COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation Accompanying the document Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the European Union for the conclusion of a Sustainable Ficheries Partnership Agreement and a Protocol with the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland
Date: 2019-10-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Denmark, Greenland, catch quota, fishing agreement, fishing rights, negotiation of an agreement (EU), protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement, sea fishing, sustainable fisheries

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 23.10.2019 SWD(2019) 386 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation Accompanying the document Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the European Union for the conclusion of a Sustainable Ficheries Partnership Agreement and a Protocol with the Government of Denmark and the  Home Rule Government of Greenland     {COM(2019) 491 final} - {SWD(2019) 385 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 2 

Purpose and scope .......................................................................................................... 2 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 2 

Description of the intervention and its objectives .......................................................... 2 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY ............................................................................................ 3 

Description of the current situation ................................................................................ 4 

4.  METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 5 

Short description of methodology .................................................................................. 5 

Limitations and robustness of findings........................................................................... 5 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................................ 5 

Ex-post evaluation .......................................................................................................... 5 

Ex-ante evaluation .......................................................................................................... 7 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 8 

1 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope 

The EU’s sustainable fisheries partnership agreements (SFPAs) with other countries are 
covered by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) Regulation1. SFPAs help to implement 
CFP objectives internationally, ensuring that the EU fleet’s fishing activities outside EU 
waters  are  based  on  the  same  principles  and  standards  as  those  applied  in  EU  waters. 
SFPAs are based on the principles of sustainability and best available scientific advice, 
transparency, non-discrimination, and solidarity through partnership. They contribute to 
the  establishment  of  a  governance  framework  for  external  fishing  activities2.  Newly 
negotiated SFPAs should reflect the EU’s commitment to promoting ocean governance at 
global level3. 

The Council conclusions on the external dimension of the CFP (19 March 2012) call for 
the Commission (pursuant to Article 31(10) of the CFP Regulation) to carry out ex post 
and ex ante evaluations before negotiating a new SFPA protocol4. The aim of evaluation 
studies is to inform decision-makers before the Council adopts negotiation directives. 

This  staff  working  document  presents  the  results  of  an  ex post  evaluation  of  the 
EU-Greenland fisheries partnership agreement (2016-2020) and an ex ante evaluation of 
its renewal. It covers the period from the entry into force of the protocol (1 January 2016) 
to 31 December 2020. The ex post evaluation is based on the standard assessment criteria 
(effectiveness,  efficiency,  economy,  coherence,  relevance,  EU  added  value  and 
acceptability). For the ex ante analysis, the focus is on lessons learned from the ex-post 
evaluation,  possible  benefits  of  a  new  protocol,  available  options  (renewal  or  non-
renewal,  amended  and  improved  agreement/protocol)  and  the  associated  risks,  and  the 
added value for the EU. 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Each SFPA has three main components: an agreement, a protocol and technical annexes. 
Once negotiated, the agreement part is extended automatically, but the protocol must be 
renegotiated  before  it  expires.  SFPAs  are  rendered  operational  through  implementation 
protocols  that  contain  technical  annexes.  The  evaluation  study  is  needed  to  determine 
whether it is appropriate to renew the protocol and, if so, under what conditions. 

The  EU  concludes  fisheries  partnership  agreements  with  other  countries  to  enable  its 
fleet  to  fish  surplus  resources  in  their  exclusive  economic  zone,  in  a  legally  regulated 
environment and in exchange for a financial contribution from the EU and ship-owners. 
The EU contribution is made up of two components:  

  EU access fee that gives the EU fleet access to the partner country’s waters and 

fisheries resources; and 

1  Regulation  (EU)  No 1380/2013  of  11  December  2013  on  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (OJ L 354, 

28.12.2013, p. 22). 

2  For an overview of SFPAs, see: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements_en  
3   Joint  Communication  on  International  ocean  governance  agenda  for  the  future  of  our  oceans 

(JOIN(2016) 49). 

4  Doc. 7086/12 PECHE 66. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
  EU  sectoral  support  for  the  development  of  the  fisheries  sector  in  the  partner 

country. 

The EU public contribution is complemented by contributions paid by EU ship-owners. 

Each SFPA is an exclusive agreement: once it is in place, EU vessels can fish only under 
the  SFPA  and  cannot  enter  into  private  agreements  with  the  partner  country.  By 
prohibiting the granting of more favourable conditions to other countries’ fleets, SFPAs 
ensure  a  level  playing-field  and  establish  minimum  standards  for  sustainable  resource 
management.  Implementation is  managed by a Joint Committee, which is  composed of 
representatives of both parties and meets at least once a year. 

The EU concluded its first fisheries agreement with Greenland in 1985. It ran for a period 
of 10  years and was extended for additional 6-year periods until it was  replaced by the 
fisheries  partnership  agreement  (FPA).  The  FPA  was  signed  in  June  2006  and  entered 
into  force  on  1  January  2007  for  a  period  of  6  years  (until  31 December 2012),  with 
6-year renewal periods. The EU approved it by Council Regulation (EC) No 753/20075. 

The current 5-year protocol (1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020) allows the EU fleet to 
fish  in  Greenlandic  waters  for  cod,  pelagic  and  demersal  redfish,  Greenland  halibut, 
shrimp,  grenadier  and  capelin.  Small  amounts  of  bycatch  (grenadier  and  other  species) 
are  permitted.  Indicative  annual  fishing  opportunities  total  42 726 tonnes.  The  EU 
transfers part of its agreed quota to Norway and the Faroe Islands, in exchange for access 
by  EU  vessels  to  their  waters.  The  protocol  provides  for  the  EU  to  pay  Greenland 
compensation of EUR 13 168 978 a year in return for access (calculated on the basis of 
reference  prices  for  each  species),  including  a  financial  reserve  of  EUR 1 700 000  for 
additional quantities. In addition, EU ship-owners pay authorisation fees based on prices 
set in the protocol for the quota allocated. The EU budget also provides for an amount of 
EUR 2 931 000 to support Greenlandic sectoral fisheries policy. 

The new negotiations will involve re-evaluating various aspects of the protocol, such as 
indicative annual fishing opportunities, agreed quotas, financial compensation (from the 
EU  and  ship-owners)  based  on  prices,  and  electronic  catch  reporting.  As  regards 
improving  sustainable  fisheries  management  in  Greenland,  the  EU’s  sectoral  support 
should remain focused on building administrative capacity, control and enforcement, and 
scientific research and advice, but also extend to new areas if necessary. Accordingly, the 
amount for sectoral support could also be reassessed. 

Bilateral cooperation between the EU and Greenland should be considered in the wider 
context  of  regional  cooperation.  DG MARE  works  in  close  liaison  with  other  services 
(e.g. DG DEVCO and the European External Action Service) to ensure coherence in this 
respect. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY 

5   Council Regulation (EC) No 753/2007 of 28 June 2007 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership 
Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and 
the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand (OJ L 172, 30.6.2007, p. 1). 

3 

 
 
                                                 
Description of the current situation  

Below we pick out a number of areas to show the situation before the intervention, how it 
was expected to develop and other relevant points of comparison. 

Utilisation of fishing opportunities 

Utilisation of fishing opportunities has been very high. Total annual fishing opportunities 
are  set  at  42 726 tonnes  (indicative  quota),  as  compared  with  85 765 tonnes  in  the 
previous  (2013-2015)  protocol  and  91 700  tonnes  under  the  2007–2012  protocol.  The 
reduction  is  explained  mainly  by  a  fall  in  the  capelin  quota  from  60 000 tonnes  in  the 
previous protocol to 20 000 tonnes in the current protocol as a result of stock evolution. 

The quota agreed for the EU was 83% of the indicative quota in 2016, 60% in 2017 and 
76% in 2018. Of the total agreed quotas, 49% was transferred to Norway in 2016, 31% in 
2017 and 59% in 2018 (quota for pelagic redfish, Greenland halibut, northern prawn in 
East  Greenland,  and  capelin),  in  exchange  for  fishing  opportunities  for  EU  vessels  in 
Norway.  An  additional  4%  of  the  total  EU  agreed  quota  (quota  for  pelagic  redfish, 
Greenland  halibut,  northern  prawn  in  East  Greenland)  was  transferred  to  the  Faroe 
Islands in 2016 and 2018, and 7% in 2017, again in exchange for fishing opportunities. 

In 2016-2018, after transfers to Norway and the Faroe Islands utilisation of the total EU 
agreed quota was very high (94% in 2016, 95% in 2017 and 98% in 2018), with only 
northern prawn in East Greenland showing less than optimal uptake (33% in 2016 
and 2017, 68% in  2018).  Bycatch quota, for which indicative quota was introduced in 
the current protocol for the first time, was low as a proportion of the total EU agreed 
quota (16% in 2016, 22% in 2017 and 33% in 2018). 

Economic analysis  

in  Greenland 

Total  catches 
in  2016–2018  were  42 579 tonnes,  valued  at 
EUR 193 million.  German  catches  accounted  for  63.0%  of  the  total  value,  Danish 
catches  for  30.5%  and  catches  by  UK  and  Lithuanian  vessels  for  just  under  4.0%  and 
1.5%  respectively.  The  combined  catches  of  other  Member  States’  vessels  (Latvia, 
Estonia and Spain) accounted for less than 1% of the total revenues.  

Total  aggregated  direct  gross  value  added  (GVA)  was  EUR 92.37 million  in 
2016-2018 
(an  average  of  EUR 30.79 million  a  year).  Additional  GVA  of 
EUR 48.81 million  was  generated  from  EU  vessels’  activity  in  Norway  and  the  Faroe 
Islands enabled by the quota transfers, bringing total direct GVA from the agreement to 
EUR 141.18 million over the period (an average of EUR 47.06 million a year).  

Total  indirect  GVA  (iGVA)  was  EUR 87.16 million  in  2016-2018  (an  average  of 
EUR 29.05 million a year), 65.5% of which was from activity in Greenland and the rest 
from  activity  in  Norway  and  the  Faroe  Islands.  Upstream  iGVA  accounted  for  17%  of 
total iGVA, and downstream iGVA for 83%. 

Employment analysis 

The protocol supports 172 crewing jobs on EU vessels fishing in Greenland, with around 
90% of crew from EU Member States. 

Sectoral support 

4 

 
The  sectoral  policy  support  (EUR 2 931 000  )contributing  directly  to  government 
expenditure breaks down into three main areas:  

  administration and management (21.8% of planned support over the 5 years of the 

protocol);  

  control and enforcement (33.6%); and  

  scientific research and advice (44.6%).  

Activities, with associated targets and indicators, cover support in a wide range of areas, 
e.g. capacity-building,  participation  in  meetings  and  investments  in  equipment/vessels 
and other physical items. 

4. 

METHODOLOGY 

Short description of methodology 

The evaluation was supported by a study that was carried out by an external consultant. 

The evaluation study was conducted between April and August 2019, under the guidance 
of  an  interservice  group  (ISG  )  and  in  the  framework  of  the  terms  of  reference.  The 
methodology included analysis of available documentation and data, and consultation of 
Greenlandic and EU stakeholders (see Annex 2). 

The evaluation report was prepared in line with EU guidelines (including the ‘evaluation 
toolbox’), in particular on how to assess impacts on other countries, and methodological 
elements  specific  to  the  external  dimension  of  the  CFP  (e.g. methods  for  assessing  the 
socio-economic benefits of fisheries agreements). 

Limitations and robustness of findings 

The  findings  of  the  study  are  robust  and  reliable.  The  methodology  for  this  evaluation 
included a review of literature and data, and consultations (some face to face, and some 
remotely) with stakeholders in Greenland and in the EU. In addition, secondary sources 
analysis and literature review complemented data from interviews.  

5. 

ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

Ex-post evaluation 

The scope of the ex post evaluation covers the FPA and the Protocol, performance over 
the  first  full  three  calendar  years  (2016  to  2018),  and  assessment  against  standard 
evaluation criteria. 

The EU-Greenland protocol generally satisfies the conditions of effectiveness, efficiency, 
economy, relevance, coherence, acceptability and EU added value.  

Effectiveness 

The  protocol  was  only  partly  effective  in  contributing  to  resource  conservation  and 
environmental sustainability, because: 

  Greenland  sets  total  allowable  catches  above  levels  recommended  by  scientific 

advice; 

5 

 
  scientific data on some stocks is poor; and  

 

there is concern over the status of some of the stocks targeted by EU vessels. 

In mitigation, however:  

  the  EU  quota  represents  a  relatively  small  proportion  of  Greenland’s  quota  for 

most species;  

  reporting  by  EU  vessels,  scientific  work  and  cooperation  serve  to  improve  the 

scientific and technical evaluation of the target fisheries;  

  the EU fleet operating in Greenland is well monitored and controlled, and abides 

by the relevant rules and regulations; and  

  the management measures in  place serve to  reduce bycatches and discards,  and 

reduce the possible impacts of fishing on the ecosystem. 

The protocol is effective at protecting the EU long-distance fleet by providing access to 
fishing zones in Greenland, Norway and the Faroe Islands. It also provides benefits to the 
EU processing sector and supplies a (small) proportion of the total EU market for fish. 

EU  sectoral  support  funding  is  effective  in  contributing  to  Greenland’s  overall 
government budget and expenditure on fisheries administration, control and enforcement, 
and scientific research and advice. 

Efficiency 

Overall,  the  EU  financial  contribution  is  commensurate  with  the  fishing  opportunities 
provided and delivered, and the protocol has delivered a high level of benefits for the EU 
in return.  

Access  fees provide EU  operators with  an efficient  and flexible means  of access  to  the 
Greenlandic fishery; the fees are proportional to catches and vessel owners pay for what 
they intend to use.  

Greenland benefits  from part of the added value of catches by EU vessels  in  its  waters 
under the protocol. It also receives financial compensation for the EU quota transferred 
to Norway and the Faroe Islands.  

The  Greenlandic  authorities  are  making  efficient  use  of  the  sectoral  support.  However, 
increases in first-sale fish prices since reference prices were agreed mean that the EU’s 
financial contributions are slightly lower than might be expected. 

Economy 

The  EU’s  sectoral  support  addresses  Greenland’s  needs  and  is  fully  absorbed.  The  EU 
has disbursed access payments and contributions for sectoral support in a timely manner 
consistent with the protocol. 

Relevance 

The  FPA  and  protocol  are  relevant  to  the  needs  of  both  parties,  although  there  are 
increasing  tensions  between  the  competing  needs  of  the  Greenlandic  and  EU  private 

6 

 
sector fishing fleets for access to resources. The agreement remains very relevant to the 
Greenlandic government’s policy on cooperation with the EU. 

Coherence 

The  FPA  and  protocol  are  broadly  in  line  with  the  CFP  and  recent  developments  as 
regards SFPAs and the management of the EU external fleet. They also make an effective 
contribution  to  EU  policies  vis-à-vis  Greenland  and  the  region,  which  are  designed  to 
enhance  cooperation  and  ensure  the  sustainable  exploitation  of  natural  resources.  The 
FPA and protocol are also coherent with Greenland’s policy priorities, both through the 
alignment of objectives and the use of sectoral support funding. 

EU added value 

The  added  value  of  EU  involvement  is  high.  More  than  any  other  mechanism  for 
securing  fisheries  access  for  EU  vessels  to  Greenlandic  waters,  the  agreement  has 
delivered  a  wide  range  of  benefits  to  EU  and  Greenlandic  stakeholders,  in  terms  of 
sustainability, transparency, equity and national development. Owners of vessels fishing 
in Greenlandic waters strongly favour having a protocol over having to negotiate private 
access arrangements. 

Acceptability 

EU vessel owners with access to quota in Greenland are satisfied with the content of the 
protocol  and  strongly  support  its  renewal.  However,  Greenlandic  offshore  ship-owners 
are opposed to the protocol and consider that the benefits to Greenland would be greater 
if quota was allocated to Greenlandic companies instead. The Greenlandic authorities are 
generally  satisfied  with  the  protocol,  but  also  feel  that  allocating  quota  to  their  own 
vessels would generate greater financial benefits. 

Ex-ante evaluation 

The ex ante evaluation of a possible future protocol to the EU/Greenland FPA, outlines 
the key needs to be met by both Greenland and the EU.  

Shared needs of both parties are:  

  sustainable resource exploitation, and  

  a fair sharing of benefits between the two parties.  

It describes and assesses three possible options.  

  The first is the ‘Status quo, with a renewed, unchanged Agreement and Protocol’. 
  The second option is ‘No renewed Protocol’, with a sub-option to denounce the 

FPA and another to leave the FPA dormant.  

  The third option is ‘A modified FPA, and a modified and renewed Protocol’.  

In  reviewing  the  results  of  the  three  options,  the  evaluation  finds  that  option  2  could 
result in very significant negative impacts for both parties in terms of reduced financial 
and  social  benefits,  weakened  collaboration  on  scientific  research  and  resource 
sustainability,  and  damage  to  geo-political  relations.  It  concludes  that  option  3  would 
better meet evaluation criteria than would either option 1 or 2. Appropriations from the 

7 

 
EU budget under option 3 would be determined by levels of financial contribution to be 
paid by the EU to Greenland for access, and the sectoral support, and would depend on 
negotiations. It concludes that  option 3 would better meet the needs of both parties. In 
addition, the text of the underlying FPA could be reviewed and updated where necessary 
to become a SFPA. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  protocol  can  be  broadly  described  as  a  ‘win-win’  arrangement,  in  that  it  addresses 
the identified needs of the various stakeholders. 

Renewal  of  the  agreement  and  the  protocol  (at  the  end  of  its  implementation  period, 
i.e. 31 December 2020) emerges clearly as the preferred option.  

No  other  option,  including  that  of  not  renewing  the  protocol  or  denouncing  the  FPA, 
would bring the same benefits. The future agreement should strengthen the sustainability 
provisions.  The  future  protocol  should  be  based  on  a  similar  technical  and  financial 
approach, with some technical adaptations to improve the conditions for implementing its 
access and sectoral support components. 

Shared interests of both parties are the sustainable resource exploitation and a fair 
sharing of benefits. It is recommended that: 

  all  species  currently  listed  in  the  protocol  be  retained  given  the  levels  of 
utilisation in recent  years. A prudent approach is recommended as regards other 
species,  such  as  mackerel.  Other  experimental  fisheries  should  be  considered 
subject  to  discussion  and  scientific  advice.  Greenland  should  ensure  that  the 
capelin quota is  allocated to  the EU in  time  for  EU vessels to  be able to  use it, 
rather than the EU having to transfer it to Norway; 

  the arrangements for financial compensation for access be reviewed, with: 

o  possible revision of reference prices; 

o  provision for the mid-term amendment of reference prices; and  

o  possible revision of the access fees paid by vessel owners; 

  the  Greenlandic  authorities  make  the  benefits  of  sectoral  support  more  visible 
and communicate them  more widely to  stakeholders by  enlarging the scope and 
diversity  of  their  action.  Issues  such  as  Arctic  policy,  blue  growth  and  climate 
change could be covered; 

  funding be used to build scientific research capacity to ensure that fewer stocks 
are subject to advice based on a precautionary approach due to a lack of data; 

  consideration be given to updating the underlying framework from an FPA to an 
SFPA,  in  order  fully  to  reflect  CFP  provisions.  The  alternative  approach  to 
ensuring continuity would be to allow the automatic renewal of the existing FPA. 

 A future protocol should have a duration of at least 5 years (like the current protocol). 

8 

 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING / CWP REFERENCES 

DG responsible: DG MARE — Maritime Affairs and Fisheries/ PLAN/2019/5095 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

An  interservice  group  (ISG)  was  established  to  steer  the  preparation  of  this  evaluation. 
The evaluation was carried out between February and August 2019. 

The  evaluation  was  also  supported  by  a  study  carried  out  by  an  external  consultant 
between April and August 2019. 

Tasks 

Signing of the contract  

Kick-off meeting 

Report of kick-off meeting 

Submission of inception report  

Comments on inception report 

Date 

8.4.2019 

9.4.2019 

10.4.2019 

24.4.2019 

10.5.2019 

Meeting to discuss inception report 

Witten exchange with steering committee 

Submission of draft final report 

Meeting to discuss draft final report  

Submission of final report  

8.7.2019 

15.7.2019 

9.9.2019 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO ‘BETTER REGULATION’ GUIDELINES 

The  legal  and  procedural  requirements  for  the  preparation  of  the  renewal  of  fisheries 
protocols  give  rise  to  a  tight  schedule,  which  prevents  the  holding  of  an  open  public 
consultation.  Moreover,  the  impact  of  SFPAs  is  relatively  limited,  as  they  focus  on  a 
small number of stakeholders.  

4.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB (IF APPLICABLE) 

Not applicable.  

5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The  evaluation  is  supported  by  study  “Ex  ante  and  ex  post  evaluation  study  of  the 
Fisheries  Partnership  Agreement  between  the  European  Union  and  Greenland”  carried 
out by a consultant.  

Additional  information  sources  for  this  evaluation  were  used  through  scientific  advice 
reviews,  literature  reviews,  Joint  Committee  meetings  minutes,  bilateral/multilateral 

9 

 
 
discussions/consultations with  Member States and civil  society organisations, including 
the LDAC.  

Last but not least, the evaluation process and the final evaluation report was subject to a 
quality assessment by the interservice group (ISG). 

10 

 
 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

In line with its guidelines and the ‘better regulation toolbox’, the Commission presented 
a strategy for consultation when preparing negotiations for the renewal of FPA protocols. 
The strategy involves determining the best means of consulting relevant stakeholders in 
the EU and the partner country concerned.   

Objectives 

The aim of the consultation is:   

 

 

to  gather  stakeholders’  views  on  the  implementation  of  the  previous/ongoing 
protocol and its possible renewal, including the various options; and  

to  feed  into  the  evaluation  report  (a  Commission  working  document  to  be 
prepared before the opening of negotiations on the basis of an evaluation study by 
an external contractor).   

Approach to consultation  

The main stakeholders concerned with the protocol, are:  

  owners of vessels flying Member States’ flags and benefiting from the protocol;  

 

representatives or associations of ship-owners benefiting from the protocol;  

  NGOs;  

 

 

 

the Greenlandic authorities;  

representatives of the Member States’ authorities; and 

the private sector and civil society. 

Detailed results  

These results are presented in Annex 3 to the study6. 

6   Ex  ante  and  ex  post  evaluation  study  of  the  fisheries  partnership  agreement  between  the  EU  and 

Greenland (August 2019). 

11