007 at the onset of the global economic and fuel crises which 
resulted  in  reduced  access  to  private  finance,  stronger  public  expenditure  control, 
increased financial and economic pressure on the fisheries sector (rising fuel costs, fish 
feed  costs  increase,  rising  unemployment),  a  decline  in  demand  for  fisheries  products, 
and prices that had stagnated or fallen.  

2. RESOURCES MOBILISED BY THE EFF  

The  main  focus  of  the  ex  post  evaluation  was  the  EU  contribution  of  4,3  billion  euros 
that was allocated in 2007 to the Member States (MS) through their OPs. By December 
2015,  102%  of  the  total  EU  budget  had  been  committed78  and  72%  paid  to  the 

73 SWD (2017) 276 
74 Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 of the European Fisheries Fund and Commission Regulation (EC) No 

498/2007 of 26 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 
on the European Fisheries Fund. 

75 This date was established by Commission Delegated Act (EU) 2015/895, adopted on the basis of Article 129 of the EMFF 

Regulation 508/2014. 

76 The Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) was created in 1993 as the specific financial instrument dedicated to 

fisheries structural policy. First established through Regulation (EC) No 2080/93, the FIFG became the structural pillar of 
the CFP.   

77 For the 2007-2013 period, Luxembourg did not receive funding from the EFF, while Croatia only had an OP adopted in 2013. 
78 It is a common practice to "overbook" the commitment since it may happen that some operations are not carried through. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
beneficiaries.  However,  a  boost  was  noted  for  certain  measures  at  the  end  of  the  EFF 
programming period, and the final figures declared by the MS79 in the framework of the 
closure indicate that payments reached 90% of the amounts programmed. However, the 
application  of  the  N+2  rule  throughout  the  programming  period  led  to  some  de-
commitment, reducing the final  amount of EU  funds programmed to  4,056.754  million 
euros (94% of the initial amount of funds programmed). 

3. MAIN FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION  

Effectiveness: The EFF has been moderately effective in meeting its objectives.  

  Between 2007 and 2015, the capacity of the EU fishing fleet decreased by 17.5% (in 
gross  tonnage),  of  which  more  than  half  (53%)  was  removed  with  support  from  the 
European  Fisheries  Fund.  Thus,  nearly  10%  of  the  EU  fleet  capacity  was  removed 
with the help of the EFF. This also resulted in a 9% decrease of engine power in the 
EU fishing fleet.  

  However,  the  evaluation  of  the  EFF  confirmed  that  there  was  scope  to  improve  the 
links between the EFF and the sustainable exploitation  of fisheries  given that this is 
also  the  result  of  fisheries  management  measures.  Similarly,  the  contribution  of  the 
EFF  to  broader  conservation  objectives  such  as  protection  and  enhancement  of  the 
environment  and  natural  resources  when  related  to  the  fisheries  sector  were  less 
visible. This has in large part been addressed with the EMFF in the 2014-2020 period. 
There,  the  links  with  the  objectives  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  including  the 
sustainable  exploitation  of  fisheries  and  minimizing  the  negative  impacts  on  the 
marine environment, are clearer.  

  An overall  improvement of  the fleet competitiveness  was aided with  EFF support  by 
contributing to the modernisation of the remaining fleet, improving fishing ports and 
landing  sites,  and  increasing  the  added-value  of  fish  products  by  supporting 
investments in marketing and processing.  

  In  the  aquaculture  sector,  the  results  were  below  the  expected  objectives  as  EU 
aquaculture  production  increased  less  than  global  aquaculture  production  over  the 
2007-2013  period.  However,  EFF  funding  was  particularly  important  to  sustain  the 
sector during the economic crisis.  

  Processing  and  marketing  investments  contributed  to  maintain  and  create  jobs  and 

accelerated the modernisation of the industry.  

  Sustainable development of local areas (Axis 4) enabled maintaining and creating jobs 
and has been an important source of investments towards improving the quality of life 
in fisheries dependent areas.  

  The  EFF  is  estimated  to  have  created  approximately  17,000  jobs  and  maintained 
many  more  over  the  programming  period.  Both  temporary  cessation  and  socio-
economic  compensation  measures  have  contributed  to  maintain  employment  on  a 
temporary basis, in the specific fleets where it was applied, whilst the EFF contributed 
to the creation of approximatively 10,000 new jobs in the processing sector. Another 

79 Please note this figure must be used carefully since it is based on the amounts declared by the MS at the end of March 2017, which 

have not yet been verified by the Commission, nor audited.   

54 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
6,760  jobs  would  have  been  created  and  9,240  maintained  as  a  result  of  projects 
supported under community led local development (Axis 4)80.  

Efficiency: The quality of the monitoring data does not allow assessing whether the EFF 
objectives were achieved at a reasonable cost. However, there is scope for improvement:  

  With  regards  to  fleet  measures,  the  cessation  evaluation  carried  out  in  201381 
concluded that the efficiency of cessation measures in the long-term is questionable. 
Furthermore, there is general agreement amongst Member States that overcapacity has 
been  addressed  in  many  fleets.  Differences  in  the  cost  of  fleet  measures  can  be 
observed, but these largely depend on the structure of the fleet targeted by adjustment 
plans.  Competitive  bidding  for  the  allocation  of  grants  was  found  to  increase 
substantially the efficiency of fleet measures in the MS that used it.  

  In both aquaculture and processing, the average cost for creating an additional tonne 
of production capacity across the EU varied considerably between MS, which can be 
partly explained by the focus on different species or processing methods.  

  Managing authorities used the technical assistance measure to address administrative 
burden issues82. Analysis also showed that administrative costs acted as disincentives 
for potential beneficiaries.  

Relevance:  Even  though  EFF  support  for  permanent  cessation  decreased  during  the 
2007-2013  period,  the  need  to  continue  the  process  of  rebalancing  the  fleet  remained 
relevant for the objectives of both the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the EFF. For 
aquaculture  and  processing,  competitiveness  was  the  focus  and  the  scale  of  uptake 
suggests that these measures were highly relevant for the sector.  

Coherence: The objectives of the EFF Regulation were not contradicting those of other 
EU structural investment funds such as the ERDF, the ESF or the EARDF, or those of 
other  EU  funding  instruments  such  as  LIFE.  However,  despite  clear  demarcation  lines 
between  these  funding  sources,  complementarities  and  synergies  with  other  funds 
the 
remained 
EAFRD/LEADER in many fisheries areas).  

for  Axis  4  which  was  complementary  with 

(except 

limited 

EU added value: The added-value of the EU intervention lies mainly in the reduction of 
the fleet capacity, the achievements of Axis 4, innovation projects and collective actions. 
Furthermore,  the  EFF  contributed  to  an  increase  in  fuel  efficiency  and  selectivity  of 
fishing methods.  

Sustainability:  The  ex  post  evaluation  concludes  that  reductions  in  the  fleet  achieved 
with EFF support may not have been long-lasting and structural. 

This  ex-post  evaluation  showed  that  the  objectives  of  the  EFF  were  reached  to  a  large 
extent,  but  that  there  was  scope  for  improvement,  in  particular  its  effectiveness  and 

80 https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/axis-4_en. These figures were confirmed by a survey undertaken by the 

FARNET Support Unit in 2016.   

81 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/cessation_en    
82 However, the ex-post evaluators underlined the fact that technical assistance was not properly documented and monitored; this 

limits the value of these conclusions. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
sustainability, and with regards to its delivery system and a focus on results. To a large 
extent, these issues have been addressed with the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
with a greater result orientation but the evaluation also provides a reference framework 
for  judging  over  the  coming  years  if  the  issues  are  being  tackled  in  an  effective  and 
proportional way – as well as which elements will need to be maintained or reinforced in 
the future.  

56 

 
 
 
ANNEX 4 – OTHER INTIATIVES AND ACTIVITIES  

THE BLUE ECONOMY – STATE OF PLAY, PROSPECTS AND RESULTS  

PART 1: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE BLUE ECONOMY 

BLUE ECONOMY DEFINITIONS  

For the purposes of this annex, the blue economy consists of all the sectoral and  cross-
sectoral economic activities related to oceans, seas and coasts. This includes the closest 
direct  and  indirect  supported  activities  necessary  for  the  sustainable  functioning  and 
development of these economic sectors which can be located anywhere, included in land 
locked  countries.  It  includes  also  emerging  sectors  as  well  as  non-quantifiable  natural 
stocks and non-market good and services. 

The concept of Blue economy includes established or traditional sectors and emerging 
sectors:

57 

 
 
 
DIRECT IMPACT OF THE BLUE ECONOMY 

The blue economy sectors of the EU covered in the present report employed directly 
around 3.48 million persons in 2016, a modest 1% increase compared to 2008 (3.45 
million persons employed). Wages and salaries amounted to €41.0 billion, a 19 % 
increase on 2008 (€34.6 billion). Blue economy based wages and salaries have grown 
steadily since reaching a low in 2011, while employment has remained relatively stable, 
translating into higher average wages. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
GVA generated by the blue economy sectors covered in the present report amounted to 
EUR  174.2  billion  in  2016,  a  4%  increase  compared  to  2008.  While  gross  profit  at 
EUR95.1  billion,  saw  a  1%  decrease  on  2008  (EUR96.4  billion).  Total  turnover  was 
around EUR 566.2 billion, a 1% increase over 2008. 

The evolution over the 8 years covered reflects quite well the economic evolution of the 
whole of the EU economy. All the economic indicators reach and or exceed its pre-crisis 
levels. The net investment  to  GVA  in  particular reflects a  sharp change in  trend which 
implies a very significant improvement in economic expectations in the relevant sectors. 

59 

 
 
 
CONTRIBUITION OF THE BLUE ECONOMY 

In 2016, the blue economy as covered in the present report amounted to about 1.3% of 
the  EU28  GVA  and  just  over  0.5%  of  the  employment.  Whereas  the  share  over  total 
employment remained stable over the period analysed period (2008-2016), the share of 
the  BE  over  GDP  decreased  until    2015,  but  in  2016  had  not  yet  reached  its  pre-crisis 
levels.  This  could  be  due  to  fact  that  some  of  the  sectors  covered,  e.g.  ports,  maritime 
transport and shipbuilding were hit hard by the crisis. It could also be that other sectors 
beyond the Blue Economy recovered at a faster pace or that land based emerging sectors 
are  gaining  importance  faster  than  their  maritime  counterparts.  For  example,  energy 
production  is  cheaper  on  land  and  the  lower  the  prices  of  energy  from  these  sources 
competes  with  established  or  additional  blue  economy  sectors  (oil  extraction,  wind 
energy, deep sea mining).  

Actually, omitting the Maritime extraction of Oil & gas sector, the evolution of the blue 
economy  based  GVA  and  employment  follow  trends  much  closer  to  these  of  the  EU 
GDP.  

60 

 
 
 
 
Looking at the sector covered, as stated above, there are significant differences between 
them in terms of performance.  Some sectors perform better than others do: for example, 
the  growth  of  the  bioeconomy  sector  has  outperformed  that  of  the  EU28  GDP  since  at 
least  2008.  This  covers  the  fisheries  sector  which  seems  to  follow  a  path  relatively 
independent  from  that  of  the  economy  in  general.  The  positive  evolution  of  the 
performance of the fisheries sector since 2008 is related to the increased efforts under the 
CFP  to  fish  at  sustainable  levels.  Available  data  shows  a  positive  link  between 
sustainable fishing and positive performance. Fishing at sustainable levels reaches a high 
number of species in the North Sea, the Baltic and the North East Atlantic.  

61 

 
 
 
 
CONTRIBUTION TO NATIONAL ECONOMIES   

62 

2016% ∆  2016-% over EU28 Total2016% ∆  2016-% over EU28 2016% ∆  2016-% over EU28 2016% ∆  2016-08% over EU28 2016% ∆  2016-% over EU28 2016% ∆  2016-% over EU28 2016% ∆  2016-08% over EU28 Austria149            20%0,8%-           199            77%1,0%37               23%0,1%28               71%0,2%-                  412                 46%0,2%Belgium390            53%2,1%-           1.886        35%9,6%1.101        240%4,0%1-                  -101%0,0%191                 -28%0,3%3.568            54%2,0%Bulgaria66               164%0,4%8,1           256%0,0%98               -2%0,5%28               -30%0,1%47               -46%0,4%845                 175%1,2%1.092            97%0,6%Croatia46               38%0,2%55            0%0,2%98               -65%0,5%227            -33%0,8%132            -54%1,1%2.195            -12%3,1%2.752            -21%1,6%Cyprus26               -27%0,1%-           0,0%80               -17%0,4%86               28,8%0,3%31               384%0,3%509                 -10%0,7%732                 -5%0,4%Czech Republic15               244%0,1%-           0,0%195            -9%1,0%5                  7%0,0%4                  0%0,0%-                  0,0%218                 -4%0,1%Denmark821            25%4,4%4.117     -51%15,6%593            33%3,0%4.308        66%15,7%192            -2%1,6%2.738            31%3,9%12.768         -11%7,3%Estonia45               3%0,2%-           0,0%195            36%1,0%51               1281%0,2%60               42%0,5%367                 10%0,5%718                 28%0,4%Finland173            10%0,9%-           0,0%346            -6%1,8%752            -6%2,7%284            -39%2,4%1.003            -8%1,4%2.558            -11%1,5%France2.738        34%14,8%148         69%0,6%1.484        -33%7,6%1.959        -11%7,1%1.827        58%15,4%9.564            -1%13,6%17.721         2%10,2%Germany2.122        72%11,4%716         -34%2,7%2.572        2%13,2%5.857        -34%21,4%1.240        -34%10,4%4.066            4%5,8%16.573         -15%9,5%Greece297            9%1,6%8               0%0,0%718            130%3,7%1.121        -1%4,1%210            -48%1,8%4.837            27%6,9%7.191            21%4,1%Hungary57               39%0,3%-           0,0%225            1%1,2%18               5%0,1%5                  10%0,0%-                  0,0%304                 7%0,2%Ireland367            45%2,0%-           0,0%22               66%0,1%218            31%0,8%22               1%0,2%1.252            25%1,8%1.880            29%1,1%Italy2.325        25%12,5%1.386     -9%5,3%1.933        1%9,9%4.089        29%14,9%1.512        -39%12,7%8.502            -3%12,1%19.747         0%11,3%Latvia74               -18%0,4%-           0,0%191            78%1,0%18               -29%0,1%28               -21%0,2%137                 -13%0,2%449                 8%0,3%Lithuania149            101%0,8%-           0,0%120            14%0,6%46               -24%0,2%77               -26%0,6%38                    -16%0,1%430                 11%0,2%Luxembourg0,4              -11%0,0%-           0,0%7                  -25%0,0%-              0,0%-              0,0%-                  0,0%7                       -24%0,0%Malta37               13%0,2%-           0,0%23               -5%0,1%30               105%0,1%10               1%0,1%306                 13%0,4%406                 15%0,2%Netherlands1.126        25%6,1%2.380     -15%9,0%2.404        28%12,3%1.694        3%6,2%997            11%8,4%1.121            39%1,6%9.721            9%5,6%Poland596            27%3,2%6               62%0,0%231            -37%1,2%156            -9%0,6%577            -34%4,9%999                 -15%1,4%2.565            -16%1,5%Portugal631            -5%3,4%-           0,0%284            9%1,5%64               -23%0,2%110            -15%0,9%3.087            40%4,4%4.176            25%2,4%Romania85               65%0,5%33            -77%0,1%275            -31%1,4%46               -36%0,2%327            -6%2,8%192                 8%0,3%956                 -19%0,5%Slovakia14               -32%0,1%-           0,0%59               98%0,3%14               8%0,0%1                  -35%0,0%-                  0,0%88                    34%0,1%Slovenia18               -10%0,1%-           0,0%41               -21%0,2%16               24%0,1%7                  -56%0,1%44                    -2%0,1%127                 -14%0,1%Spain3.235        14%17,4%99            26%0,4%902            -41%4,6%586            16%2,1%870            -44%7,3%17.504         11%24,9%23.196         4%13,3%Sweden407            26%2,2%-           0,0%333            17%1,7%943            -6%3,4%279            5%2,3%3.025            62%4,3%4.986            33%2,9%United Kingdom2.552        40%13,7%17.443  3%66,1%4.032        39%20,6%3.961        18%14,4%3.003        80%25,3%7.888            3%11,2%38.878         13%22,3%EU2818.563     29%26.398  -15%19.546     7%27.428     3%11.878     -9%70.410         9%174.222      4%Coastal tourismBlue EconomyValue added at factor cost - million euroBioeconomyMarine extraction of oil and gasPorts, warehousing and water projectsMaritime transportShipbuilding & repair 
 
 
 
 
 
All Member States below the 1.3% are situated in the north-eastern part of the Union and 
where  the  only  ones  not  being  landlocked  are  the  Baltic  Member  States.  Only  one, 
Slovenia is Mediterranean. In contrast, four of the five Member States with the highest 
shares  are  in  situated  in  the  Mediterranean  sea-basin.  Also  in  the  Iberian  Peninsula  the 
blue  economy  has  a  shared  well  above  the  EU  average.  The  percentage  for  the  UK  is 
above the average but relatively modest. 

Compared  to  2008,  the  share  of  the  Blue  Economy  decreased  in  Croatia,  Denmark, 
Malta, Cyprus, United Kingdom, Finland and Germany. It increased, in Greece, Bulgaria, 
Estonia, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Belgium.  

In terms of employment, Spain generates a fifth of the total EU28 blue economy based 
jobs (almost 691 000), a figure that has increased since 2008. Italy has moved to second 
place, with 390 000 jobs in the blue economy while the UK has slipped into third place, 
followed  by  Greece.  Most  likely,  most  of  these  jobs  are  related  to  tourism.  These  four 
Member States  generate 52% of the total blue economy jobs, a percentage that jumps to 
67%  when    France  and  Germany  and  included.  In  absolute  terms,  the  five  largest  EU 
economies are among the 6 largest countries in terms of jobs. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
The UK, largely due to the developed offshore oil and gas sector, accounts for almost a 
third  of  the  total  amount  spent  on  blue  economy  wages  and  salaries;  a  figure  which  
increased  significantly  since  2008.  Together  with  Germany  and  Italy,  these  three 
Member States contribute to 54% of the blue wages and salaries in the EU28.   

Also as regards, GVA, the UK leads in generating blue economy based GVA (22% of the 
total)  and  gross  profit  (24%)  and  is  the  top  invester  (32%).  Together  with  Spain,  Italy, 
Germany and France, the UK accounted for 66% of the blue GVA in 2016.  Denmark, 
the Netherlands and Greece add a further 17.2%. 

The UK with Spain, Italy and Demark accounted for 56% of the profit generated in 2016.  
Germany fell from second poition in 2008 to fifth in 2016.  

SECTORS OF THE BLUE ECONOMY 

The  blue  economy  sectors  are  not  by  any  means  equivalent  to  each  other.  At  61%  in 
2016, up from 59% in 2008, coastal tourism accounts for the largest share of employment 
corresponding to the sectors covered by the present report. The contribution of that sector 
to the Blue Economy as covered by the present report  in terms of GVA and gross profits, 
while higher than in 2008, is significantly lower (40% and 42% respectively) than that to 
employment.  

In  contrast,  the  extraction  of  non-living  marine  resources  sector,  i.e.,  oil  &  gas,  which 
represents less than 2% of the employment, generated 15% of the GVA and 20% of the 
gross profits in 2016 even if down from 18% and 26% respectively in 2008). It is clear 
then  that  each  of  these  sectors  has  very  different  levels  of  labour  productivity  but  also 
that their contribution to the resilience of coastal areas –measured in terms of jobs- varies 
very much. 

64 

 
 
 
The  offshore  oil  and  gas  is  a  highly  capitalised  sector  that  requires  few  employees  per 
unit  of  output  and  that  is  very  much  concentrated  in  very  few  geographical  areas.  In 
contrast, the coastal tourism sector is a labour intensive activity, particularly during the 
high season, which is widespread all along the EU coastline.  

Regarding the other sectors covered, the bioeconomy sector is growing since 2008. This 
is very much the case of the fisheries catching sector, where growth is compatible with 
increasingly sustainable exploitation of stocks. In shipbuilding most of the value added is 
from  upstream  and  downstream  activities.  That  means  that  beyond  its  specific 
contribution, multiplier effects on income and jobs are important in many sectors of the 
Blue Economy. These multiplier effects are quite significant also in the catching sector. 
One of the side effects of the restructuring of the EU fishing fleet has been, according to 
the  sector  that  the  reduction  of  the  fishing  fleet  has  resulted  in  parallel  reductions  in 
activities ancillary to fishing and in income and job losses beyond these in the catching 
sector. 

Comparing 2016 with 2008, it appears that the bioeconomy and coastal tourisms on the 
one  hand  and  the  shipbuilding  &  repair  and  oil  and  gas  have  followed  opposite 
evolutions during the crisis. It looks as if the first two act as buffers to compensate loses 
of jobs but also GVA and gross profits in industrial sectors. 

65 

 
 
 
BLUE ECONOMY EMERGING SECTORS 

The  following  section  provides  an  account  of  the  socio  economic  data  of  what  are 
categorised as emerging sectors within the blue economy. Although some of these may 
have  been  around  longer  than  others,  they  are  emerging  in  that  they  have  not  nearly 
achieved their full potential.  The first part will cover renewable energy and will mainly 
focus on off-shore wind energy and ocean energy (i.e. tidal and wave energy), followed 
by blue bio technology, desalination and finally deep-sea mining. 

It  is  worth  noting  that  in  being  emerging  sectors  the  consistent  collection  of  socio-
economic data has proven difficult. With the exception of off-shore wind energy and to a 
lesser extent wave and  tidal  energy, the lack of data is  the main challenge faced in the 
drafting  of  this  report.  Previous  studies  undertaken  by  the  OECD  and  the  European 
Commission already point out that more should be done to improve data collection and 
quality. This having been said, the data available does shows interesting trends and great 
potential. 

Off-shore wind: Perhaps the most  well-established of the emerging  sectors and the one 
for which more reliable and accurate data  is available. On-shore wind farms have been 
around  for  many  years  and  are  booming  industry.  Off-shore  wind  energy  seems  to  be 
headed in the same direction. European investment in the sector has increased in recent 
years,  as  has  employment,  which  the  OECD  believes  will  be  at  170,000  by  2020  and 
double that by 2030.It is worth noting that most of the activity within the industry took 
place  in  Europe,  which  indeed  is  responsible  for  91%  of  global  GW  off-shore  wind 
capacity. 

Ocean energy: Renewable energies need not only encompass offshore wind but various 
forms  of  ocean  energy  too.  In  the  section  below  the  report  will  focus  mainly  on  both 
wave  and  tidal  energy.  Currently  both  are  being  further  development  and  so  much  is 
being investment in research. In fact, The JRC estimates that employment in Europe for 
this  sector  currently  stands  at  1800-2050m  of  which  1450  would  be  in  research  and 

66 

 
 
 
 
development. Moreover, JRC data shows that the EU is an important actor in this sector 
and hosts half of the world's tidal energy developers and 60% of the wave developers. 

Blue biotechnology: has various application of different types it has had an impact in the 
healthcare  and  pharmaceutical  sectors  by  creating  new  medication  and  vaccines  for  a 
wide range of diseases (e.g. multiple sclerosis (MS)), In agriculture, livestock, veterinary 
products, and aquaculture it has helped produce vaccines to as well as improving animal 
feed.  In  industrial  processes  and  manufacturing,  has  led  to  the  use  of  enzymes  in  the 
production  of  detergents,  pulp  and  paper,  textiles,  and  biomass,  Finally,  in  energy 
production, as blue biotechnology can produce large amounts of oil through micro-algal. 
In  terms  of  socio-economic  data  it  is  still  challenging  to  find  consistent  accurate 
information.  Most  of  it  comes  from  the  private  sector,  can  are  not  necessarily  being 
collected regularly and following strict criteria. However, the OECD estimated the sector 
to be a USD 2.8 billion in 2010, and is projected to increase to around USD 4.6 billion by 
2017 at a global level. Data provided by the industry claims that the EU algae biomass 
sector  currently  employs  14.000  people  and  has  a  value  of  EUR  1.69  billion,  which 
includes research and development, equipment production and jobs in the larger supply 
chain which depend on output from the algae sector. 

Desalination:  Desalination  plants  can  be  found  across  the  globe  with  the  largest  one 
being located in Saudi Arabia. Some EU MS have too started investing in this sector and 
the  biggest  plant  at  EU  level  can  be  found  in  Almeria,  Southern  Spain.  Although  still 
emerging,  this  can  indeed  prove  to  be  a  key  sector,  if  we  consider  that  some  countries 
and  cities  are  already  experiencing  water  shortages.  In  the  case  of  desalination  data  is 
practically  non-existent.  This  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  sector  does  not  have 
potential and is not beginning to thrive, but there does not seem to be a well-established 
process of data collection for it.  

Deep-sea mining: Lack of data is a problem also in this emerging sector, alongside lack 
of  knowledge.  The  former,  as  highlighted  previously  in  other  sectors  is  due  to  the  fact 
that information is  not  being collected in a regular and consistent  manner. The latter is 
due  to  the  fact  that  although  exploration  projects  are  underway,  no  actual  deep-sea 
mining  project  has  taken  place,  thereby  making  it  difficult  to  fully  assess  its  socio 
economic potential, however what seems clear is the potential for negative environmental 
impacts of the sector. 

67 

 
 
 
 
PART 2: RESULTS OF EMFF SUPPORT TO THE BLUE ECONOMY 2014-2020 

EXAMPLE 1: AQUACULTURE - FACTS, FIGURES, PROJECTS  

Market  data  for  Europe  show  a  4%  growth  in  volume  and  an  8%  growth  in  value 
between  2014  and  2015.  This  is  an  indication  that  our  continuous  work  with  Member 
State authorities to remove barriers for growth is yielding first results, after a long period 
of stagnation.  Although still at a low level compared to Asia and with growth rates still 
lagging behind, the European aquaculture sector generated in 2015 more value than ever 
before. 

In  addition  to  working  with  national  authorities  through  the  Open  Method  of 
Coordination,  the  Commission  directly  supports  innovative  aquaculture  initiatives  in 
Europe  through  two  strands  (in  addition  to  support  via  shared  management).   The 
projects funded are addressing the full cycle of challenges that the aquaculture industry 
faces: from education and acceptance to space conflicts, from better feed to business set-
up.  

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) – in direct management 

BBMBC (education: Master related to aquaculture)                                     
BlueSmart (education: Master related to aquaculture) 
Entrefish (education: Master related to aquaculture) 
FAIMMAC  (promoting  the  eco-friendly  production  of  flat  oyster  in  Italy),  see  also 
https://www.facebook.com/FAIMMAC/ 
Amalia (aquaculture feed) 
INvertebrateIT (production of insects for aquaculture feed via the use of organic waste) 

Research Framework Programmes (FP7 and Horizon 2020) 

OCEANFISH takes advantage of ocean currents to enable fish farming further out to sea. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TARGETFISH works towards keeping the fish in these farms disease-free by developing 
vaccines with an effective means of delivery 
ARRAINA  explores  plant  based  feed  for  farmed  fish  to  reduce  pressure  on  marine 
resources 
IDREEM seeks to improve the integrated production of the European aquaculture sector 
for reduced waste and increased competitiveness. 

Under  shared  management  within  the  EMFF,  Member  States  may  use  much  larger 
amounts, up to 1.2 bn euro until 2020.  A particularly interesting and growing activity are 
projects in local communities (FLAGs): 

Duckweed for fish feed - Kainnu Koillismaa FLAG, Finland 
A fish farm teamed up with the local FLAG and a LEADER LAG to take advantage of 
nutrients dissolved in water on fish farms by cultivating duckweed (Lemna minor) as an 
aquatic crop in the ponds. The duckweed removes unwanted substances from the water 
and is harvested and used as protein-rich feed. This project promotes the use of domestic 
feed ingredients and environmentally-friendly fish farming while being cost-effective.  

Biodegradable meshes for mussel cultivation - Ria de Arousa FLAG, Spain  
With  the  help  of  FLAG  funding,  a  local  company  has  been  able  to  put  in  place  a 
biodegradable mesh for their mussel cultivation. Using this completely environmentally-
friendly mesh, their organic mussel production contributes to solving important problems 
the 
improving 
in 
manufactured products. The project has also opened up a new line of production in the 
company. 

the  mussel-growing  sector  by 

the  environmental 

impact  of 

Tomatofish - Mecklenburgische Seenplatte-Müritz FLAG, Germany 
A local fish farm company has developed an innovative way to grow fish and tomatoes 
together  in  one  integrated  system:  the  aquaponics  system.  This  energy-  and  water-
efficient method while the fish waste provides an organic food source for plants which, 
in return, naturally filter the water. The project was put in place in collaboration with the 
Leibniz-Institute  of  Freshwater  Ecology  and  Inland  Fisheries,  IGB  Berlin.  It  is  open  to 
visitors and promotes this technology for a wider-spread use in similar inland territories.   

Cultivating microalgae for oil extraction - Costa da Morte FLAG, Spain 
Thanks to the FLAG’s financial support, a young producer has set up a start-up company 
to cultivate microalgae on land specifically for oil extraction. The oil, high in omega-3, 
will  then  be  used  as  a  pharmaceutical-grade  and  standardized  nutrient  and  as  raw 
material for human consumption. The project envisages an annual production of 4 000kg 
of microalgae.  

Combining functionality with recreational activities - Braila FLAG, Romania 
With  FLAG  funding,  an  aquaculture  farm  has  acquired  all  the  necessary  equipment 
(kitchen, bar, utensils, furniture, etc.) to set up a restaurant. A pontoon was also built in 
proximity  to  Lake  Blasova’s  shore  using  over  100 m2  of  floating  modules  with  an 
anchoring  system  and  a  bridge.  This  pontoon  unites  the  functionality  of  the  restaurant 
with specific fishing and recreational activities happening on the lake. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
From crushed shells to 3D printing - North Sardinia FLAG, Italy 
The initial  phase of the project was reusing crushed shells  as a mineral supplement for 
poultry and for soil fertilization. Local high school students and teachers have taken the 
project even further by using crushed shells for 3D printing. This method uses a mixture 
of  resins  to  produce  any  items  such  as  jewellery,  watch  cases,  eyeglass  frames,  tiles, 
worktops  or  other.  The  FLAG  works  with  the  project  promoters  on  the  business  plan, 
marketing, equipment acquisition etc. to develop the start-up.  

Reconnecting the land and the sea - West FLAG, Ireland 
Facilitated  and  funded  by  the  FLAG,  a  group  of  shellfish  farmers,  shellfish  exporters, 
inshore  fishermen,  and  marine  heritage  enthusiasts  have  formed  a  community-based 
organisation to improve the quality of life, environment, economy and maritime heritage 
around its bay area. Together they work to reconnect the local community with the bay’s 
activities, organizing demonstrations and tasting events as well as a workshop to plan the 
rejuvenation  of  the  native  oyster.  Promotional  material  and  a  website  are  also  being 
developed.  

Detecting toxic marine microalgae - Pyrénées-Méditerranée FLAG, France  
The local oyster farm situated in a lagoon in the Mediterranean Sea is regularly affected 
by toxic phytoplankton contamination which leads to economic losses during the critical 
season around Christmas. In order to prevent this, the farm has teamed up with a research 
institute  to  develop  an  innovative  solution  to  detect  toxic  marine  microalgae  and 
anticipate the toxic proliferation especially during the high oyster season.  

Fish farm activities for the entire community - Our Krajna and Paluki FLAG, Poland 
To ensure a better integration of the fisheries sector within the community, the FLAG has 
been working closely with the largest carp producer in its region to encourage local fish 
consumption  and  improve  environmental  awareness.  In  cooperation  with  the  fish  farm 
and  other  actors,  the  FLAG  has  organised  a  series  of  activities  including  fish  farming 
demonstrations  and  carp  filleting  shows,  bird  camps  and  cross-country  running  and 
geocaching  which  has  helped  the  farm  take  on  a  more  active  role  in  the  community 
activities while increasing direct sales. 

Community sea gardens - Djursland FLAG, Denmark 
As fishing activities declined in their local harbour, a voluntary association was created 
to  set  up  a  sustainable  sea  garden  near  the  port  for  local  community  members  to  grow 
shellfish  and  seaweed  on  a  small-scale.  A  dynamic  network  of  about  80  gardeners  has 
taken  root,  bringing  new  life  into  the  harbour.  They  mainly  grow  mussels,  but  also 
seaweed  and  oysters,  contributing  to  a  cleaner  marine  environment.  The  local  FLAG 
supported the project idea, though it was ultimately funded through other sources.  

EXAMPLE 2: MARITIME SPATIAL PLANNING IN THE BLACK SEA 

MARSPLAN, the first project to bring Romanian and Bulgarian authorities and institutes 
together to work on Maritime Spatial Planning in the Black Sea, is approaching the finish 
line. 

70 

 
 
 
In the past two and a half years MARSPLAN has produced a report on the institutional 
and  legislative  framework  for  maritime  spatial  planning  in  the  Black  sea,  a  detailed 
analysis of the Bulgarian and Romanian maritime areas, several case studies, a common 
methodology  for  analysis  and  a  common  strategic  framework  for  MSP  with  sectorial, 
environmental and geological maps as well development scenarios. Importantly, through 
intense  cooperation  the  project  also  delivered  a  draft  maritime  spatial  plan  for  the 
Mangalia – Shabla area on the Bulgarian-Romanian border.  

MARSPLAN  started  in  the  summer  of  2015  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  EU 
legislation  on  maritime  spatial  planning  in  Romania  and  Bulgaria,  but  also  to  create  a 
strategic  vision  for  the  whole  Black  Sea  area.  Funded  through  the  EMFF  annual  work 
programme of 2014, it received an EU contribution of 1.6 million euro. 

The  European  Commission  will  formally  approve  the  project’s  results  after  its  official 
closure in February. But it is safe to say that by gathering together the public authorities 
that coordinate land and sea transport, environmental protection and coastal management 
in  both  countries,  MARSPLAN  has  laid  a  solid  foundation  on  which  they  can  both 
establish their own national plans and build a common vision for border areas. 

Riding on the MARSPLAN momentum and as a next step, we envisage reaching out to 
the other Black Sea countries in the course of the year to extend the effort to the rest of 
the  basin  and  promote  the  principles  of  environmentally  and  economically  sound 
maritime spatial planning in the whole of the Black Sea. 

EXAMPLE  3:  NAUTICAL  ROUTES  FOR  EUROPE  –  FIVE  NEW  TOURISM 
IDEAS LAUNCHED TO MAKE EUROPE A DESTINATION OF EXCELLENCE 

European  tourists,  and  particularly  sailors,  boaters  and  water  sports  practitioners  are  in 
for a treat:  soon they will be able to choose from another series of attractive and unique 
formulas  designed  to  let  people  discover  the  continent's  tremendous  maritime  heritage, 
from marine archaeology to wind, from history to sport, from fish to food and wine. 

After  the  success  of  the  first  few  projects  on  underwater  cultural  heritage  (such  as  the 
UCRCA  project,  the  NIRD  project  and  the  ATAS  project  ),  and  in-keeping  with  the 
European  Year  of  Cultural  Heritage,  the  European  Union  is  now  financing  a  series  of 
new initiatives designed to give visitors an all-round experience and kindle the European 
tourism industry. 

The  Tuna  Route  celebrates  the  importance  of  the  iconic  Bluefin  Tuna  in  the  Western 
Mediterranean  by  bringing  together  science,  conservation,  culture,  gastronomy  and 
aquaculture. A service of charters will connect destinations and activities throughout the 
route and games will inform consumers on the full range of labelled products. 

71 

 
 
 
The Meltemi Route will create at least four sailing itineraries focused on water sports and 
nautical tourism in the North-East Aegean Sea. It will enable people to sail in the wake 
of the Meltemi wind and touch upon otherwise unreachable, totally unspoiled spots along 
the magnificent coasts of Greece and Turkey. 

The  WAOH  Route  aims  to  develop  the  first  European  sustainable  diving  route  along 
5000  km  of  Atlantic  coastline,  from  the  South  of  Portugal  and  Spain  to  the  North  of 
Ireland and the UK.ChannelSail creates a nautical route from English Cornwall to French 
Cornouaille  to  rediscover,  through  historical  and  modern  sailing  activities,  the  Celtic 
heritage common to both these Channel regions.            

From Greece to Magna Graecia will design experiential sailing cruises between Greece 
and Italy and complement them with rich offer of cultural and scientific experiences like 
exploring the seabed, learning about the gastronomic traditions across the Ionian Sea and 
trying sports such as kite-surfing, diving or fishing. 

These  projects  are  being  financed  through  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund 
with total budget of about 1.5 million euros. They will promote off-season tourism and 
thus  extend  the  opening  times  of  businesses;  they  will  attract  travellers  to  new,  lesser 
known  areas,  thus  reducing  pressures  (environmental  and  social)  at  traditional 
destinations; and they will above all promote the shared values of the various European 
destinations  and  encourage  a  responsible  and  sustainable  behaviour  on  the  part  of 
travellers – all core principles of the EU's Strategy for Coastal and Maritime Tourism.  

EXAMPLE 4: EUMOFA COUNTRY PROFILES 

Up-to-date profiles and data about aquaculture and fisheries in all EU 28 Member States 

Through  the  EUMOFA  EU  Market  Observatory  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  –  two 
core  sectors  of  the  Blue  Economy  –  the  latest  data  about  the  aquaculture  and  fisheries 
industry is provide in each of the EU's 28 Member States. This is useful information for 
all who what to inform themselves about those sectors in the country they live in or in a 
country they are visiting! 

72 

 
 
New country profiles are now online on www.eumofa.eu 

 EUMOFA has launched the new country profiles, aiming to offer a 
unique and detailed snapshot of each stage of the fisheries and 
aquaculture supply chain of each EU country. 

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia 
Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania 
Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Spain 
Sweden Slovenia United Kingdom 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  FEATURES IN FISHERIES AND MARITIME POLICIES POST-2020 

FEATURES IN FISHERIES AND MARITIME POLICIES POST-2020 

Specific objective  Retained features 
SO 1:1 
Sustainable, 
competitive and 
inclusive fisheries 

Discarded features 
future 
focus 
To 
funding  exclusively  on 
supporting 
the 
implementation  of  the 
landing  obligation  and 
the  discard  ban  and 
completely  exclude  all 
fleet measures.  

Earmarked support for 
small-scale operators 

Merging support for 
control and maritime 
surveillance. 

A targeted model introducing a new 
feature compared to the current period. 
Fleet adaptation measures will remain 
necessary as regards certain fleet 
segments or certain sea basins (e.g. 
Mediterranean, consequences of Brexit). 
However, such support needs to be tightly 
linked to specific conservation objectives 
(especially as regional multiannual 
management plans enter into effect) and 
to a more effective fleet management by 
Member States.  
Modernisation of the fleet with regard to 
innovation, health and safety, energy 
efficiency and investments on board 
improving the quality of products. 
Maintaining higher co-financing rates and 
allow higher aid intensity for investments 
in outermost regions compared to the 
mainland. 
Higher intervention rates 
Differentiated areas of support (e.g. 
certain operations only for small-scale 
operators) 
Differentiated forms of support (e.g. 
access to grants only for small-scale 
operators and only financial instruments 
for other beneficiaries) 
Continue financial support for fisheries 
control and link it with the revision of the 
Control regulation.  
Reinforce the link to maritime 
surveillance 
Strengthen the collection and processing 
of marine data in synergy with 
EMODNET and the MSFD. 
Continue support for biodiversity 
protection, including support to the 
management, restoration and monitoring 
of Natura 2000 sites and other MPAs, to 
promote more selective fishing gear, to 
avoid accidental by-catch of species 
(marine mammals and seabirds) to 

74 

SO 1:2 
Sustainable and 
competitive SSCF 

SO 1:3 
Implementation of 
the CFP (fisheries 
control, data) 

SO 1:4 
Conservation of 
marine 
ecosystems 

 
 
 
SO 2:1 
Sustainable, 
innovative and 
competitive 
aquaculture 

SO 2:2 Market 
organisation 

SO 2:3 Quality 
and sustainability 
of products 

SO 3:1 Enabling 
an innovative, 
sustainable and 
knowledge-based 
blue economy 

continue addressing the issue of collection 
of marine litter and to support aquaculture 
providing environmental services.  
Develop cross-cutting indicators for all 
EU funds for Natura 2000, building on 
and adapting existing indicators 
developed under the EMFF. 
Target support to productive and 
innovative investments to growth. Support 
should be provided through financial 
instruments.  
Support on compensatory measures for 
less profitable aquaculture activities 
Grants for enabling conditions for 
aquaculture - including stock insurance 
schemes - could be considered as well in 
addition to covering aquaculture more 
prominently in local development 
strategies (CLLD) as an important area for 
diversification, jobs and growth. 
Financial support for the organisation of 
the sector and its structure through 
producer organisations (POs)  
Keep the support but provide it only 
through financial instruments for all 
including for SMEs. 

Focus on providing funding for enabling 
conditions to facilitate innovation and 
market development in the blue economy 
by addressing market failures for the 
sustainable development of economic 
activities, safeguard ecosystems and 
reinforce security at sea. It also includes 
enhancing marine and scientific 
knowledge (e.g. EMODNET and MSFD).  
Outermost regions would be encouraged 
to draw up maritime sustainable 
development strategies. 

75 

To provide grants for 
investments 

To exclude inland 
aquaculture 

To let other funding 
instruments take care 
of supporting 
investments in 
aquaculture 

Discontinue  market 
support  

Discontinue support 
for processing 

Provide support 
through financial 
instruments for all but 
SMEs who could still 
get grants 
Focus future funding 
almost entirely on 
maritime policy and 
blue growth and only 
keep a minor part for 
data, control and the 
CLLD-approach. The 
problem here is that 
available funding 
would still not be to 
enough to provide 
sufficient funding for 
unlocking the potential 
of the maritime 
economy while key 
objectives of the CFP 
would risk not to be 

 
 
 
 
 
delivered. 

Fund maritime policy 
through other funding 
instruments  
Continue as during 
2014-2020 with the 
same coverage and 
roughly the same level 
of funding.  
Ring-fence the CLLD 
allocation       

Continue as during 
2014-2020  

Continue as during 
2014-2020 

SO 3:2 Prosperous 
blue coastal and 
inland 
communities 

SO 4:1 
International 
ocean governance 

SO 4:2 Maritime 
surveillance and 
coastguards 
cooperation 

Broaden the scope of the approach to 
include maritime policy/blue growth.  
Further strengthen the role of the FLAGs 
is to introduce a new feature by aligning 
with the principles of the EAFRD and 
ensuring that a meaningful share of the 
post-2020 funding is delivered through 
CLLD.  
Continue support for international and 
regional organizations (RFMOs, RSCs) 
Broaden scope of support for international 
ocean governance through ; development 
of ocean partnerships with key partners; 
building capacity for better ocean 
governance, conservation and restoration 
of marine biodiversity and sustainable 
blue economies with key partners, 
promote MSP worldwide and 
strengthening; international ocean 
research and data.  
Include support needed to effectively 
implement the external part of the EU 
policy to fight against IUU fishing in the 
form of technical assistance to third 
countries to implement international 
obligations (ex. revision of legal 
frameworks, MCS capacity trainings, 
correct implementation of the EU catch 
certification scheme) and operational 
maintenance/update/development of the 
IT tool for the EU IUU catch certification 
scheme. 
To promote, in line with the EUMSS 
Action Plan, enhanced international 
cooperation on maritime security 
(including on the fight against IUU), 
integrated maritime surveillance 
(particularly CISE), capability 
development and research & innovation, 
risk management and assessment as well 
as dedicated education and training 
activities in the field of maritime security.  
Include support for interagency 

76 

 
 
 
cooperation on coast guard functions, 
established following the revision of the 
mandates of the EFCA, EMSA and 
FRONTEX  

77 

 
 
 
 
 
5.  CLLD IMPLEMENTATION UNDER THE EFF AND THE EMFF 

(1) Fisheries CLLD in the programming period 2007-2013 

Axis  4  of  the  European  Fisheries  Fund  (EFF)  was  used  by  312  Fisheries  Local  Action 
Groups  (FLAGs)  from  21  Member  States  (MS).  It  had  a  budget  of  522  M€  (EFF 
contribution, 11.5% of total EFF budget). FLAGs covered an area of over 850 000 square 
km and a population of over 28 000 000 (based on data from 270 FLAGs for which such 
information is available).  

Number of FLAGs per MS (2007-2013) 

48 

43 

30 

23 

18 

24 

22 

1 

6 

1 

8 

8 

11  11 

10 

6 

14  14 

6 

7 

1 

BE BG CY DE DK EE

ES

FI

FR GR IE

IT

LT

LV NL

PL

PT RO SE

SI UK

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Information collected by the FARNET support unit (FSU) indicates that FLAGs in 2007-
2013 period supported over 11.000 projects. The graph below illustrates the purposes of 
projects (based on a sample of FLAGs from 15 MS, Cap Gemini study of 2014): 

Adding value, creating jobs 
and promoting innovation 

Supporting diversification 

Enhancing and capitalising 
on environmental assets 

Social wellbeing and cultural 
heritage 

Strengthening the role of 
fisheries communities in 
local development 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
According to a FLAG survey carried out by FSU in 2016, projects supported by EFF in 
151 FLAGs which responded to the survey (almost 50% of the total number of FLAGs) 
helped to create nearly 3900 jobs and maintain a further 4500, and to create 1050 new 
businesses.  Approximately  2700  projects  have  specifically  targeted  the  small-scale 
coastal fisheries sector. 

(2) Fisheries CLLD in the period 2014-2020 

In 2014-2020, Union Priority 4 of the EMFF is implemented by 20 Member States who, 
by the end of 2017, had selected 368 FLAGs. Complete data is not yet available, but 228 
FLAGs  cover  an  area  of  nearly  250  000  square  km  and  a  population  of  nearly  24  000 
000. 

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Number of FLAGs per MS (2014-2020)  

55 

41 

29 

33 

23 

8  3 

10  8 

10 

14 

7 

12 

6 

36 

22 

15 

19 

13 

4 

BG CY DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HR IE

IT LT LV PL PT RO SE SI UK

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
These  FLAGs have  at their  disposal  a total budget of 522 M€ (EMFF contribution, ca. 
12% of the EMFF83), plus ca. 170 M€ of national/regional public funding. The average 
total public funding per FLAG by Member State (in M€) is presented below: 

Average budget per FLAG (M€ total public) 

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

3,5 

3,1 

2,2  2,3 

2,5  2,6  2,7 

2,0 

2,1 

2,0 

1,6 

1,7  1,7 

0,8  0,9 

0,9 

1,0 

1,7 

1,3 

1,0 

BG CY DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HR IE IT LT LV PL PT RO SE SI UK

1,9 

EU
av.

According to information collected by FSU, 170 FLAGs for which such data is already 
available have mobilised over 8500 stakeholders (members of the FLAG partnerships), 
of which over 2300 represented the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. 

By the end of December 2017, 1317 projects had been selected for implementation and 
approved by the relevant authority: 

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Number of projects approved by Dec. 2017 

299 

275 

190 

92 

100 

82 

71 

0  0  33 

24  0  0 

9  0 

0  0 

74 

56 

12 

BG CY DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HR IE

IT LT LV PL PT RO SE SI UK

83 adjusted to be comparable with 2007-2013 data, i.e. without UP3 and UP6 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
In nine MS, FLAGs also have access to other ESI funds to implement their local strategy. 
The graph below shows how many FLAGs in those countries use which combination of 
funds:  

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

31 

2 

GR

9 

46 

IT

1 

11 

24 

PL

3 

7 

LT

6 

LV

12 

3 

PT

8 

1 
4 

SE

4 

SI

8 

11 

UK

monofund EMFF

EMFF+EAFRD EMFF+EAFRD+ERDF

EMFF+EAFRD+ERDF+ESF

81 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FLAG SUPPORT TO SMALL SCALE COASTAL FISHERIES 

  Objective & Methodology 

The FARNET Support unit carried out a study to assess the level of support channeled 
through  the  Fisheries  Local  Action  Groups  (FLAGs)  towards  Small  Scale  Coastal 
Fisheries  (SSCF)  as  no  data  was  systematically  collected  on  this  topic.  The  study 
consisted in a survey addressed to all FLAGs in existence in the 2007-2013 programming 
period as well as in 4 case studies on 4 FLAGs which harbored significant SSCF.  The 
definition  of  Small  Scale  Coastal  Fisheries  used  was  based  regulation  508/2014  but 
adapted  to  account  specifically  for  inland  fisheries  and  on  foot  fishing/shellfish 
gathering. 

 

Importance of SSCF in FLAG Areas  

There is a clear tendency for FLAGs to be located in areas with strong SSCF presence: 
50  %  of  surveyed  FLAGs  report  SSCF  to  represent  80  to  100%  of  the  fisheries  sector 
locally.    There  is  a  strong  but  not  systematic  relationship  between  the  importance  of 
SSCF locally and the budget devoted by FLAGs to support SSCF.  

  FLAG Projects 2007-2013 (EFF) 

An  estimated  2682  projects  were  targeted  at  small  scale  coastal  fisheries  in  the  period 
2007-2013 accounting for around 23% of FLAG projects. The share of projects targeting 
SSCF jumps to around 40% if inland areas without commercial fishing are taken out of 
the  population.  In  other  words,  those  FLAGs  where  SSCF  was  potentially  present 
devoted  around  40  %  of  their  projects  to  support  that  segment  of  the  fleet.  Areas  with 
important inland commercial fishing activities (Finland, Estonia) were heavily supported 
by FLAGs. 

  Financial  Support 2007-2013 (EFF) 

The level of total public support (EFF and national co-financing) channeled through the 
FLAGs in support of SSCF for the period 2007-2013 can be estimated was about EUR 
140 million (of which around EUR 90 million EFF and 50 million national co-financing).  
This  represents  close  to  20%  of  the  total  public  money  available  to  the  FLAGs  in  the 
period 2007/2013. 

The  share  of  the  budget  devoted  to  SSCF  increases  to  close  to  30  %  of  total  public 
expenditure if inland areas without commercial fishing are taken out of the population. In 
other words, those FLAGs where SSCF was potentially present devoted around 30 % of 
their budget to support that segment of the fleet. 

  Project Size and Types of Projects (EFF) 

The average size of SSCF projects supported by FLAGs amounts to around EUR 41 000. 
This  is  below  the  average  project  size  of  around  EUR  62  000.  SSCF  projects  are 
therefore generally smaller than other types of projects financed by Axis 4. The two more 
popular  categories  of  projects  are  those  linked  with  product  promotion  and  support  to 
diversification  of  activities  outside  fisheries.  Supporting  forms  of  diversification  within 

82 

 
 
the sector itself and supportto small scale infrastructure and working conditions come not 
far behind.  The types of project supported vary very much per Member State. 

  Non-Financial Support 

90  %  of  FLAG  surveyed  provided non-financial  type  of  support  to  SSCF.    Support  to 
access  funding  from  other  programmes  and  support  to  foster  collaboration  with  other 
stakeholders were the two most common non-financial types of support FLAG provide 
to SSCF. 

  Planned Financial Support 2014-2020 (EMFF) 

Financial  support  to  SSCF  was  expected  to  increase  in  the  current  period  with  several 
elements pointing in the same direction.   An estimate of EUR 210 million was proposed 
but should be treated with caution as it represents a 13% increase in the level of support 
compared  to  the  period  2007-2013.  In  absolute  terms,  this  represents  an  increase  of 
around EUR 70 million.  

83 

 
 
 
 
 
6.  FINANCIAL  INSTRUMENTS  USING  EMFF  –  2014-2020  PROGRAMMING 

PERIOD  

Three  Member  States  have  started  or  intend  to  start  using  EMFF  in  Financial 
Instruments. 

Estonia: 
There are three FI products supported through the EMFF OP: two for the fish processing 
sector and one for the aquaculture sector:  

  Growth  loan  (processing)  fund:  EUR  3.2  m;  started  in  2017;  Loaned:  approx.  EUR 

 

 

300 000 (5 beneficiaries) 
Long – term investment loan( processing):  EUR 4m; started in 2017; Loaned: EUR 
500 000 (2 beneficiaries) 
Investment  loan  for  aquaculture  development:  EUR  4m;  available  from  June  2017 
(no loans to date) 

2018 will be the first year for the Estonia authorities to report on this. 

Spain: 
The EIB is to be the fund manager for a fund of funds (FoF) to promote new investments 
in fishery, aquaculture, fishery transformation industry and the commercialization of the 
products.  According to the Operational Programme under EMFF approved for Spain, a 
total  amount  of  EUR  57m  is  available  for  the  Instrument  (42.75m  EMFF,  14.25m 
national) -of which 25m is earmarked for Galicia. 

Following discussions with MAPAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación 
y  Medio  Ambiente)  and  the  EIB,  it  has  been  decided  to  establish  a  funded  loan 
instrument.  This  is  also  considered  the  most  appropriate  instrument  in  view  of  the 
amount  of  the  FoF.  EMFF  and  national  contribution  will  represent  50%  of  the  loans 
provided to final beneficiaries, the remainder being co-financed by the selected financial 
intermediaries  with  own  funds.  An  EIB  funding  (potentially  under  EFSI)  of  the 
commercial  banks’  contribution  is  envisaged  once  the  participating  commercial  banks 
have been selected. The Fund is due to be launched in June 2018. 

Italy: 
The MA is currently working to setup a financial instrument. In particular, the MA has 
contracted a feasibility study to find out what kind of instruments will be best to address 
market failure and stakeholders expectations. 

On  23  January  2017  MA  entrusted  the  Department  of  Economics  and  Law  of  the 
University of Cassino and Southern Lazio to carry the ex-ante evaluation. Activities are 
now being finalised and the MA expects to be able to launch the financial instruments in 
2018. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7.  OUTERMOST REGIONS AND THE EMFF 

In  the  current  programming  period  (2014-2020),  structural  support  is  available  to 
Outermost  Regions  (OR)  operators  involved  in  fishery  and  aquaculture  with  the  same 
types  of  measures  as  in  the  mainland.  However,  given  that  fishing  activities  in  the 
outermost  regions  of  the  Union  are  facing  difficulties,  in  particular  because  of  their 
remoteness  and  special  climatic  conditions,  the  EMFF  take  into  account  the  particular 
constraints of such regions, recognised in Article 349 TFEU. 

The recognition of the specific characteristics of ORs lies in a higher rate of support for 
most  of  these  measures  (increase  by  35  percentage  points  of  aid  intensity),  except  for 
engine  replacement  for  which  the  aid  intensity  remains  the  same  that  in  the  mainland 
(30%). In the other hand, it was considered necessary to continue to provide support in 
order to offset the additional costs for the fishing, farming, processing and marketing of 
certain  fishery  and  aquaculture  products  from  the  ORs  of  the  Union,  so  that  the 
compensation  contributes  to  the  retaining  of  the  economic  viability  of  operators  from 
those regions. 

Support to ORs under the EMFF is composed of two very separate envelopes: 

  The first consists of the regular structural measures  
  The  second  includes  ring-fenced  amounts  to  compensate  ORs  producers  (catch, 
aquaculture, processing and marketing sectors) for the difference of costs between ORs 
and mainland.  

The  latter  is  a  novelty  of  the  EMFF,  as  it  was  previously  managed  directly  by  the 
Commission under a self-standing regulation. 

Regular structural measures in the OR are the same as for other parts of the EU, except 
that the co-funding rates are higher. The maximum aid intensity (share of public funding 
in the total costs) for the other EMFF measures in the ORs - at 85% - is 35pp higher than 
for other regions84. 

Compensation  for  additional  costs  allows  Member  States  to  allocate  close  to  EUR  200 
million to their OR operators. This amount is ring fenced for the whole of the 2014-2020 
programming  period  as  follows:  Azores  and  Madeira  (EUR  45.2  million,  EUR  6.4 
million per year), Canary Islands (EUR 60.9 million, EUR 8.7 million per year), French 
outermost  regions  (EUR  86.5  million,  EUR  12.3  million  per  year).  This  represents  an 
increase in overall total amounts of almost 50% for PT and ES ORs, and 150% for FR 
ORs.  The  geographic  coverage  was  extended  to  all  FR  ORs  (Mayotte,  Martinique, 
Guadeloupe et Saint Martin, not  previously  covered). The EU co-financing rate for the 
compensation regime remains at 100%.  

84 This applies to all eligible measures (e.g. support for young fishermen, investments on board in health and safety, investments in 

fishing ports, support for control and enforcement and for data collection) with the exception of engine replacement (30%). 

85 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
8.  SUMMARY OF THE STATE OF PLAY OF THE CFP 

Over  the  past  few  years  there  has  been  significant  progress  in  implementing  the  2013 
CFP reform, in particular in the following areas: 

1) Meeting the MSY objective 

According  to  the  latest  assessment  from  the  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF), based on 2015 data, 39 of 66 stocks assessed in the 
North-East Atlantic were exploited within FMSY (equating to 59 %, up from 52 % in the 
previous year).  Median fishing mortality has now stabilised at around 1.0. In 2017, the 
number of total allowable catches (TACs) set in line with MSY advice increased to 44, 
representing 61 % of all catches in the North-East Atlantic. 

Progress  towards  fishing  stocks  at  levels  consistent  with  FMSY  has  continued.  In  all 
TAC  regions  the  rate  of  fishing  above  FMSY  has  decreased  considerably.  Fishing 
compared to FMSY was at 99 % in 2015 (down from 158 % in 2003 and 129 % in 2008). 
Overall, overexploitation has declined drastically across all areas (with the exception of 
the Mediterranean and the Black Sea). 

2) Rebuilding stocks  

Both ICES and the STECF provide information on spawning stock biomass trends for the 
North-East Atlantic and STECF also for the Mediterranean.  

The analysis shows that average biomass in the North-East Atlantic was 35 % higher in 
2015  than  in  2003.  The  percentage  of  stocks  within  safe  biological  limits  is  also 
increasing  in  this  area.  In  2015,  68  %  of  stocks  were  classified  as  being  within  safe 
biological  limits.  A  less  pronounced  upward  trend  is  apparent  for  data-poor  stocks.  By 
contrast,  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  average  biomass  declined  by  20  %  from  2003  until 
2014.  

3) Shaping multiannual plans in line with the reformed CFP 

After  the  adoption  of  the  Baltic  plan  in  2016,  the  Commission  proposed  multiannual 
plans  for  demersal  fish  stocks  in  the  North  Sea  and  for  small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic.  
Whereas a political agreement was reached for the North Sea MAP in late 2017, progress 
in  reaching  agreement  on  the  Adriatic  MAP  is  slow.  The  slow  progress  in  adopting 
MAPs led to a situation in 2017 in which the first generation of discard plans were set to 
expire without the appropriate provisions in place in the MAPs. This led to an adjustment 
of the Basic Regulation to allow for a new set of discard plans.    

4) Decentralising governance 

CFP  governance  has  clearly  shifted  to  a  more  decentralised  governance,  including 
multiannual plans and delegated acts adopted through regionalisation. 

5) Commitments for the Mediterranean and Black Sea  

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to  achieve  environmental,  economic  and  social 
Important  political  agreements 
sustainability have  been reached  – in the Mediterranean  Sea through the Medfish4Ever 
Ministerial declaration, and in the Black Sea through the Bucharest Declaration.  

However, despite this progress, further efforts are needed in particular: 

1)  to bring down the high levels of overfishing in the Mediterranean (with 90% of the stocks 
overfished and the 2 stocks of anchovy and sardines in the Adriatic likely to collapse in the 
near future),  

2)  to  reduce  the  number  of  individual  stocks  exploited  above  FMSY  in  the  North-East 

Atlantic and  

3)  to implement the landing obligation. 

In addition, in 2017 the Commission proposed  a prohibition of eels fishing. Whereas it 
was  initially  foreseen  to  postpone  prohibition  of  eels  fishing  in  December  2018,  it  was 
finally decided at December Council to ban fishing for eel of an overall length of 12 cm 
or  more in EU waters of ICES areas, including the Baltic Sea, for a consecutive three-
month period to be determined by each Member State between 1 September 2018 and 31 
January 2019- when eels are migrating. In addition, the Member States will be required 
to strengthen national management plans in order to protect eels in the inland waters.  

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.  CONTRIBUTION ON INTERNATIONAL OCEAN GOVERNANCE TO THE EMFF 

POST-2020 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Oceans  play  a  cross-cutting  and  central  role  for  human  well-being.  They  provide  vital 
services  to  people  and  the  planet  including  food,  nutrition,  climate  regulation,  oxygen 
production  and  hold  a  strong  potential  for  economic  growth.  However,  the  oceans' 
capacities  to  provide  these  services  are  strongly  impaired  to  date  for  example  by 
pollution, ocean warming and acidification, over-exploitation of marine resources, illegal 
and  criminal  activities.  The  situation  is  expected  to  aggravate  with  climate  change  and 
further growth of the world population. A transformation towards better conservation and 
sustainable use of oceans is urgently needed. Challenges to ocean sustainability in light 
of their essential role for sustainable development are increasingly in the focus of major 
policy discussions and processes. 

  The UN recognized the need for ocean sustainability by adopting a dedicated goal for 
oceans  as  part  of  the  2030  Agenda  (SDG14)  in  2015  and  organising  the  first  UN 
High  Level  conference  on  oceans  in  June  2017.  The  call  for  action  adopted  at  the 
conference confirmed the urgent need for action and implementation of SDG 14. 
  The G7 summit in  2015 adopted an action  plan to  combat  marine litter,  which was 

echoed by a statement at the G20 in 2017.  

  The OECD report on the "Ocean Economy in 2030" recognized the strong potential 
of the ocean to boost economic growth while highlighting the need to tackle existing 
challenges to ocean health and sustainability and ensuring further growth in respect 
of ecosystem boundaries.  

  Growing  recognition  of  the  oceans  double  role  vis  a  vis  climate  change  in  being 
subject to climate change effects and mitigating its impacts in the process under the 
Paris agreement as reflected in the discussions and outcome of the COP23 in Bonn, 
November 2017. 

  The Our Ocean Conference organised by the EU on 5 and 6 October 2017 in Malta, 
spurring  more  than  400  commitments  from  112  countries  and  by  other  public  and 
private  actors  around  the  world  reached  over  €6  billion  focusing  to  strengthen  the 
fight  against  marine  pollution,  enlarge  protected  areas,  reinforce  security  of  the 
oceans, foster blue economy initiatives and sustainable fisheries and intensify the EU 
efforts against climate change.  

  The  urgent  need  to  act  for  ocean  sustainability  and  the  need  for  further  dedicated 
research in this regard has also been confirmed by the report of the high-level group 
chaired  by  Pascal  Lamy  to  maximise  the  impact  of  R&I  programmes  which 
specifically  mentions  "keeping  our  oceans  clean  and  productive"  as  one  the  global 
societal challenges of our time. 

Delivering  ocean  sustainability  and  tackling  the  underlying  challenges  to  it,  while 
facilitating  economic  development  requires  an  ocean  governance  framework  fit  for 
purpose.  There  is  general  consensus  that  the  current  system  for  ocean  governance  is 
highly  fragmented  and  incomplete and  its  efficiency limited  by  lack  of  implementation 
and  coordination,  illegal  activities  inadequate  engagement  of  all  relevant  actors  and 
stakeholders, knowledge gaps and a partly ill-suited monitoring and advisory system. 

The  EC  jointly  with  the  EEAS  therefore  adopted  an  agenda  to  strengthen  international 
ocean governance (IOG)  in  November 2016 to  ensure that oceans  are safe, secure, and 

88 

 
 
clean and sustainability managed. The IOG agenda for the future of our oceans is a major 
building  block  in  the  EU's  response  to  the  2030  Agenda,  particularly  the  ocean  goal, 
SDG14. It specifies 50 actions in 15 categories under three strands of work: 

1) Improving the international ocean governance framework 
2)  Reducing pressures on oceans and seas and creating the conditions for a sustainable 
blue economy 
3) Strengthening international ocean research and data 

Some examples of the actions and the related rationale are as follows: 

 

Important instruments for oceans governance, such as the FAO Port State Measures 
Agreement  to  Prevent,  Deter  and  Eliminate  Illegal,  Unreported  and  Unregulated 
Fishing, need to be, ratified and be effectively implemented.   

  Regional  Fisheries  Management  Organisations  (RFMOs)  are  the  key  international 
organisations  for  the  conservation  and  sustainable  use  of  marine  resources, 
including straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. In line of this, it is therefore 
important  to  increase  participation  in  relevant  international  instruments  particularly 
the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.  

  Overfishing  and  overcapacity  of  fleets  harm  the  sustainable  management  of  fish 
stocks.  We  need  to  urgently  address  harmful  fisheries  subsidies.  (Following  the 
Ministerial  Conference  10-13  December  2017,  in  Buenos  Aires  failure  to  agree  a 
draft  text  on  subsidy  prohibitions  relating  to  (IUU)  fishing  and  overfished  stocks, 
even more).  

  We  need  to  protect  biodiversity.  We  need  to  meet  the  agreed  target  to  conserve  at 
least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas in the coming three years. We will also 
need the UN to convene the Intergovernmental Conference next year to negotiate an 
implementing  Agreement  under  the  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Law  of 
the  Sea  (UNCLOS)  on  marine  biodiversity  beyond  national  jurisdiction,  which 
can enable the establishment and management of marine protected areas in the high 
seas.  

  We  need  to  overcome  our  current  fragmented  approach:  we  need  to  improve 
cooperation and coordination between international bodies that carry responsibility 
for ocean management.  

  Developing countries  need support to build their capacity to  develop a sustainable 

ocean economy.  

  Building on the universal application of the UNCLOS, maritime multilateralism and 
the  rule  of  law  at  sea,  including  the  importance  of  cooperation  should be  promoted 
for the benefit of global maritime security.  

  Oceans  are  important  regulators  for  our  climate.  It  is  therefore  key  that  the  Paris 
Agreement is implemented with an ambitious strategy and targets set by countries to 
reduce  greenhouse  gases.  Meanwhile,  we  all  need  to  take  measures  and  support 
those  in  need  to  deal  with  the  consequences  of  ocean  warming,  sea-level  rise  and 
acidification.  

  Marine pollution, particularly from land-based activities and from plastics, needs to 
be tackled – a circular economy based on the "three Rs": Reduce, Reuse and Recycle, 
is to be promoted to rethink waste management: from production to consumption, so 
that waste leakage into the environment is minimised.    

89 

 
 
 
  New  technologies  need  to  be  developed  and  embraced  to  further  advance  our 
knowledge  and  understanding  of  the  oceans.  Global  marine  research  and  science 
partnerships  need  to  be  facilitated  across  the  globe  spanning  a  worldwide  marine 
data network open to all. 

A  full  list  of  the  50  actions  specified  to  deliver  these  work  strands  is  provided  in  the 
annex.  As  indicated  in  the  list,  several  of  these  actions  aim  to  be  achieved  by  2020  or 
earlier. However, it is important to note that several of these like the UNGA decision to 
start  the  negotiation  of  an  intergovernmental  Instrument  under  UNCLOS  on  the 
conservation  and  sustainable  use  of  marine  biodiversity  in  areas  beyond  national 
jurisdiction  (BBNJ)  are  just  the  beginning  and  will  require  follow-up  actions.  Others 
marked  as  "ongoing"  will  have  to  be  continued  beyond  2020.  Finally,  with  the  global 
discourse on oceans developing, new ones will emerge.85 

The EU plays a major role in International Ocean  Governance with being a member in 
almost  all  relevant  global  and  regional  fora  and  numerous  bilateral  relations  with  key 
ocean players. Furthermore, European business & industry is engaged in many maritime 
activities which are not limited to the EU waters, e.g. fisheries, transport, cruise industry, 
seabed  mining,  biotech,  ocean  energy.  This  brings  high  responsibility  and  the  need  for 
ensuring a level playing field for competitiveness. 

The IOG agenda facilitates the EU to use its position and interests to take a leading role 
in  shaping  and  advancing  ocean  governance  in  the  international  context  to  ensure  an 
adequate and enforceable ocean governance framework.  

Risk of non-delivery 

Not  delivering  on  International  Ocean  Governance  will  not  only  threaten  the  EU's 
economic,  environmental  and  security  interests  in  relation  to  oceans,  seas  and  marine 
resources but also undermine the EU's role as a key ocean player and question its stated 
commitment  to  the  delivery  of  key  global  processes  like  the  Agenda  2030,  the  Paris 
Agreement, the UN process on establishing a legally binding instrument for BBNJ or the 
WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies to name just a few. 

85 DG MARE will present a progress report in 2018 and initiate a process for planning the next, "post-2020" IOG  Agenda phase. 

90 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
International Ocean Governance: an agenda for the future of our oceans 

List of Actions  

Action 

Timing 

1.  Filling the gaps in the international ocean governance framework 

and 

Ongoing  

2017 
2018 

1.1. Work with Member States and international partners for 
adoption, 
implementation  of  ocean 
ratification 
governance instruments. 
FAO Port State Measures Agreement:  
- Inception meeting  
-  Adoption  of  Article  21  Trust  Fund  at  FAO  Committee  of 
Fisheries 
1.2. UNGA decision to hold an intergovernmental conference 
for the negotiation of an intergovernmental Instrument under 
UNCLOS on the conservation  and sustainable use  of marine 
biodiversity  in  areas  beyond  national  jurisdiction  (BBNJ) 
based  on  the  recommendations  by  the  BBNJ  Preparatory 
Committee in 2016 and 2017. 
1.3. Support international efforts for the protection of marine 
biodiversity in relevant international institutions  
1.4. Produce guidance on the exploration and exploitation of 
natural  resources  on  the  seabed  in  areas  under  national 
jurisdiction 
1.5. Pursue regional initiatives for sustainable development 
and/or safety and security in sea basins outside the EU. 
2.  Promoting regional fisheries management and cooperation in key ocean areas to 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

By 2018 

2017 

fill regional governance gaps 

2.1..Support a multilateral agreement or RFMO to prevent 
unregulated high seas fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean 
2.2. Support the upgrading of the Fishery Committee for the 
Eastern  Central  Atlantic  and  the  Western  Central  Atlantic 
Fishery Commission.  

2017-2018 

By 2020 

CECAF:  availability  of  a  study  on  cost  and  benefits  of 
different options for the status of CECAF 

WECAFC decision in on way forward  

2.3.  Support  regional  fisheries  bodies  and  initiatives  in 
improving  cooperation  between  countries  on  issues  such  as 
IUU fishing. 
Establishment  of  IUU  procedures  in  all  RFMOs,  their 
harmonisation  and  mutual  recognition  of  IUU  listings  in  all 
relevant RFMOs 
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean 
(GFCM): development of a holistic regional plan of action to 
fight IUU fishing. 

2017 

2018 

Ongoing  

By 2020. 

2017 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.4. Promote improvements to the functioning of existing 
regional fisheries management bodies including regular 
performance reviews. 
Second performance reviews in all RFMOs to which the EU 
is party [for IATTC the first performance review] 

By 2020 

3.  Improving coordination and cooperation between international organisations 

and launching Ocean Partnerships for ocean management 

3.1.  Support  better  cooperation  and  coordination  between 
global  and  regional  organisations  with  a  mandate  related  to 
the oceans, including through new or existing frameworks. 
UNEA 2 Oceans and Seas 

RFMO coordination mechanism established 
3.2.  Support  better  coordination  between  RFMOs  and 
regional seas conventions (RSCs) and cooperation with global 
organisations. 
Priority under EU HELCOM presidency 
ICCAT-OSPAR cooperation agreement 
3.3.  Support  global  efforts  for  the  protection  of  marine 
biodiversity such as: 

 

the priority actions adopted by the 12th meeting of 
the  Conference  of  the  Parties  to  the  CBD  on 
marine and coastal biodiversity 

  decisions 

identifying 

Ecologically 

and 

Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs)   

Ongoing 

review 

As  of  2016-progress 
review  by  December 
2017 
2020 
Progress 
December 2017 
Progress review by June 
2018 
2018 
Regular  review  by  CBD 
COPs  

by 

by 

3.4.  Ensure  the  effective  implementation  of  decisions  taken 
for the protection of marine species at the CITES CoP 16 and 
17 
3.5.  Support  strengthening  UN-Oceans,  in  the  context  of  the 
upcoming review of its mandate 
3.6. Propose to develop ocean partnerships with key players.  As of 2017 

Regular 
CITES COPs 

2017 

review 

4.  Capacity Building 

4.1.  Promote  and  build capacity  for  better  ocean  governance 
and  sustainable  blue  economies  with  EU  partners  –  in 
particular  in  the  Pacific  ocean,  in  the  Indian  Ocean  and  in 
Western Africa. 
4.2. Engage in maritime security capacity-building with other 
countries  and  regional  organisations  –notably  in  the  Gulf  of 
Guinea and in the Indian Ocean. 
4.3.  Support  the  development  of  a  robust,  evidence-based 
Blue Economy Development Framework. 
4.4.  Identify  ways  to  improve  ocean  governance  through  the 
implementation  of  the  SDGs,  including  capacity  building  in 
focus areas, such as the Gulf of Guinea, South-East Asia. 

Ongoing/As of 2016 

2017 

As of 2017 

As of 2017-2030 

4.5.  Promote  technical  cooperation  in  collaboration  with  the 
IMO aimed at bolstering implementation and enforcement of 

2018 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IMO instruments. 
4.6. Support capacity building towards a blue economy in the 
Mediterranean, in the context of the Union for the 
Mediterranean and other organisations, including the 
Barcelona Convention 

2017-2018 

5.  Ensuring the safety and security of seas and oceans 

5.1.  Build  on  the  EUMSS  to  reduce  and  eliminate  maritime 
security threats and risks 
the  exchange  of  cross-sectoral  maritime 
5.2.  Enhance 
surveillance  information  between  Member  States,  and  with 
non EU countries. 
5.3.  Assess  how  to  facilitate  the  interoperability  of  maritime 
surveillance environments, such as the CISE. 
5.4.  Launch  a  pilot  project  to  monitor  illegal  fishing 
worldwide, 
expanding 
explore  possibilities 
monitoring to other sectors. 

and 

for 

2017 

2018-2020 

2018-2020 

As of 2017 

6.  Implementing the COP21 Agreement and mitigating the harmful impact of 

climate change on oceans, coastlines and ecosystems 

6.1. Step up work with international partners on joint action to 
protect and restore marine and coastal ecosystems.  
6.2. Launch international public-private partnerships aimed at 
restoring, adapting or developing ‘green/blue infrastructure’. 
6.3. Promote the inclusion of ocean-related action in national 
follow-up to the commitments under the Paris Agreement. 
Present state of play in the Global Stock take exercise as laid 
down in the Paris Agreement.  
6.4. Propose international action to follow up on the 
consequences inter alia of ocean warming, sea-level rise and 
acidification. 

As of 2017 

By 2020 

As of 2017 

2018 

2018 

7.  Fighting illegal fishing and strengthening the sustainable management of ocean 

food resources globally 

7.1.  Improving  current  systems  and  supporting  Member 
States in ensuring efficient controls through the development 
of electronic tools on IUU. 
7.2.  Strengthen  cooperation  on  IUU  with  third  countries 
through 

  capacity-building and partnership with EFCA. 
  Use  of  available  EU  development  funding  to  support 

As of 2018 

As of 2017 

action on IUU. 

  Addressing  IUU-related  challenges  such  as  forced 
labour  and  other  forms  of  work  that  violate  human 
rights 

7.3.   Cooperate  with  non-EU  countries  through  bilateral 
(pre-identification, 
dialogues 

processes 

formal 

and 

Ongoing 

93 

 
 
 
identification and listing) under the IUU Regulation. 
7.4. Promote multilateral action on IUU, including: 

 

 

 

the  creation  of  a  global  fleet  register;  Termination  of 
Phase I 
the  allocation  of  a  unique  vessel  identifier  (IMO 
number) to commercial fishing vessels; Application of 
IMO numbers in all RFMOs for vessels above 100 GT 
the  adoption  of  guidelines  to  develop  and  implement 
catch 
catch 
certificate). 

documentation 

schemes 

(global 

7.5.  Strengthen  the  role  of  Interpol  in  the  fight  against  IUU 
fishing 
7.6. Strengthen supervision of the EU's external fishing fleet 
wherever it operates, in line with the proposed regulation on 
sustainable management. 

8.  Banning harmful fisheries subsidies 

2018 

By 2018  

2017  

Ongoing 

(FAR  adoption  by  EP 
and Council in 2017) 

8.1. Engage in multilateral negotiations in the WTO to ban, 
by 2020, subsidies that contribute to overcapacity, overfishing 
and IUU fishing. 
Decision at WTO Ministerial Conference 

October 2016 

2017 

9.  Fighting marine litter and the sea of plastic 

9.1. Propose action on Marine Litter:  

 
 

a strategy on plastics, addressing marine litter 
address sea-based sources of marine litter, through the revision of 
the Port Reception Facilities Directive and, if necessary, 
additional action relating to fishing activities and aquaculture. 

  Contribute to the assessment of governance strategies and 

approaches to combating marine plastic litter and microplastics, 
as requested by the UN Environment Assembly. 
provide financial support, to improve capacity to collect marine 
litter and the availability of data on litter concentrations in seas 
around the EU. 
propose to strengthen the institutional framework through better 
coordination of international efforts, the G7 plan to combat 
marine litter, and the global partnership on marine litter. 
promote marine litter action plans focusing on i.a. RSCs around 
Europe. 

 

 

 

2017 
2017-2019 

2017 

2017-2020 

Ongoing 

Progress review by 
December 2017 

10. Promoting maritime spatial planning at global level 

10.1.  Launch  work  towards  proposals  for  international 
guidelines on MSP 

2017 

11.  Achieving the global target of conserving 10% of marine and coastal areas and promoting the 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
effective management of MPAs 

11.1. Promote the exchange of best practices and support 
efforts towards coherent networks of MPAs. 
11.2. Promote coordinated action on MPAs: 

 

regional and international cooperation to develop long-term, 
sustainable financing mechanisms, for MPAs 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

  Complete an MPA twinning project on best practices and 

capacity building in the Atlantic from Europe to Africa, North 
and South America 

2016-2017 

  Provide funding under Horizon2020 and LIFE for marine 

research essential for the establishment of marine protected areas 
and liaise with international partners 

Ongoing 

12. A coherent EU strategy on ocean observation, data and marine accounting 

12.1.  Propose  a  coherent  ocean  observation  in  line  with  the 
G7 Tsukuba Communiqué. 
12.2.  Present  proposal 
international marine data collection efforts 
12.3.  Significantly  strengthen  the  integrated  system  for 
natural 
accounting 
services 
ecosystem 
(Commission, EEA and international partners).  

to  align  EMODnet  with  other 

capital 

and 

2018 

2018 

As of 2017 

13. Strengthening investment in ‘blue’ science and innovation  

13.1. Set up a ‘blue-science cloud pilot’  
13.2. Work with G7 partners to advance the new G7 ‘Future 
of the Oceans’ initiative on research and observation of the 
oceans and seas. 

2018 
2017 

14. International ocean research, innovation and science partnerships  

14.1. Develop marine research and science partnerships with 
key partners, including in the context of global alliances such 
as the Belmont Forum or the Group on Earth Observations 
14.2.  Strengthen  work  on  an  All-Atlantic  Ocean  Research 
Alliance 

14.3. Advance work to include southern Mediterranean 
countries in the BLUEMED initiative 
14.4. Strengthen science, research and innovation 
involvement in the Black Sea under the Black Sea Synergy. 

15. Working with stakeholders 

Ongoing 

2017 

2017 

2017-2018 

15.1. Set up an EU international oceans stakeholder forum  

October 2017 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10.  RESULTS OF THE SIMPLIFICATION SURVEY  

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MARITIME AFFAIRS AND FISHERIES 

Brussels, 5 August, 2015 

REPORT 

on the results of the survey on simplification in the EMFF 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

The  new  regulatory  framework  as  agreed  by  the  co-legislators  by  May  2014  has 
been  to  establish  rules  that  simplify  the  legal  framework,  enhance  the  principle  of 
proportionality  and  reduce  administrative  burden  both  for  beneficiaries  and  for 
Member  States  managing  the  funds.  In  addition  to  the  general  provisions  on  the 
reduction  of  administrative  burden  and  the  application  of  the  principle  of 
proportionality, the regulatory framework comprises several concrete simplification 
measures.  Besides  simplification  which  is  directly  achieved  by  specific  provisions, 
the  new  regulatory  framework  establishes  some  simplification  options  which  the 
Member States can decide to implement. 

In  June  2015,  when  out  of  the  27  beneficiary  Member  States86  24  countries  have 
already  formally  submitted  their  operational  programmes,  DG  MARE  launched  a 
questionnaire on simplification to map up the take-up of those simplification options 
provided by the legislative framework, to have an overview on what Member States 
are planning to do to simplify access to and implementation of funds by beneficiaries 
and to better understand eventual obstacles they face during this exercise. 

This report provides a concise summary and analysis of the replies of Member States 
to the questionnaire. 

2.  PARTICIPATION IN THE SURVEY 

86 One Member State, Luxembourg decided not to be a beneficiary of the EMFF and informed the European Commission on this 

decision in a letter. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The questionnaire was launched via the Commission's EUSurvey application on 22 
May 2015 with a 3-week deadline that has been extended once until 26 June 2015 to 
have a better coverage of Member States. 

By that final deadline, altogether 18 completed questionnaires were submitted by the 
following Member States: BE, CZ, DK, DE, IE, FR, HR, CY, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, 
PT, RO, SI, SK and UK. 

Although, the Member States completed the questionnaire represent only 47.65% in 
terms of the EMFF national allocations under shared management, they cover 62.8% 
of the population of the EU and more than half of the European Union from fisheries 
and aquaculture policy point of view: 

 

 

in  terms  of  fisheries  fleet  capacity  (53.46%  considering  engine  power  and 
55.24% considering vessel tonnage); 

in  terms  of  aquaculture  production  (51.55%  considering  the  volume  of 
production and 58.7% considering the value of production). 

3.  PART I - GENERAL BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS SIMPLIFICATION 

Member  States  consider  the  importance  of  simplification  of  access  to  and 
implementation of the EMFF quite high (on an average 4.3 and 4.5 on a scale from 0 
to 5). There is a slight difference in favour of the implementation that is considered 
more  important.  We  may  assume  that  this  could  be  explained  by  the  regulatory 
framework itself: the relatively detailed requirements for Member States concerning 
information  and  publicity  to  the  potential  beneficiaries  as  well  as  the  guidance  to 
beneficiaries  elaborated  by  the  Commission  in  accordance  with  Article  13  of  the 
CPR  already  provided  substantial  information  for  the  effective  access  to  the  ESI 
Funds.  The  realistic  self-assessment  of  Member  States  demonstrates  that  although 
the  competent  authorities  at 
level  made  already  efforts  for 
simplification, nevertheless, still there is room for improvement. There was only one 
Member State (HU) that evaluated its own performance higher than the importance 
of simplification. 

the  national 

4.  PART II – SIMPLIFICATION OPTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE EMFF 

The EMFF Regulation provides for options for simplification that are very specific 
for the fund and their implementation is subject to a political choice by the national 
level competent authorities.  

a.  Accelerated  procedure  for  operations  not  exceeding  4,000  EUR  in  certain 

measures 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Articles  27  and  49  of  the  EMFF  Regulation  on  advisory  services  in  fisheries  and 
aquaculture  respectively  allow  for  the  establishment  of  an  accelerated  selection 
procedure for operation where  support from the EMFF remains below 4,000 EUR. 
Given the small size of the operation in terms of financing, the accelerated procedure 
could be coupled with a more limited volume of the content of the applications. The 
take-up  of  these  provisions  could  be  beneficial  particularly  for  small  beneficiaries 
(eg. natural persons or SMEs). 

In fisheries, two third of the Member States (FR, HR, IE, LT, PT, RO) that included 
this  measure  into  their  operational  programme  made  the  choice  to  establish  such 
accelerated procedures. In aquaculture this ratio is 60% (CY, FR, HR, IE, PT, RO). 
However, in the current phase of implementation none of them actually established 
those procedures, therefore we do not have information yet about the potential extent 
of simplification within this measure. 

b.  Advance payment to beneficiaries in certain measures 

Articles 62 and 66 of the EMFF Regulation allows for the Member States to provide 
advance  payment  to  the  beneficiaries  of  these  measures  up  to  50%  of  the  public 
support.  This  could  increase  the  liquidity  of  the  beneficiary  and  thus  facilitate  the 
implementation of respective operations on the ground.  

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In case of community-led local development (Article 62 of the EMFF), the advance 
payment  should  not  be  more  than  50%  of  public  support  to  running  cost  and 
animation.  So,  this  indicates  that  the  objective  of  providing  advance  payment  is 
clearly the facilitation of the launch of implementation of such operations. The need 
for  that  is  also  justified  by  the  statistics:  83%  of  the  replying  Member  States  (CY, 
DK,  FR,  HR,  IE,  LT,  LV,  PT,  RO,  SI)  will  provide  this  advance  payment  to  their 
beneficiaries.  

In  case  of  preparation  and  implementation  of  Production  and  Marketing  Plans 
(PMPs),  support  to  Producer  Organisations  (POs)  is  obligatory  in  accordance  with 
the policy legislation, and advance payment could help overcoming the gap between 
the delayed launch of implementation of the EMFF programmes and the continuous 
activities  of  the  POs.  Despite  the  difficulties,  only  57%  of  the  Member  States  that 
included this measure into  their operational programme (DK, FR, HR, IE, LT, PT, 
RO, UK) decided to provide advance payment to the Producer Organisations.  

There  are  several  Member  States  (DK,  FR,  LV,  SI)  that  have  already  put  in  place 
provisions at national level to provide the advance payment. 

c.  Special  rules  of  calculation  of  supporting  compensation  of  mollusc  farmers 
allowing for companies with less than three years of activity (article 55.2) 

The  EMFF  may  support  compensation  to  mollusc  farmers  for  the  temporary 
suspension  of  harvesting  of  farmed  molluscs,  where  such  suspension  occurs  for 
public  health  reasons.  However,  one  of  the  conditions  of  such  support  is  that  the 
threshold  of  the  loss  resulting  from  the  suspension  of  the  harvest  should  be 
calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  average  turnover  of  the  business  over  the  three 
calendar  years  preceding  the  year  in  which  the  suspension  was  introduced.  This 
implies that only those aquaculture farms could be eligible that have at least 3 years 
of  record  of  functioning.  However,  the  EMFF  Regulation  allows  for  the  Member 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
State  to  establish  special  calculation  rules  in  respect  of  companies  with  less  than 
three years of activity. This would enable the access to financing also for relatively 
newly established companies. 

While the use of this measure is relatively low (72% of replying Member States do 
not finance this measure from the EMFF), only 40% of the Member States (HR, FR) 
which included this measure into their operational programme opted for establishing 
this  special  calculation  and  ensuring  access  to  funding  for  a  wider  range  of 
aquaculture companies. 

d.  For the purposes of aquaculture stock insurance, establishment of criteria in 
advance  on  the  basis  of  which  the  formal  recognition  of  the  occurrence  of 
circumstances listed shall be deemed to be granted (article 57.3) 

The  EMFF  may  contribute  to  an  aquaculture  stock  insurance  covering  economic 
losses  of  aquaculture  farmers  in  case  of  unforeseen  natural  disasters  or  adverse 
climatic events, changes in water quality or diseases. The occurrence of such events 
should  be  formally  recognised  by  the  responsible  authorities  of  the  Member  State. 
Nevertheless, the Member State may establish the criteria in advance on the basis of 
which  formal  recognition  is  deemed  to  be  provided.  This  arrangement  could 
substantially  accelerate  the  granting  of  such  financing  for  beneficiaries  who  are 
anyway in a difficult situation. 

Only one third  of the replying  Member  States (FR, HR,  IE, LT, PT,  RO) included 
this measure into their operational programme, and out of those half of them (FR, IE, 
RO) will put in practice this option for simplification. 

5.  PART III – APPLICATION OF SIMPLIFIED COST OPTIONS (SCO) 

One  of  the  key  features  for  simplification  in  the  2014-2020  is  that  based  on  the 
previous experiences in cohesion policy the possibility of using the Simplified Cos 
Options  (SCOs)  has  been  extended  to  the  EMFF  as  well.  Without  the  risk  of 
increasing  the  error  rate,  SCOs  could  substantially  accelerate  reimbursement 
procedures  while  they  reduce  the  administrative  burden  of  the  beneficiary,  for 
instance in relation to the retention of documents.  

Despite  all  of  those  advantages,  only  slightly  more  than  50  %  of  the  replying 
Member States plan to use the SCOs in the context of the EMFF. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
Among those Member States who do not plan to establish SCOs at all (BE, CY, CZ, 
HU, LT, LV, PT, SK) or will establish those only on a very limited scale (DE, FR, 
NL, RO, SI) – alleged obstacles or difficulties that could justify their position were 
as follows: 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(The numbers following the indication of a particular difficulty indicate the number 
of MS that referred to it, whereas multiple replies were possible.) 

While we believe that there needs to be a critical mass in place for the effective use 
of  the  SCOs,  there  seems  to  be  no  correlation  between  the  policy  choice  made  in 
relation to the use of the SCOs and the relative share of allocation within the EMFF. 

Article 67(1)(b)-(d) of the CPR defines the different types of SCOs available in the 
context of the EMFF. Member States that want to fully exploit the potential of SCOs 
(DK, HR, IE, MT, UK) or to use them at least on a limited scale, made the following 
choices as regards the different types of SCOs: 

While  the  expectations  towards  SCOs  are  high,  none  of  the  Member  States  has 
previous  experiences  with  SCOs  in  the  period of  2007-2013  and  only  one  of  them 
(NL) has already established the methodology. In the remaining 9 Member States the 
elaboration of methodologies is in progress. 

Article 67 of the CPR allows for different methodologies along which lump sums or 
standard  scales  of  unit  cost  (SSUC)  may  be  established.  The  choices  for  different 
options by Member States are as follows (multiple replies were allowed): 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For both, lump sums and SSUC, the majority of the Member States (55% for lump 
sums, 64% for SSUC) decided to apply the fair, equitable and verifiable calculation 
method.  Reusing  SCOs  applicable  in  other  Union  policies  or  those  funded  entirely 
by the Member State itself were not so popular. This might be probably due to the 
lack of knowledge of SCOs in other policies or the lack of SCOs financed entirely 
from national resources. 

As  regards  flat  rates,  Article  68  of  the  CPR  provides  for  different  methods  of  flat 
rates for financing indirect costs. Out of those methodologies 

  4  Member  States  (DK,  IE,  MT,  UK)  will  use  the  flat  rate  of  up  to  25%  of 
eligible  direct  costs  pursuant  to  paragraph  (1)(a)  of  Article  68  of  the  CPR; 
and 

  4  Member  States  (DE,  HR,  IE,  NL)  will  apply  the  flat  rate  up  to  15%  of 
eligible  direct  staff  costs  pursuant  to  paragraph  (1)(b)  of  Article  68  of  the 
CPR. 

As  regards  the  intervention  logic  within  the  EMFF,  establishment  of  SCOs  will 
benefit the following Union priorities and measures the most: 

  at the level of Union priorities: 

o 

the highest ratio of application of SCOs (70% of Member States using 
SCOs)  is  for  the  Union  priority  on  "Fostering  environmentally 
sustainable, 
and 
knowledge based aquaculture".  

competitive 

innovative, 

efficient, 

resource 

o  More than half (60%) of the Member States that wish to make use of 
the  SCOs,  will  apply  them  for  the  Union  priorities  on  "Promoting 
environmentally 
innovative, 
competitive  and  knowledge  based  fisheries"  and  "Fostering  the 
implementation of the CFP"; 

sustainable, 

efficient, 

resource 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
o  In case of the Union priority on "Fostering the implementation of the 
Integrated  Maritime  Policy"  as  well  as  for  technical  assistance,  the 
use of SCOs shows the lowest rate (3 out of 10 Member States); 

  at the level of measures: 

o 

the  use  of  SCOs  among  the  measures  is  fairly  balanced,  there  is  no 
measure  that  would  be  particularly  preferred  in  the  context  of  the 
SCOs.  For  each  measures,  on  an  average  2-3  Member  States  will 
apply  SCOs.  The  only  exceptions  from  this  general  observation  are 
the two measures in Union priority 3 ("Fostering the implementation 
of  the  CFP"):  Data  collection  and  Control  and  enforcement.  Here, 
more than half (6 out of 10) of the Member States wish to establish 
SCOs. 

There  seems  to  be  only  a  very  limited  differentiation  in  the  use  of  SCOs  when 
considering the beneficiaries of such schemes:  

In  the  10  Member  States  that  plans  to  put  in  practice  SCOs  in  the  context  of  the 
EMFF,  the  biggest  beneficiaries  of  such  schemes  seem  to  be  SMEs  and  public 
bodies,  while  surprisingly  natural  persons  (fishermen)  are  granted  with  this 
possibility on a somewhat lower scale. 

6.  PART IV – E-COHESION 

In cohesion policy, all communication between the beneficiaries and the competent 
authorities taking part in the implementation of the Funds is carried out by means of 
electronic  data  exchange  systems  (this  provision  is  labelled  as  "e-cohesion"). 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member States should establish the necessary technical environment and enable such 
communication by the end of 2015. 

In  case  of  the  EMFF,  the  provisions  concerning  "e-cohesion"  do  not  apply. 
Nevertheless,  several  Member  States  plan  to  apply  or  introduce  it  for  the  period 
2014-2020  on  a  voluntary  basis.  Only  about  11%  of  the  replying  Member  States 
indicated  not  making  use  of  the  benefits  of  such  a  paperless  management  and 
communication system. 

Around one fifth of the Member States (CZ, FR, LV, MT) already had in place this 
data exchange system in the previous period and the same amount of Member States 
(IE,  NL,  SI,  UK)  will  newly  establish  fully  fledged  data  exchange  system  for  the 
purposes of the EMFF. Almost half of the Member States (BE, CY, DK, HR, HU, 
LT, PT, SK) will only apply paperless communication system only partly (in most of 
the cases only for the project application and appraisal process). 

Member States (DE and RO) that decided not to establish such information systems 
referred to either their federal system of public administration (DE) as an obstacle or 
the lack of financial resources (RO). 

7.  PART V – STATISTICS ON PROCEDURES 

The survey also aimed at collecting certain baseline data of administrative burden on 
different  types  of  beneficiaries  in  certain  procedures  at the national  level  or  lower. 
Due to the very early stage of implementation of EMFF programmes, these data are 
mostly based on experiences in the 2007-2013 period. 

The  average  volume  of  project  applications  vary  between  15  and  35  pages,  but 
within this range clearly SMEs need to prepare the most extensive documentation for 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
accessing funds. The average volume of project application by SMEs is 33.5% more 
than  for  natural  persons  that  are  in  the  most  advantageous  situation,  but  also  17% 
more  compared  to  Producer  Organisations  that  are  in  the  second  worst  position. 
While  the  SMEs  are  in  a  clearly  disadvantaged  situation,  for  the  other  types  of 
beneficiaries the volume of applications is more balanced. 

These  averages,  nevertheless,  cover  wide  ranges  of  replies.  Most  of  the  replies 
placed the average volume of application between 10 and 50 pages, for each type of 
beneficiaries  there  was  at  least  one  Member  State  where  the  average  volume  of  a 
project application is over 100 pages. 

A similar tendency can be observed as regards the average period of time needed for 
the  appraisal  of  the  applications  (ie.  from  the  moment  of  submission  of  project 
application until the decision is made by the Managing Authority). 

SMEs  need  to  wait  for  the  longest  period  of  time  to  receive  information  on  the 
official  decision  of  the  Managing  Authority  on  their  project  applications.  On  an 
average, project appraisal for operations where the beneficiary is a SME takes 16.5% 
longer  than  in  case  of  natural  persons,  13.4%  longer  than  in  case  of  Producer 
Organisations and 10% longer than in case of public beneficiaries. 

Within  the  limits  set  by  the  averages,  most  of  the  member  States  assumed  the 
average time period needed for the appraisal of project applications between 15 and 
90 working days. Nevertheless, in case of public bodies and Producer Organisations, 
there  are  two  member  States  where  this  procedure  takes  more  than  120  working 
days. In one Member State the same refer to SMEs as well. 

The relative position of the different types of beneficiaries is only slightly different 
in case of reimbursement to beneficiaries (ie. observing the average length of period 
of time from submission of a payment claim by the beneficiary to the actual payment 
to the same beneficiary).  

106 

 
 
 
 
 
Here,  public  bodies  and  SMEs  share  the  most  disadvantaged  situation  of  having 
longest average period of time (appr. 48.5 working days) waiting for their costs to be 
reimbursed. Nevertheless, this is still substantially less than the legal obligation set 
by the Common Provisions Regulation for the 2014-2020 period. 

Article 132(1) of the CPR sets out that the Managing Authority should ensure that 
the beneficiary receives the total amount of eligible public expenditure no later than 
90 days from the date of submission of the payment claim by the beneficiary. 

Seven Member States (CZ, DK, HR, LV, MT, NL, UK) representing almost 40% of 
those  who  replied  to  the  questionnaire  apply  –  on  a  voluntary  basis  –  a  shorter 
deadline  for  payments  to  beneficiaries.  These  shorter  deadlines  vary  from  15  days 
(MT)  to  60  working  days  (HR),  but  more  than  one  Member  State  applies  the 
deadline of 30 days as well as of 60 days. 

8.  OTHER INITIATIVES AND PROPOSALS OF MEMBER STATES 

The  questionnaire allowed  the  Member  States to  present  any  further initiative they 
will take during the 2014-2020 period to simplify access to and implementation  of 
the  EMFF  for  beneficiaries  as  well  as  to  share  with  the  Commission  any  further 
areas  where  there  is  a  legal  obstacle  at  EU  level  that  hinders  the  simplification  at 
national or regional level.  

Nevertheless,  only  very  few  Member  States  (DE,  FR,  NL,  PT  and  UK)  used  this 
opportunity. Only two Member States (UK) indicated that they have own initiatives 
for simplification beyond the options provided by the legislative framework. These 
own initiatives include: 

107 

 
 
 
 
 

in  the  application  process  beneficiaries  are  not  required  to  submit  any 
the  public 
documentation 
administration; 

registered  anywhere 

is  already 

that 

in 

  accelerated procedures in the appraisal of applications by the means of 

o  expression of interest only; 
o  panel assessment for operations above 100,000 EUR. 

 

the establishment and functioning of an intuitive e-system (including contact 
details and helpdesk) that allows for tailoring of questions. 

Among  the  obstacles  hindering  the  simplification  for  beneficiaries  the  followings 
were mentioned:  

  Ambiguities and complexity in the EMFF Regulation may lead to problems 

of accountability;  

 

 

in  general,  the  origin  of  complexity  and  administrative  burden  for 
beneficiaries  lies  in  the  increased  obligations  of  competent  authorities 
implementing  the  EMFF  (ie.  the  Managing  Authorities,  the  Certifying 
Authority  and  the  Audit  Authority).  A  typical  example  for  this  general 
problem was identified as follows: 

o 

the  amount  of  storage  and  provision  of  data  linked  to  the 
implementation of the EMFF has substantially increased that will also 
increase the complexity of application forms. 

lengthy  procedure  of  the  adoption  of  the  OPs,  that  is  hindering  the 
implementation  of  measures,  particularly  those  which  finance  a  continuous 
activity  (eg.  control  and  enforcement,  data  collection).  Here  the  shift  from 
direct  management  to  shared  management  was  not  as  smooth  as  it  was 
expected and therefore resulted in temporary scarcity of financial resources. 

None  of  the  replying  Member  States  mentioned  legal  obstacles  in  other  EU-level 
legislative acts that would hinder the simplification of access and implementation by 
beneficiaries. 

9.  CONCLUSIONS  

Member  States  clearly  articulated  the  need  for  simplification  for  access  to  but 
moreover for the implementation of the EMFF.  

In general, we can establish that specific options for simplification provided by the 
legislative  framework  of  the  EMFF  were  well  received  by  the  Member  States,  the 
ratio of implementation of each of the options exceeds the 50%, and in some of the 
cases it is over 80%. 

Simplified Cost Options are new elements in the 2014-2020 period in the context of 
the EMFF. Member States well understood the potential for simplification in these 
options and more than half of them wishes to establish them covering all measures 
and all types of beneficiaries in the EMFF. 

108 

 
 
 
Despite the fact that "e-cohesion" is not obligatory for the EMFF, the rate of putting 
into practice the simplification option of a paperless programme management system 
is surprisingly high. 

Examination  of  administrative  burden  on  different 
types  of  beneficiaries 
demonstrates a clearly disadvantaged situation for SMEs in terms of the volume of 
project applications, the average length of period of time for project appraisal as well 
as for reimbursement of costs. 

Proposals  of  Member  States  for  further  fields  of  simplification  that  could  be 
explored  related  mainly  to  the  extensive  reporting  obligations  of  competent 
authorities that are usually passed on to beneficiaries as well. Nevertheless, none of 
the replying Member States mentioned any legal obstacle in EU-level legislative acts 
that  would hinder  the  simplification  of  access  and  implementation  by  beneficiaries 
and thus would necessitate an initiative from the Commission. 

109 

 
 
 
 
11.  HOW THE EMFF CONTRIBUTES TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE (PRESENTATION 
– MAINSTREAMING OF CLIMATE ACTION INTO EU POLICIES AND FUNDS) 

110 

 
 
 
 
111 

 
 
 
 
112 

 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
12.  HOW  THE  EMFF  SUPPORTS  THE  ENVIRONMENTAL  OBJECTIVES 

(PRESENTATION) 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
114 

 
 
  
  
115 

 
 
  
 
116 

 
 
 
 
117 

 
 
  
 
 
118 

 
 
  
 
119 

 
 
  
 
 
13.  MARKET POLICY - POST 2020 PERSPECTIVES 

The Common Organisation of the Markets (CMO), one of the pillars of the CFP, will still 
be  in  force  after  2020.    The  EMFF  provides  financing  for  actions  of  the  CMO 
Regulation:  creation  of  professional  organisations 
(Art.  15),  preparation  and 
implementation  of  production  and  marketing  plans  (PMPs)  (Art  28(6)),  storage 
mechanism  (Art.  30),  and  Market  intelligence  (Art  42).    Other  actions  related  to 
marketing and processing that are financed under the EMFF have a link with the CMO 
Regulation, although not explicitly mentioned therein. 

Given the overall stability in the legal framework, the objectives of EMFF UP5 do not 
require a revision but priorities could be reassessed.  Public support must be kept for the 
organisation of the sector and its structure through the creation and support to POs, given 
their key contribution to the objectives of the CFP, the expenditure incurred to meet their 
legal obligations (from the CMO) and the existence of market failures.  To note also that 
the need to maintain the current support to POs remains a priority for the EP87.  And the 
present situation of high profitability which could plead against such support has a strong 
cyclical  dimension  (cheap  fuel,  ageing  of  the  fleet,  difficult  generational  renewal)  and 
should therefore not override the arguments presented. 

Organisation of the sector (only public support):  

Economic importance of POs as they strengthen the bargaining power of producers and 
improve  the  functioning  of  the  supply  chain,  and  political  importance  in  their 
contribution  to  the  cohesion  and  prosperity  of  coastal  communities  (maintenance  of  a 
large  network  of  (small)  producing  entities).    This  can  only  be  achieved  through  their 
empowerment and adequate public funding to support their activities.   

POs  are  key  actors  of  the  CFP  for  promoting  and  achieving  sustainable  fisheries  and 
aquaculture activities: their primary objective is the implementation of the CFP and they 
represent the vast majority of the landings and of the species under quota.  However, an 
excessive  focus  on  conservation  and/or  lack  of  expertise  in  the  market  dimension 
weakens their capacity to fully deliver on the market dimension of the CMO objectives: 
this  is  reflected  in  the  quasi-absence  of  inter-branch  organisations,  and  their  poor 
functioning. Public support should tackle these shortcomings. 

Therefore, support to the creation and restructuring of professional organisations88 (incl. 
transnational)  and  the  restructuring  of  collective  organisations  into  POs  should  be 
maintained.  

Support to PMPs (only public support) 

PMPs are "contracts" between POs and their MS. They are an innovative, effective and 
flexible tool to support an increasingly market-based approach in fleet management and 

87  

88  

Cf. Committee on Fisheries' (draft) opinion to Committee on Budgets on the next MFF (Preparing the Parliament’s 
position on the MFF post-2020). 
Within the meaning of the CMO Regulation 

120 

 
 
                                                            
allow POs to act in the public interest.  Support to the POs through PMPs is necessary to 
correct  certain  market  failures:  monopsony  (necessity  to  increase  producers'  bargaining 
power  vis-à-vis  the  processing  industry  or  retailers),  common-pool  resource  (possible 
collective  management  of  quotas  by  POs),  externalities  (political  importance  of  coastal 
communities and environmental harm), and makes a decisive contribution to ensuring the 
sustainability and fair standard of living for EU fishermen and aquaculture farmers, and 
by  extension  for  the  coastal  communities89.  Provision  of  public  support  is  both  an 
incentive  and  a  compensation  to  properly  achieve  these  missions.    The  level  of  public 
support should be proportional to the ambition of the PMP and conditioned to achieving 
their objectives90. Repayable forms of support should be an option.  It can be maintained 
below  the  current  thresholds  (no  indication  that  this  is  a  limiting  factor).  The  case  of 
small POs should be addressed specifically.  

Support to marketing measures (PP) 

The CMO has objectives that pertain to the market performance overall: a diverse supply 
to  consumers,  the  valorisation  of  products'  characteristics  (origin,  production),  and  the 
redistribution  of  added  value  along  the  supply  chain.    Public  support  to  pursue  these 
objectives  is  needed  to  avoid  that  economic  interests  alone  drive  the  market.    For 
example, a handful of species account for the almost totality of consumption in the EU. 
This  limits  the  diversity  of  supply  to  the  consumer  and  puts  pressure  on  the  most 
economically  interesting  stocks,  creating  conservation  problems.    On  the  contrary, 
underutilised  species  have  difficulties  to  enter  the  market.    The  challenge  is  to 
disentangle  the  public  interest  of  an  action  from  the  private  (economic)  interest  of  the 
operator  in  the  chain.  So  it  will  be  needed  to  identify  the  type  of  actions  that  can  be 
delegated to private operators and under which conditions91.  MS should be  allowed to 
implement any measure they consider relevant (no "no-go areas).     

Support to processing (only through financial instruments) 

Although  the  processing  sector  is  a  major  business  and  represents  thousands  of  jobs, 
support  should  be  primarily  provided  to  all  operators  (including  SMEs)  only  through 
financial instruments rather than direct grants, and limited to operations which consist in 
innovative processes  or methods, support to the processing of unwanted catches and of 
co-products (with an emphasis on circular economy92). 

Support to storage aid (no-go area) 

The  temporary  application  of  the  storage  aid  mechanism  under  the  EMFF  aimed  at 
ensuring a smooth transition towards the PMPs and it should not be reintroduced, even if 
certain stakeholders will request it. The creation of a rapid crisis mechanism that would 
allow MS to reallocate funding from other priorities in the case of unforeseeable market 

89 Although an indirect benefit, one may wonder how much it would cost to achieve it through other public policies 
90 Art 28(1) of the CMO regulation 
91 In case of a "measures-based" instrument the current conditions of art. 68 should be thoroughly reviewed. 
92 I.e. support to the reduction of food loss and waste, facilitate the reutilisation of co-products resulting from primary processing for 
food purposes; to note that 'by-products' are products not destined to human consumption (bones, skin, etc.) and therefore 
Art. 69(1)(d) is not sufficient as currently drafted 

121 

 
 
                                                            
disruptions (e.g. Russian ban) could nonetheless be considered (safety net to be strictly 
defined for situations that cannot be catered for by standard measures). 

Support  to  market  intelligence  (Public  support  –  direct  management  –  same  level  of 
support) 

The  Commission,  with  the  contribution  of  MS,  must  deliver  on  Market  Intelligence93.  
The market intelligence provided by the observatory (EUMOFA) at EU level cannot be 
undertaken  by  the  sector:  conflictual  interests  and  fragmentation  of  the  market  would 
lead to information asymmetry.  So Market Intelligence needs to be provided at EU level 
and complement MS' work in that regard.  EUMOFA's services are considered useful and 
deliver  on  the  Commission's  obligation.    There  is  a  continuous  increase  in  use  by 
stakeholders and it supports policy making (inter alia on the basis of ad-hoc reports and 
analysis  to  prepare  regulatory  or  operational  outputs).    EUMOFA's  services  will  be 
expended  to  provide  additional  analysis  of  past  and  future  trends  to  further  increase 
quality of support to policy orientation and informed management decisions.  Sufficient 
resources  should  also  be  granted  to  support  complementary  measures:  Eurobarometer 
surveys,  information  system  on  commercial  designations  of  FAPs  and  other  ad-hoc 
initiatives.   

93 Art. 42 of the CMO Regulation 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
14.  EU FISH MARKET – PRESENTATION 

123 

 
 
 
124 

 
 
 
125 

 
 
 
 
 
126 

 
 
 
 
127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
15.  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  STAKEHOLDER  FORUM  FOR  INTERNATIONAL 
OCEAN GOVERNANCE (IOG FORUM): RELATION  BETWEEN IOG AGENDA 
AND SDG14 

Pillar  

Strategic Actions 

Improving 
the 
international 
ocean 
governance 
framework 

Filling gaps in the international framework 

Promoting regional fisheries management and 
cooperation in key ocean areas to fill regional ocean 
governance gaps 

Improving coordination and cooperation between 
international organisations and launching ocean 
partnerships 

Capacity Building 

SDG 14 
relevance 

SDG14/ 
SDG14.c 

SDG14.4 

SDG 14/ 
SDG14.c 

SDG 14/ 
SDG14.a 

Ensuring the safety and security of seas and oceans 

SDG14 

Reducing 
pressure on 
oceans and 
seas and 
creating the 
conditions for 
a sustainable 
blue 
economy 

Implementing the COP21 Agreement and mitigating 
the impact of climate change on oceans, coastlines and 
ecosystems 

SDG14.3 

Fighting illegal fishing and strengthening the 
sustainable management of ocean food resources 
globally 

Banning harmful fisheries subsidies  

Fighting marine litter and the ‘sea of plastic’ 

SDG14.4 

SDG14.6 

SDG14.1 

Promoting maritime spatial planning (MSP) at global 
level 

SDG 14/ 14.2  

Achieving the global target of conserving 10% of 
marine and coastal areas and promoting the effective 
management of MPAs 

SDG14.5 

Strengthenin
g 
international 
ocean 
research and 
data 

Coherent EU strategy on ocean observation, data and 
marine accounting 

SDG14 

Strengthening investment in ‘blue’ science and 
innovation 

International ocean research, innovation and science 
partnerships 

SDG14 

SDG14 

128 

 
 
 
16.  NEW FISHERIES LOCAL ACTION GROUPS PROJECT EXAMPLES

94 

1/ Boosting a seaweed business on the Irish offshore Islands (West FLAG, Ireland) 

West  FLAG  supports  business  development  among  some  of  the  most  marginalised  and 
remote communities in the country, including offshore islands and native Irish speaking 
communities where a seaweed company has grown from one to four employees. 

2/ Crushed shells and 3D printing (North Sardinia FLAG, Italy) 

In Olbia, the northern area of Sardinia, the shells of mussels are no longer considered 
waste. With the help of the FLAG, local students and teachers are using crushed shells to 
create useful objects of all sorts, from moulds created by 3D printing. 

3/ Detecting toxic microalgae (Mediterranean Pyrenees FLAG, France) 

Oyster  farms  on  the  Leucate  lagoon  are  regularly  affected  by  toxic  phytoplankton, 
leading to economic losses. In search of a solution, shellfish farmers teamed up with a 
biotech start-up to test a new, quick and easy way to detect toxic marine microalgae and 
anticipate its proliferation. 

4/ Bisset's Fish Van (East Lothian, UK) 

Local  fish  delivered  fresh  to  the  doorstep  as  fisherman  boosts  the  family  business 
through direct sales from FLAG funded van.  

94 CLLD examples can be found on the Good practices page of the FARNET website: 

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/cms/farnet2/on-the-ground/good-practice_en 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
17.  OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL EMFF IMPLEMENTATION 

EMFF Financial Plan (section 8.2 of the OP)  

EU 27 

Total public contribution  
(EUR) 

EMFF contribution 
 (EUR) 

National 
contribution 

EMFF 
% 

National 
% 

EU 27 

7.983.485.404 

5.749.331.600 

2.234.153.804  72.02% 

27.98% 

EMFF contribution per Union Priority  

Union Priority  
(UP) 

Union Priority Name 

Total Contribution 

% 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Promoting environmentally sustainable, 
resource efficient, innovative, competitive and 
knowledge based fisheries 
Fostering environmentally sustainable, 
resource efficient, innovative, competitive and 
knowledge based aquaculture 

Fostering the implementation of the CFP 

Increasing employment and territorial 
cohesion 

Fostering marketing and processing 

Fostering the implementation of the Integrated 
Maritime Policy 

Technical assistance 

1,552,778,803 

27% 

1,198,667,887 

20.8% 

1,100,000,000 

524,816,451 

1,010,418,274 

71,055,600 

291,594,585 

19.1% 

9.1% 

17.6% 

1.2% 

5.1% 

Total EMFF allocation per Member State 

Member State 

Programme 

Total allocation 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

2014AT14MFOP001 

2014BE14MFOP001 

2014BG14MFOP001 

2014CY14MFOP001 

2014CZ14MFOP001 

2014DE14MFOP001 

2014DK14MFOP001 

130 

6.965.000 

41.746.051 

88.066.622 

39.715.209 

31.108.015 

219.596.276 

208.355.420 

 
 
 
 
EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

2014EE14MFOP001 

2014ES14MFOP001 

2014FI14MFOP001 

2014FR14MFOP001 

2014GR14MFOP001 

100.970.418 

1.161.620.889 

74.393.168 

587.980.173 

388.777.914 

2014HR14MFOP001 

252.643.138 

2014HU14MFOP001 

2014IE14MFOP001 

2014IT14MFOP001 

2014LT14MFOP001 

2014LV14MFOP001 

2014MT14MFOP001 

2014NL14MFOP001 

2014PL14MFOP001 

2014PT14MFOP001 

2014RO14MFOP001 

2014SE14MFOP001 

2014SI14MFOP001 

2014SK14MFOP001 

2014UK14MFOP001 

39.096.293 

147.601.979 

537.262.559 

63.432.222 

139.833.742 

22.627.422 

101.523.244 

531.219.456 

392.485.464 

168.421.371 

120.156.004 

24.809.114 

15.785.000 

243.139.437 

27 

5.749.331.600 

Payment claims per accounting period 

Accounting Period 

Cost Claim - 
Total Amount (€) 

Cost claim 
vs 
Total 
EMFF 

Cost Claim - Paid 
Amount (€) 

Paid vs 
Total 
EMFF 

Cost Claim - 
Withheld Amount 
(€) 

01/07/2015 - 30/06/2016 

9.937.955,08 

01/07/2016 - 30/06/2017 

84.744.834,71 

0,17% 

1,47% 

8.944.159,57 

76.270.351,21 

0,16% 

1,33% 

0,00 

8.474.483,50 

131 

 
 
 
 
01/07/2017 - 30/06/2018 

145.246.905,54 

2,53% 

117.683.797,39 

Total 

239.929.695,33 

4,17% 

202.898.308,17 

2,05% 

3,53% 

14.261.108,68 

22.735.592,18 

Payment claims per Member State and for all accounting periods 

Member 
State 

Cost Claim - Total Amount (€)  Cost claim 

vs 
Total 
EMFF 

Cost Claim - Paid 
Amount (€) 

Paid vs 
Total 
EMFF 

Cost Claim - 
Withheld Amount 
(€) 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HR 

IE 

LT 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

470.432,63 

2.677.876,12 

0.00 

1.826.803,99 

1.720.589,27 

23.184.215.90 

29.331.535,15 

13.953.076,27 

12.686.093,57 

11.109.917,50 

28.230.864,95 

788.987,79 

0.00 

21.218.763,11 

6.069.930,92 

15.497.194,50 

583.793,48 

934.218,57 

28.742.488,56 

12.237.474,84 

2.549.061,15 

668.031,63 

0.00 

25.448.435.,43 

423.389,37 

2.410.088,51 

0.00 

1.644.123,59 

1.548.530,34 

20.865.794,31 

26.398.381,63 

8.573.093,81 

11.417.484,21 

9.998.925,75 

19.204.321,32 

309.602,40 

0.00 

16.724.649,82 

5.462.937,83 

13.947.475,04 

525.414,13 

840.796,71 

25.868.239,70 

11.013.727,36 

2.294.155,03 

523.585,43 

0.00 

22.903.591,88 

38.113,42 

267.787,61 

0.00 

24.680,40 

172.058,93 

2.318.421,59 

2.933.153,52 

1.292.199,52 

1.268.609,36 

642,932.75 

2.823.086,50 

78.889,78 

0.00 

1.858.294,42 

606.993,09 

1.294.020,91 

58.379,35 

93.421,86 

2.874.248,86 

1.223.747,48 

254.906,12 

66.803,16 

0.00 

2.544.843,55 

239.929.695,33 

4,17% 

202.898.308,17 

3,53% 

22.735.592,18 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UP 1 - Promoting 
environmentally 
sustainable, 
resource efficient, 
innovative, 
competitive and 
knowledge based 
fisheries; 27% 

UP 7 - Technical 
assistance; 5,10% 

UP 6 - Fostering 
the 
implementation 
of the 
Integrated 
Maritime Policy; 
1,20% 

UP 5 - Fostering 
marketing and 
processing; 17,60% 

UP 4 - Increasing 
employment and 
territorial cohesion; 
9,10% 

UP 3 - Fostering the 
implementation of 
the CFP; 19,10% 

UP 2 - Fostering 
environmentally 
sustainable, 
resource efficient, 
innovative, 
competitive and 
knowledge based 
aquaculture; 20,80% 

133