COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Interim Evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) for the Sustainable Development of EU Aquaculture
Date: 2020-01-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU strategy, aquaculture, common fisheries policy, conservation of resources, fishery management, open method of coordination, sustainable development, sustainable fisheries

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.1.2020  SWD(2020) 6 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Interim Evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) for the Sustainable Development of EU Aquaculture {SWD(2020) 7 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

3. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 6 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 11 

4.  METHOD ........................................................................................................................................... 16 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 18 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 44 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AAC 

AC 

AODA 

CFP 

CMES 

CMO 

DCF 

Aquaculture Advisory Council 

Autonomous Communities 

Areas for Organised Development of Aquaculture 

Common Fisheries Policy 

Common Monitoring and Evaluation System 

Common Organisation of the Markets of Fishery and Aquaculture 
Products 

Data Collection Framework 

DG MARE 

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

DG EAC 

EASME 

EC 

EMFF 

EMPA 

EMU 

EQM 

ETM 

EU 

Directorate-General Education and Culture 

Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 

European Commission 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

European Mollusc Producers Association 

Economic and Monetary Union 

Evaluation Questions Matrix 

Education and Training Monitor 

European Union 

2 

 
 
EUMOFA 

European Union Market Observatory for Fisheries and 
Aquaculture products 

FAO 

FEAP 

FLAG 

GIS 

IBO 

IMP 

M&E 

MANP 

MS 

MSFD 

MSP 

NA  

OECD 

OMC 

OP 

OPC 

PO 

RAS 

Food and Agriculture Organisation 

Federation of European Aquaculture Producers 

Fisheries Local Action Group 

Geographical Information System 

Inter-Branch Organisation 

Integrated Maritime Policy 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Multiannual National Strategic Plan 

Member State 

Marine Strategy Framework Directive   

Maritime Spatial Planning 

National Administration  

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 

Open Method of Coordination 

Operational Programme 

Open Public Consultation 

Producer Organisation 

Recirculation Aquaculture Systems 

3 

 
SME 

SAC 

SP 

SPA 

SPC 

SWOT 

TOR 

UP 

WFD 

Small and Medium-sized Enterprise 

Special Areas of Conservation 

Spatial planning 

Special Protected Area (under the Habitats Directive) 

Social Protection Committee 

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (analysis) 

Terms of Reference 

Union Priority 

Water Framework Directive 

4 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose  

This Staff Working Document (SWD) presents the results of the interim evaluation of the 
Open Method of Coordination (OMC) for the sustainable development of EU Aquaculture. 
It is based on an independent evaluation report prepared by external consultants1, as well as 
on  other  sources  of  evidence,  inter  alia  the  "Economic  Report  of  the  EU  Aquaculture 
sector" (STECF-18-19)2 and the EU Fish Market 2018 Report3.    

The aim of the evaluation is:  

  To  assess  national  and  EU  efforts  to  promote  the  development  of  sustainable 
aquaculture  in  relation  to  the  OMC’s  objectives  in  terms  of  their  effectiveness, 
efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value;  

  To inform Member  States,  stakeholders  and the  public on the achievements of the 

OMC in this sector;  

  To  provide  evidence  for  future  policy  making  on  EU  aquaculture.  The  evaluation 
aims  at  identifying  the  factors  that  contributed  to  the  success  or  failure  of  the 
implementation of the OMC so far. Although the evaluation is not formally required by 
the  Regulation  governing  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)4,  its  conclusions  can 
contribute to further develop evidence-based policy for the sustainable development of 
EU aquaculture.  

In accordance with the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines, the evaluation exercise 
was structured around the following standard evaluation criteria:   

  Effectiveness:  assessment  of  the  OMC  for  the  sustainable  development  of  EU 

aquaculture as an effective method for policy coordination and mutual learning;  

  Efficiency: assessment of the relationship between the resources used by the OMC and 

the changes and novelties generated at national, regional and local levels;  

  Coherence:  assessment  of  coherence  within  the  OMC,  with  related  policies  and  with 

other interventions impacting the aquaculture sector; 

  Relevance:  assessment  of  the  relationship  between  the  needs  and  problems  in  the 
aquaculture  sector,  the  objectives  of  the  OMC  and  how  this  has  changed  over  time 
thanks to the OMC and what the current needs are;   

  EU added-value: assessment of the value resulting from the OMC that is additional to 
the  value  that  would  have  resulted  from  interventions  initiated  at  regional  or  national 
levels by public authorities and the private sector.  

Scope 

This interim evaluation examines the period 2013 to 2017, covering all the different OMC 
tools (Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture, guidance on 

1 https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/83f2aed6-b33c-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 
2 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/economic/-/asset_publisher/d7Ie/document/id/2446795 
3 https://www.eumofa.eu/documents/20178/132648/EN_The+EU+fish+market+2018.pdf 
4 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 

 
 
                                                            
EU  legislation,  Multiannual  National  Strategic  Plans,  exchange  of  good  practices)  and 
covering all Member States, except Luxembourg which has very limited aquaculture5.  

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE OPEN METHOD OF COORDINATION (OMC) FOR THE SUSTAINABLE 

DEVELOPMENT OF EU AQUACULTURE 

Background on aquaculture 

According to the latest “Economic report of the EU aquaculture sector“6, overall the performance of 
the aquaculture sector is improving, reaching 1.4 million tonnes in sales volume and €4.9 billion in 
sales value in 2016. This corresponds to an increase of 6% in sales volume and 8% in sales value 
compared to  2014. However,  since 2007 production has  decreased by 2%,  this trend is  in  contrast 
with  global  aquaculture  production  which  shows  continuous  growth.  European  aquaculture 
production represents only 1.2% of the world aquaculture production in terms of weight and 1.9% in 
value.  

EU aquaculture production is mainly concentrated in 5 countries: Spain (21%), France (15%), Italy 
(14%), the United Kingdom (14%), and Greece (10%), making up 74% of the sales volume. These 5 
countries are covering 73% of the sales value in EU28.  

The total number of enterprises in EU is estimated to be 12 500. Almost 90% of the enterprises in 
the  aquaculture  sector  are  micro-enterprises,  employing  less  than  10  employees.  The  number  of 
employees in EU was estimated to be 75 300 in 2016.  

The EU aquaculture sector can be divided into three main sectors: Marine, Shellfish and Freshwater 
production. The marine sector is the most important economically and generated the largest turnover 
of €2 731 million, followed by the shellfish sector with €1 134 million and the freshwater sector with 
€1 028 million. The main species produced in terms of value are Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout and 
European seabass, whereas the unidentified mussels, which the experts believe to be Mediterranean 
mussels, dominate in weight. 

EU  aquaculture  is  renowned  for  its  high  quality,  sustainability  and  consumer  protection  standards. 
EU  legislation  establishes  the  high  health,  consumer  protection  and  environmental  sustainability 
standards that EU aquaculture activities have to comply with. 

The  future  demand  for  fish  is  expected  to  increase  due  to  increasing  population  and  income  and 
health benefits associated with fish consumption. The growing demand offers a unique opportunity 
to expand the aquaculture production in the EU. However, expanding the EU aquaculture production 
for food security reasons should be done in a way that is environmentally, economically and socially 
sustainable.  

The  Commission  intends  to  boost  the  European  aquaculture  sector  through  the  CFP  that  aims  to 
promote aquaculture through an OMC, a voluntary process for cooperation. Four priority areas were 
identified7  to  unlock  the  potential  of  EU  aquaculture  and  address  the  CFP  objectives  (enhance 
sustainability,  food  security,  growth  and  employment  linked  to  the  aquaculture  sector),  notably: 
reducing  the  administrative  burden,  integrating  aquaculture  in  spatial  planning,  improving  the 
competitiveness of the aquaculture industry and promoting a level playing field for EU operators.  

5 Eurostat has no data for aquaculture production volumes in Luxembourg 
6 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/economic/-/asset_publisher/d7Ie/document/id/2446795 
7 See Strategic Guidelines 

 
 
                                                            
Description of the OMC and its objectives 

The  competence  for  the  management  of  aquaculture  lies  largely  with  EU  Member  States. 
However, the challenges, barriers and threats that face EU aquaculture are common across 
many countries.  

EU  aquaculture  policy  is  developed  and  implemented  in  the  framework  of  the  ‘Open 
Method of Coordination’ (OMC) as established under the CFP Regulation8. The OMC is a 
non-legal,  voluntary  process  that  aims  at  giving  practical  answers  to  the  challenges 
identified  by  the  Member  States  and  stakeholders.  It  is  a  framework  for  national  strategy 
development  and  for  coordinating  policies  between  EU  Member  States.  It  involves 
concerted  action  between  EU  and  national  policies  in  full  respect  of  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity.  

As described in the intervention logic in figure 1:  

The general objective is to enhance the sustainability, food security, growth, employment 
and level-playing field linked to the aquaculture sector as stipulated in the CFP Regulation 
(Article 2). 

The specific objectives stemming from the CFP Regulation’s Article 34 are:  

(i)  Reduce the administrative burden; 
(ii) Integrate aquaculture activities into maritime, coastal and inland spatial planning; 
(iii)Improve the competitiveness of the aquaculture industry;   
(iv) Promote  a  level  playing  field  for  EU  operators  by  exploiting  their  competitive 

advantage. 

The operational objectives conceived as intermediate outcomes of the activities rolled out 
through the OMC are:  

(i)  Develop  a  mutual  learning  process  between  Member  States  with  the  support  of  the 
Commission, including through the exchange of good practices and the participation 
to technical seminars; 

(ii) Foster changes in national legislation by feeding in lessons learned from the exchange 

of good national practices and technical seminars;  

(iii)Provide  guidance  on  the  EU  legislation  with  an  impact  on  aquaculture  (such  as  the 
Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive 
(MSFD)),  with  the  objective  to  ensure  that  aquaculture  activities  are  in  compliance 
with their provisions and facilitate their application by Member States;   

(iv) Support  realistic  and  sustainable  investments  at  EU  and  national  level  in  the 

aquaculture sector. 

As  requested  by  the  CFP  Regulation  (Article  34),  the  Commission  adopted  in  2013 
"Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture"9. These Strategic 

8 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 – Article 34 
9  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture 
(COM(2013)229 final) 

 
 
                                                            
Guidelines define four priority areas to be addressed by the OMC to unlock the potential of 
EU aquaculture: 

  Simplifying  the  administrative  procedures.  Administrative  procedures  related  to  the 
starting of a new aquaculture farm are time-consuming and complex in several Member 
States. In addition, most businesses in the sector are SMEs, which are disproportionately 
affected by regulatory red tape. 

  Securing sustainable development and growth of aquaculture through coordinated 
spatial  planning.  Integrating  aquaculture  activities  into  maritime,  coastal  and  inland 
spatial  planning  can  encourage  economic  activity,  facilitate  investment  and  boost  the 
development of the aquaculture sector. It also presents an opportunity to enhance access 
to suitable sites for aquaculture production with a view to sector expansion. Coordinated 
spatial planning can also reconcile the competing interests of the aquaculture sector with 
environmental protection. 

  Enhancing  the  competitiveness  of  EU  aquaculture.  Increased  competition  with 
producers from third countries, as well as the expectations of consumers on the quality 
and diversity of food products present challenges for EU aquaculture producers. 

  Promoting  a  level  playing  field  for  EU  operators  by  exploiting  their  competitive 
advantages.  Aquaculture  products  originating  from  the  EU  comply  with  high 
environmental,  animal  health  and  consumer  protection  standards.  These  are  EU 
aquaculture's  main  competitive  factors  and  could  be  exploited  more  effectively  to 
compete on the markets. 

For  each  priority  the  Strategic  Guidelines  set  targets  for  the  Member  States,  for  the 
Commission and for the Aquaculture Advisory Council (see Annex 4).   

The activities deployed for the OMC are:     

  The  Multiannual  National  Strategic  Plans  (MANPs).  In  order  to  better  coordinate 
actions to promote aquaculture, Member States were required under the CFP to prepare 
MANPs for the promotion of sustainable aquaculture based on the Strategic Guidelines 
that contained a draft outline of the structure. Member States were encouraged to cover 
the  period  2014-2020,  to  provide  quantified  targets  and  indicators  and  to  make  a  mid-
term  assessment  of  the  implementation  of  their  plan  by  the  end  of  2017.  Consequently 
Member  States  developed  in  2014-2015  MANPs  in  which  they  identified  their  national 
priorities and proposed concrete actions to address them. Although Member States were 
free to choose to which priorities they planned actions, most MANPs included actions to 
address  the  four  priorities  of  the  Strategic  Guidelines  (see  above).  These  plans  also 
include national good practices that they wish to share in the context of the OMC. The 
MANPs  are  consistent  with  the  Operational  Programmes  (OPs)  of  Member  States 
developed to make use of funding available through the European Maritime and Fisheries 
Fund (EMFF).  The submission of MANPs are a pre-requisite to access EMFF funding 
(ex-ante conditionality).   

  Technical  seminars  and  high-level  events  on  aquaculture  are  organised  by  the 
Commission and attended by Member States' representatives. They provide a forum for 
the exchange of good practices aiming to foster a mutual learning process across the EU. 
The 
learning  opportunities  on 
implementation  processes  or  policy  approaches  for  stakeholders  across  the  EU.  The  
Strategic  Guidelines  suggested  that  the  Commission  organises  at  least  one  technical 
seminar  per  year  to  present  the  selected  good  practices  and  facilitate  the  exchange  of 
information between Member States. 

technical  seminars  are  also  meant 

to  provide 

 
 
  Guidance  documents on EU legislation10  have  been  developed  by the Commission  to 
facilitate the implementation of relevant EU legislation such as the WFD and the MSFD. 
The guidance documents offer practical answers to questions about the application of EU 
law in relation to aquaculture.  

In  addition,  the  mandate  of  the  Aquaculture  Advisory  Council  (AAC)  includes  the 
provision of advice to the Commission and Member States for all issues contributing to the 
development of EU aquaculture. The AAC is the ideal platform for this purpose as it includes 
balanced  representation  of  professional  bodies  from  the  28  Member  States  (farmers, 
processors,  feed  manufacturers  and  NGOs).  The  AAC  is  expected  to  collect  data  on 
economics, production conditions and stimulate the exchange of good practices. The AAC is 
entitled to formulate advice to the Commission, the European Parliament and Member States 
to inform the debate and form the basis for new ideas and measures to be channelled into the 
decision-making process of the OMC for sustainable EU aquaculture.  

The development of sustainable EU aquaculture is financially supported through: 

 

the EMFF for the period 2014 to 2020 and through national contributions. The main 
contribution  of  the  EMFF  to  sustainable  aquaculture  occurs  in  the  context  of  Union 
Priority 2 (UP2) to foster sustainable aquaculture and is coherent with Union Priority 6 
(UP6) on the implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) Regulation11. The 
Strategic Guidelines note that the EMFF provides vital funding for initiatives foreseen in 
the  MANPs  for  the  sustainable  development  of  EU  aquaculture.  The  support  to 
aquaculture  focuses  on  aid  for  productive  investments,  conversion  to  eco-management 
and  organic  aquaculture,  develop  aquaculture  providing  environmental  services,  and 
support aquaculture for conservation and biodiversity protection. The total commitments 
of the EMFF for 2014 – 2020 for the sector of aquaculture amount to EUR 1.2 billion or 
21% of all available funding. The EMFF funding for UP2 is complemented by EUR 0.5 
billion of national contributions of the Member States to the funding of their OPs. There 
are differences between Member States, both in terms of total EMFF funding of their OPs 
and  the  degree  to  which  they  choose  to  focus  resources  on  the  development  of  their 
aquaculture sector.  

  other  EU  funding  instruments  such  as  the  EU’s  Seventh  Framework  Programme  for 
Research  and  Development,  Horizon  2020,  Life+  and  the  European  Regional  and 
Development Fund. 

10  Guidance  document  on  the  application  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive (MSFD) in relation to aquaculture; CEFAS background document on Sustainable Aquaculture Development in 
the  context  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive;  Guidance  document  on 
aquaculture  activities  in  the  Natura  2000  Network,  2012;  Guidance  document  on  the  Great  cormorant,  Applying 
derogations  under  Article  9  of  the  Birds  Directive  2009/147/EC;  Guidance  documents  on  Environmental  Impact 
Assessments 

11 Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 

 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 1: Intervention Logic

General Objective (Impact)Technical seminars and high-level events Guidance documents on EU law affecting the aquaculture sector National actionsEnhance sustainability, food security, growth and employment linked to the aquaculture sectorSpecificObjectives(Strategic Priorities) (longer-term outcomes)Reduce administrative burdenIntegrate aquaculture in spatial planningImprove competitiveness of aquaculture industryPromote level-playing field for EU operatorsOperational objectives(intermediate outcomes)ActivitiesExchange of good practicesInputsCFP Regulation (Article 2)CFP Regulation (Article 34)EMFF funding 2014 –2020 (EUR 1.2 bn)UP2:1,200mlnEUR,10,700projectsNational contributions 2014 –2020 (EUR 0.5 bn)Develop a mutual learning process Foster changes in national legislation to tackle the four strategic prioritiesProvide guidance on the EU legislation with an impact on aquaculture (WFD, MSFD, etc.)Support realistic and sustainable investment at EU and national level in aquacultureOMC for sustainable aquaculture 2013 Strategic Guidelines EMFFUP 2(“Fostering sustainable aquaculture”)UP 5(“Fostering marketing”)UP 6(“Implementation of the Integrated Marine Policy”)Operational ProgrammesEx-ante conditionalityMultiannual National Strategic PlansAquaculture stakeholders across the EUKey contributions to the MANPsAquaculture Advisory CouncilDialogue forum for stakeholdersProvides recommendations to policy makersSpecific tasks outlined in 2013 Strategic Guidelines 
 
Baseline and points of comparison  

National strategies for the sustainable development of aquaculture existed before the start of 
the OMC in 2013 in most Member States, but they were integrated into wider strategies in 
many  cases  (e.g.  strategies  for  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture  sector  as  a  whole).  The 
Strategic  Guidelines  and  the  MANPs  have  encouraged  Member  States  to  develop  a 
comprehensive strategy for aquaculture, with quantified targets for growth. 

In the Strategic Guidelines each Member State is encouraged to indicate in the MANP its 
own aquaculture growth objective in the period covered by the plan. All Member States 
have set quantified objectives for growth12. For example:  

  National  growth  objective  (2014-2020)  for  Austria:  production  volume  from  3  100 

tonnes to 5 500 tonnes in 2020. 

  National  growth  objectives  (2013-2023)  for  Cyprus:  production  volume  from  5  339.3 
tonnes to 6 332 tonnes in 2023 (19% increase). Production value from 29.2 million euro 
to 34,5 million euro in 2023. 

In  the  Strategic  Guidelines  Member  State  are  encouraged  to  set  quantified  targets  and 
indicators  for  the  proposed  actions.  However,  in  most  cases  this  was  not  possible.  For 
example: Romania‘s action for the first priority “simplify administrative procedures” is “to 
identify the potential for improving procedures and reducing administrative tasks”.  

The Strategic Guidelines set for the four priorities, targets for the Member States, for the 
Commission and if relevant for the Aquaculture Advisory Council (see Annex 4). The 
targets  are  sometimes  quantifiable  (eg.  number  of  new  licences  granted,  success  rate  of 
applications  for  licences),  sometimes  concrete  (eg.  organise  a  seminar,  prepare  guidance 
documents), but mostly they are not quantifiable (eg. to make full use of the proposed CMO 
and EMFF).  

The officially published MANP for each Member State, and a very short summary of each 
plan  (in  English)  prepared  by  the  Commission  as  well  as  a  summary  document  of  the  27 
MANPs can be found on the Commission’s aquaculture website13.   

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

The progress against the four specific objectives of the OMC is described below: 

1. Simplifying administrative procedures 

Almost  all  Member  States,  except  Latvia  and  Lithuania,  identified  the  administrative 
simplification as a priority for the development of the aquaculture sector in their country 
and recommended 76 actions on this priority in their MANPs. Twenty-two Member States 
made  progress  since  2014.  This  concerns the  simplification  of  licensing  systems  both  in 
terms  of  regulatory  framework  and  in  terms  of  administrative  organisation.  Overall,  the 

12  See  English  summary  of  27  MANPs:  https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/multiannual-national-

plans_en 

13 https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/multiannual-national-plans_en 

11 

 
 
                                                            
main  success  factor  for  the  simplification  of  administrative  procedures  is  the  close 
collaboration between administration and professionals to  establish a new administrative 
process  to  attribute  exploitation  licenses.  The  most  common  hindering  factors  is  the 
complexity of institutional and regulatory frameworks and the number of administrations 
involved,  which  range  between  two  and  thirteen  public  entities  being  involved  in  an 
authorisation procedure.  

The  key  findings  on  the  results  of  actions  undertaken  to  support  administrative 
simplification are:  

  changes to the public administration and licencing systems in 15 Member States (MS); 
  setting up of platforms for dialogue between industry and the public administrations in 

13 MS; 

  alignment of procedures between regions in 6 MS. 
  establishment of one-stop-shops in 5 MS 

This has led to the following impacts: 

increase in the number of new licences in 7 MS; 

 
  decrease in the average time for licensing procedures in 6 MS;  
 
 

increase in the number of applications processed per year in 6 MS; 
increase in the success rate of applications in 4 MS. 

Overall,  Member  States  consider  that  the  actions  related  to  administrative  simplification 
involve  long  term  processes.  The  high  costs  of  some  actions  in  comparison  to  their 
expected benefits could hinder the completion of the actions. This is related to the creation 
of  electronic  platforms  for  the  submission,  analysis  and  processing  of  licenses  (e.g. 
producers are used to paper-based systems). The complexity of institutional or regulatory 
frameworks  is  also  one  of  the  main  difficulties.  France  indicated  for  example  the  high 
number  of  administrative  bodies  to  coordinate  and  Spain  highlighted  the  difficulties 
related to the decentralised organisation of the aquaculture governing bodies (autonomous 
communities have the exclusive competences for aquaculture management).  

Role of the OMC and the Commission:  

The  Strategic  Guidelines  have  clearly  contributed  to  focus  the  national  strategies  on 
administrative issues.  

2. Securing sustainable development and growth of aquaculture through coordinated 
spatial planning. 

Progress  on  spatial  planning  is  highly  variable.  According  to  the  survey  of  National 
Administrations  (NA)14,  the  mapping  of  existing  aquaculture  facilities  has  been  the  most 
common  type  of  action  in  the  field  of  spatial  planning.  Twelve  Member  States  indicated 
that  they  have  made  public  up-to-date  maps  of  existing  aquaculture  facilities  since  2014, 
and four other Member States intend to do so by 2020. Eleven Member States shared best 
practices at regional/local level, with four Member States planning to do the same by 2020. 
From  the  15  Member  States  that  answered  this  question,  ten  have  reported  at  least  a 

14 See section 4 – short description of methodology 

12 

 
                                                            
marginal increase in the surface area covered by Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) since 2014 
and  Belgium,  France,  Malta,  Portugal  and  the  UK  all  indicated  that  the  surface  area 
increased  significantly.  Five  Member  States  did  not  increase  the  surface  area  covered  by 
MSP since 2014, citing the following reasons: 

  MSP procedures are too long for building permit approvals (Estonia); 
  A delay in the incorporation of the MSP Directive (Greece); 
  The country does not have access to sea (Hungary); 
  The  plan  is  under  development  and  significant  stakeholder  engagement  is  ongoing 

(Ireland); 

  The entire maritime territory is already covered by spatial planning (Slovenia). 

In  Scotland,  an  Aquaculture  Infrastructure  Map  has  been  created  to  support  discussions 
about  aquaculture  developments  that  may  help  to  increase  aquaculture  productivity in  the 
country.  The  map  is  designed  to  assist  strategic  planning  in  this  industry.  In  addition, 
Marine Scotland’s online National Marine Plan interface (NMPi) also includes aquaculture 
sites.  Hungary's  Fisheries  Information  System  includes  regional  technical  and  economic 
data on aquaculture production but does not include any spatial information on licensing or 
permitting, as this information is held by too many different government bodies. Croatia is 
developing  an  online  register  of  aquaculture  licensing  with  a  new  aquaculture  law,  and 
already  collects  aquaculture  production  data  electronically.  Denmark  has  an  online 
aquaculture licensing system that includes environmental information, which also supports 
a one-stop-shop approach.   

It  is  evident  from  the  above  that  spatial  planning  for  aquaculture  across  the  EU  is  both 
highly  variable  in  terms  of  progress  and  in  terms  of  approach.  Whilst  the  MSP  Directive 
provides some rigour in ensuring common approaches to transboundary spatial planning in 
marine  areas  –  supported  through  various  elements  of  direct  funding  under  the  EMFF  – 
there  is  significant  potential  for  developing  common  approaches,  definitions  and 
Geographical Information (GIS) tools in the future.   

Role of the OMC and the Commission. 

The  Strategic  Guidelines  provide  a  target  for  the  Commission  to  “monitor  the 
implementation  of  coordinated maritime planning, to  disseminate studies and experiences 
to help Member States in their planning. To organise a best practice exchange seminar in 
summer 2014”.  

Since  the  EMFF  Regulation15  requires  the  development  of  MANPs  as  an  ex-ante 
conditionality16  for  accessing  EMFF  funding,  all  Member  States  (except  Luxemburg) 
produced MANPs that included a section on spatial planning. In many cases, this was the 
first time Member States engaged in spatial planning for aquaculture.  

Spatial planning has been a recurring feature in the various technical seminars organised by 
the Commission, being covered in: November 2015 (spatial planning and governance), May 
2016 (spatial planning) and April 2017 (spatial planning and GIS). In most cases, the focus 
has  been  on  marine  finfish  and  shellfish  farming,  although  the  role  of  spatial  planning  in 
freshwater environments has been acknowledged.  

15 Regulation (EU) N° 508/2014 
16 Article 9 and Annex IV of Regulation (EU) N° 508/2014  

13 

 
                                                            
A  recent  evaluation  of  EMFF  expenditure17  examined  the  progress  made  in  spatial 
planning. The evaluation is not yet completed by the Commission but the study concluded 
that EMFF support under direct management to date has catalysed Member States actions, 
allowed the development of Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP)18 implementation structures 
and frameworks, and facilitated a progress towards pilot national maritime spatial planning 
in  certain  sea  bodies.  Direct  EMFF  funding  into  transboundary  MSP  has  had  the  added 
benefit of encouraging inter-sectoral discussions and their engagement with counterparts in 
neighbouring  waters.  It  has  also  encouraged  proactive  MSP  engagement  across  maritime 
boundaries, building confidence in MSP at both national levels and allaying concerns over 
political uncertainties in geo-political issues such as Brexit.    

3. Enhancing competitiveness of EU aquaculture 

The case studies  highlighted the diversity of strategies and actions carried out  to improve 
competitiveness  in  the  sector  and  show  that  there  is  a  direct  link  between  achievements 
related to the reduction of administrative burden and spatial planning on one hand, and the 
improvement of competitiveness on the other.   

the 

importance  of  EMFF  funding 

Considering 
improvement  of 
competitiveness  (EUR  1.8  billion  of  EMFF  allocated  to  the  sustainable  development  of 
aquaculture  including  national  contributions),  delays  in  the  implementation  of  the  EMFF 
have significantly impacted the achievements under this objective.   

to  support 

the 

The analysis of the mid-term review reports showed that three19 of the 20 Member States 
that  submitted  their  mid-term  reports  did  not  indicate  any  progress  towards  this  priority. 
Progress  in  the  other  17  Member  States  is  variable,  but  according  to  the  NA  survey, 
Member States expect to have completely fulfilled about one third of their actions by 2020 
and to have partially fulfilled most of the remaining ones.   

The most important actions that have been implemented concern research developments in 
aquaculture  sectors,  cooperation  and  knowledge-sharing  and  modernising  existing 
aquaculture units and techniques. Less importantly, some Member States made progress in 
enhancing  the  business  resilience  against  fish  disease  and  improving  the  marketing  of 
aquaculture products.  

Six  Member  States20  indicated  some  quantifiable  effects,  mostly  relating  to  production 
volumes. In all cases, there has been an increase in production and targets are expected to 
be  achieved  by  2023  or  before.  Data  Collection  Framework  (DCF)  data  also  confirm  the 
increase  in  production  at  EU  level  between  2013  and  2016  (+13%)  and  the  Economic 
Report  of  the  EU  Aquaculture  sector21  shows  that  recent  forecasts  from  various 
organisations (FAO, EU Parliament, OECD) indicate that targets set for 2023 are realistic 
based on current trends.  

17 "Interim evaluation study of the implementation of the direct management component of the EMFF Regulation 
(Art.15  and  125),  Coffey  International.    https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1f424d68-
d670-11e8-9424-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

18 Directive 2014/89/EU 
19 Croatia, Czech Republic and Slovakia 
20 Cyprus, Croatia, Ireland, Lithuania, Spain and Portugal 
21 Economic Report of the EU Aquaculture sector, STECF, 2018-2019.  

14 

 
                                                            
Significant  progress  has  been  made  in  this  area  even  if  it  is  not  emphasised  in  national 
strategies,  as  11  out  of  the  28  recognised  Producer  Organisation  (POs)  were  established 
after 2015.   

Role of the OMC and the Commission  

The Strategic Guidelines provide a target for the Commission to “coordinate and support 
research  and  innovation  for  aquaculture  through  all  the  relevant  EU  programmes  and 
funds. To promote the transfer of knowledge, best practices and innovation, including EU 
research  project  findings.  To  deliver  a  user-friendly  EU  market  Observatory  to  provide 
market intelligence.”  

The Strategic Guidelines and the obligation to draft the MANP as a pre-requisite to access 
EMFF  funding  has  contributed  to  a  favourable  dynamic  for  the  sector  and  to  some 
convergence of national objectives. Even if strategies and actions implemented at national 
level  remain  very  diverse  when  it  comes  to  competitiveness,  the  focus,  almost  in  all 
Member  States,  on  administrative  procedures,  spatial  planning  and  innovation  (under 
competitiveness) has contributed to create a more favourable context.  

Between 2013 and 2017 research projects related to aquaculture were funded under the EU 
Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Development  (FP7),  under  Horizon 
2020, the EU LIFE+ programme and under the European Regional Development Fund. It 
provided new insights on new species, diseases, fish welfare, sustainability, new production 
systems and environmental impacts. Up to December 2017 the EMFF22 has funded several 
projects leading to more knowledge on innovation in aquaculture.  

4.  Promoting  a  level-playing  field  for  EU  operators  by  exploiting  their  competitive 
advantages. 

The case studies show that this priority was not always well understood and that there is no 
clear  line  between  the  strategy  to  improve  competitiveness  and  the  strategy  to  improve 
level-playing field.  

The analysis of mid-term review reports shows that a limited number of initiatives has been 
implemented  for  promoting  a  level-playing  field  between  EU  operators.  From  the  20 
Member  States  that  submitted  their  mid-term  review,  six  Member  States  did  not  provide 
any information on this type of initiative. The remaining 14 Member States implemented a 
variety  of  measures,  including  the  promotion  of  aquaculture  products,  market  research, 
labelling,  certification  and  establishment  of  producer 
promoting  product  safety, 
organisations.  The  NA  survey  results  also  show  that  19  Member  States  supported 
cooperation between research institutions and producer organisations under this priority.  

No  quantified  results  have  been  provided  for  the  actions  implemented  under  the  level-
playing  field,  but  feedback  from  the  NA  survey  indicates  that  the  expected  impacts  are 
increased transparency, increased organisation of the sector, increased public awareness and 
an increase in the number of certifications. 

22 Article 47 of EMFF Regulation 

15 

 
 
                                                            
Role of the OMC and the Commission  

The  Strategic  Guidelines  provide  a  target  for  the  Commission  to  “ensure  that  labelling 
rules,  in  particular  as  regards  freshness,  provenance  and  commercial  name  are  fully 
implemented.  To  improve  markets  transparency  and  disseminate  markets  information  on 
trends  at  local,  EU  and  international  levels.  To  launch  by  the  end  of  2013,  a 
Communication campaign on the strengths of EU aquaculture”. 

Some  convergence  of  national  strategies  can  be  observed.  Many  Member  States  have 
implemented actions to improve labelling, but these actions generally focus on the country 
of origin rather than on environmental specifications that could apply EU-wide, as foreseen 
in  the  Strategic  Guidelines.  The  Member  States  have  supported  the  establishment  of  new 
POs, but no Inter-Branch Organisation (IBO) or transnational PO has been set up. The EU 
launched the campaign ‘Farmed in the EU’ in 2016, but stakeholders refer more to national 
campaigns promoting national products. 

Ensuring that labelling rules are fully implemented depends on the implementation of the 
Control Regulation and has not been fully analysed.  

Dissemination  of  markets  information  is  done  mainly  through  EUMOFA,  the  Market 
Advisory Council and the technical seminars. EUMOFA was set up in 2008, although the 
OMC may have played a role in the increased focus on aquaculture products since 2014. 

4.  METHOD 

Short description of methodology 

The  interim  evaluation  is  coordinated  by  Unit  A.2  of  the  Commission's  Directorate-
General  for  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries  (DG  MARE),  with  the  support  of  an  Inter-
Service Steering Group comprised of other Commission services (see Annex 1). It is based 
on a study carried out by external consultants23 between October 2017 and July 2019 as 
well as on the "Economic Report of the EU Aquaculture sector" (STECF-18-19)24 and the 
EU Fish Market 2018 Report25.    

The study was conducted in three main phases: inception, data collection and analysis.   

During  the  inception  phase  interviews  were  conducted  with  relevant  services  in  the 
Commission  as  well  as  with  the  Aquaculture  Advisory  Council.  An  initial  analysis  of 
existing data took place. Methods and tools for data collection and analysis were designed 
and refined such as the Evaluation Questions Matrix (see Annex 3), a questionnaire for the 
stakeholder  public  consultation,  a  survey 
the  consultation  of  national 
administrations and the approach to the case studies.   

tool  for 

During  the  data  collection  phase  the  main  evidence  required  to  answer  the  evaluation 
questions was collected. Data was collected from a range of stakeholders at EU, national 
and regional/local levels using different methods:  

23 “Study on an interim evaluation of the OMC for the sustainable development of EU Aquaculture”, Coffey. 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/83f2aed6-b33c-11e9-9d01-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en 
24 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/economic/-/asset_publisher/d7Ie/document/id/2446795 
25 https://www.eumofa.eu/documents/20178/132648/EN_The+EU+fish+market+2018.pdf 

16 

 
                                                            
  Analysis  of  the  mid-term  reports  on  the  MANPs  leading  to  the  development  of  a 
synthesis  of  the  mid-term  reports  on  the  MANPs26  and  the  drafting  of  two-page 
country fiches27 presenting the state-of-play in each of the Member States.  

  Targeted  consultation  of  national  administrations  (NA)  aiming  to  provide  more 
detailed and up-to-date information on the achievements, potential effects and impacts 
of  the  objectives  set  in  the  sustainable  development  of  the  aquaculture  sector  across 
the 27 Member States. The consultation was conducted in 20 languages and questions 
were tailored to the specific objectives set by each Member State.  

  Commission's stakeholder consultations: showcasing the evaluation at the Sixth and 

Seventh Technical Seminars. 

  Open  Public  Consultation  (OPC)  carried  out  from  26th  May  2018  until  20th  July 

2018.   

  Case  studies  in  five  Member  States28  to  explore  the  evolution  of  the  aquaculture 
sector,  the  influence  of  the  OMC  and  the  drivers  and  limitations  behind  the  current 
status quo.  

In the analysis and reporting phase data were analysed. Key findings were developed from 
the desk research, the targeted consultation of NA, the OPC, the stakeholder consultation 
events and the case studies. In a second stage, key findings were triangulated according to 
the  evaluation  criteria  (effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  relevance  and  EU  added 
value).  Triangulated  findings  were  analysed  to  develop  responses  to  each  evaluation 
question and to draft conclusions.  

Robustness of findings 

Although  quantitative  data  has  been  derived  from  the  analysis  of  the  MANPs  and 
responses from the NA survey and the public consultation, many of the in-depth insights 
at  Member  State  level  rely  on  qualitative  data.  This  is  due  to  the  nature  of  the  tools 
analysed, the state of progress of implementation and the fact that there are no quantified 
objectives or monitoring systems in place for the OMC. This is understandable given the 
voluntary nature of Member States’ engagement in the OMC. The data gathered from the 
analysis of the mid-term review reports, the targeted consultation of NA and the OPC, do, 
however, provide robust information on the progress achieved to date in Member States in 
addressing  the  four  strategic  priorities.  Twenty-seven  Member  States29  responded  to  the 
consultation  of  NA  and  provided  data.  The  OPC  provided  an  opportunity  for  feedback 
from  stakeholders  who  might  not  have  otherwise  been  consulted.  Together,  these 
consultations  provide  a  solid  body  of  evidence.    The  case  studies,  which  were  used  to 
examine the situation in five Member States, provide more in-depth insight into progress 
at  national  level,  coherence  with  other  EU  legislation,  the  difficulties  encountered  to 
achieve the MANPs objectives, rationale for the Member States’ various implementation 
choices, and the aquaculture sectors’ needs. 

26 See study Annex I 
27 See study Annex VI 
28 Ireland, France, Spain, Poland and Greece  
29 Excluding Luxembourg, which was excluded from the evaluation due to its low aquaculture production 

17 

 
 
 
                                                            
Key limitations    

The  lack  of  common  OMC  indicators:  the  OMC  has  not  been  set  up  to  provide 
systematic  and  accurate  data  on  Member  States’  activities  and  impacts;  there  is  no 
common monitoring system to allow direct comparisons to be made.  

The heterogeneity of the qualitative information provided by the Member States in the 
MANPs, mid-term review reports and the survey of NA makes comparisons difficult. 

The OMC lacks quantified targets in terms of reaching its specific objectives. 

The  MANPs  set  few  quantified  targets  (and  none  for  the  mid-term)  and  no 
indicators.  

Attributing  causality  to  the  OMC:  it  can  be  difficult  to  disentangle  the  actions  that 
Member States would have taken any way and the actions upon which the OMC has had a 
direct impact.  

The lack of data on costs and cost savings: limited data could be gathered on the current 
costs  and  cost  savings.  The  costs  of  administrative  procedures  are  not  monitored  by 
Member  States  and  are  difficult  to  estimate  when  procedures  involve  more  than  one 
service or administration. The analysis of cost savings in Member States relies mainly on 
qualitative information and examples.  

The timing of the evaluation:  due to the interim nature of the evaluation, it is in many 
cases  too  early  to  observe  a  significant  impact  from  the  various  activities.  Many  of  the 
improvements involve long and complex processes.  

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  analysis  is  often  vague  and  limited.  This  is  due  to  the  above-
mentioned list of key limitations.   

This  chapter  will  address  the  5  evaluation  criteria.  Answers  are  given  to  all  the  evaluation 
questions listed in Annex 3. In order to improve the readability of the document the replies are 
presented to groups of related questions. 

5.1 EFFECTIVENESS 

1) Achievements of Member States’ actions. 

Member States addressed in their MANPs the four priorities identified in the Strategic Guidelines 
for  the  sustainable  development  of  aquaculture. While  Member  States  focused  on  administrative 
simplification  and  enhancing  the  competitiveness  of  the  aquaculture  sector,  they  have  not 
addressed  spatial  planning  in  the  same  manner,  because  some  Member  States  (including  the 
landlocked  countries)  did  not  consider  it  as  a  priority.  Moreover,  although  almost  all  Member 
States identified promoting a level playing field as a priority, the actions pursued are very similar 
to those defined under the third priority and progress is limited.  

The level of achievement of the MANPs’ actions at this stage is difficult to assess because there 
were  few  quantified  targets  (and  none  for  the  mid-term),  and  because  actions  planned  under  the 
MANPs often involve long-term processes. The overall level of achievement can therefore only be 

18 

 
measured through the percentage of national actions expected to be partially or fully achieved by 
2020 under each of the four priorities. 

It is estimated that by 2020, the majority of actions described in the MANPs will have been at least 
partially  achieved:  administrative  simplification  (96%),  spatial  planning  (96%),  improved 
competitiveness (92%) and a better level playing field (86%). However, the proportion of actions 
likely to be fully completed by 2020 is lower: administrative simplification (43%), spatial planning 
(49%), competitiveness (33%) and level playing field (23%).  

Evidence and argumentation 

Administrative  simplification:  In  their  MANPs,  Member  States  defined  76  actions  to  address 
administrative  simplification  to  be  implemented  by  2020,  except  for  Latvia  and  Lithuania30. 
Table  1  provides  a  general  overview  of  the  expected  level  of  achievement  regarding 
administrative simplification by 2020.  

Table 1: Expected level of achievement of Member State actions on administrative 
simplification by 2020 

Total number 
of actions in 
the MANPs 

Number of 
actions that 
are still valid  

Fully 
achieved 
(valid 
actions) by 
2020 

Partially 
achieved 
by 2020 

At least 
partially 
achieved 

Actions that 
will not be 
achieved by 
2020  

76 

72 

31 (43%) 

38 (53%) 

69 (96%) 

3 (4%) 

Source: consultation of national administrations (N=27) 

The results of the NA survey show that 43% of MANP actions will be fully achieved by 2020. 
They involve different types of actions depending on their national contexts and priorities. Only 
three  Member  States  indicated  that  all  their  administrative  simplification  actions  will  be  fully 
implemented  (Czech  Republic,  Greece  and  Portugal),  while  the  remaining  Member  States 
indicated that some of their objectives will be partially or not achieved by 2020. This indicates 
different  levels  of  progress  between  Member  States  and  confirms  that  in  most  cases, 
administrative simplification is seen as a long-term process.  

The results of the consultation of NA indicate also that 53% of actions will be partially achieved. 
Seven Member States indicated that all their actions will be partially achieved (Cyprus, Germany, 
Denmark,  Spain,  Hungary,  Ireland  and  Sweden).    Only  4%  of  the  actions  (3  actions)  set  by 
Member States in their MANPs and which are still valid will not be achieved. 

Enhancing coordinated spatial planning: spatial planning issues were not addressed by Member 
States to the same extent as administrative simplification. Member States placed different levels 
of  priority  on  aquaculture-oriented  spatial  planning,  which  relates  to  their  different  national 
contexts. The landlocked countries (Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovakia) in addition 
to Belgium, Latvia and Lithuania did not define specific actions on this priority. Overall, Member 

30 In Lithuania, analysis of administrative burden found that administrative procedures did not limit development in the sector.  
In  Latvia, two  actions  were  recommended  in  the  MANP,  but  they  concern  improving  knowledge  about  the aquaculture 
sector by improving data collection and are not directly linked to simplification. 

19 

 
                                                            
States  developed  69  actions  related  to  spatial  planning.  Although  these  actions  address  a  wide 
range of topics, half of Member States focussed on the identification of new aquaculture zones. 
There  was  some  focus  on  exploring  opportunities  for  diversification  and  for  integrated 
aquaculture and possible synergies with other marine activities. In contrast, other actions target 
the  better  regulation  of  the  existing  aquaculture  facilities.  Most  Member  States  set  out  in  their 
MANPs  both  types  of  action  (i.e.  addressing  issues  of  existing  facilities  and  developing  new 
areas for aquaculture). Table 2 provides a general overview of the expected level of achievement 
on spatial planning by 2020. 

Table  2:  Expected  level  of  achievement  of  Member  State  actions  on  spatial  planning  by 
2020 

Total number 
of actions in 
the MANPs 

Number of 
actions that 
are still valid  

Fully 
achieved 
by 2020 

Partially 
achieved 
by 2020 

At least 
partially 
achieved 

Actions 
that will 
not be 
achieved 
by 2020  

69 

60 

30 (50%) 

28 (46%) 

58 (96%) 

2 (4%)  

Source: consultation of national administrations (N=27) 
From the 60 actions that are still valid, half will be fully achieved by 2020. Five Member States 
(Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Ireland and Portugal) indicated that they will fully achieve all their 
actions  by  2020.  Those  actions  concern  mainly  harmonising  criteria,  carrying  out  preliminary 
studies and surveys and the development of guidelines to be used for identifying suitable areas 
for  aquaculture.  Actions  aimed  at  mapping  designated  areas  suitable  for  aquaculture  and  the 
development of a Geographical Information System will be fully implemented in most countries, 
except Croatia, France, Greece and Malta.  

46% of actions (28) that are still valid will be partially achieved by 2020. The actions that will be 
partially  implemented  concern  the  full  implementation  of  MSP  for  aquaculture  (e.g.  the 
integration of areas suitable for aquaculture in local/regional/national spatial plans), the support 
of new investments and the development of aquaculture production in the designated areas. Only 
4% (2 actions) which are still valid will not be achieved by 2020.  

Enhancing  competitiveness  of  the  aquaculture  sector  is  an  important  objective  for  all  Member 
States. Analysis of the MANPs shows that the largest  number of actions  relates to this priority 
and  that  all  Member  States  developed  actions  in  this  area.  The  number  of  actions  is  variable 
across  Member  States  and  range  from  one  action  in  Slovakia  to  thirteen  actions  in  Lithuania. 
Analysis of the MANPs shows also that 16 out of 27 Member States developed actions regarding 
research  and  innovation  aimed  at  developing  farming  technologies  to  support  sustainable  fish 
production (e.g. recycling systems), energy saving and diversification with new species. In many 
cases (e.g. Germany, Ireland and UK), the actions described in the MANPs concern both research 
and  innovation  and  cooperation,  networking  and  knowledge  share.  Table  3  provides  a  general 
overview of the expected level of achievement regarding competitiveness by 2020. 

Table 3: Expected level of achievement of Member State actions on competitiveness by 2020 

Total number 
of actions set 
Gin the 

Number of 
actions that are 

Fully 
achieved 

Partially 
achieved 

At least 
partially 

Actions that 
will not be 
achieved by 

20 

 
MANPs 

still valid  

by 2020 

by 2020 

achieved 

2020  

121 

112 

37 (33%) 

66 (59%) 

103 
(92%) 

9 (8%) 

Source: consultation of national administrations (N=27) 

Most  of  the  actions  foreseen  in  the  MANPs  are  still  valid.  33%  (37  actions)  will  be  fully 
achieved by 2020. Only 4 Member States (Finland, Ireland, Poland and Portugal) indicated that 
all actions related to this priority will be fully achieved. These actions concern different topics as 
Member States tend to choose initiatives that address their local issues.  

59%  (66  actions)  of  actions  that  are  still  valid  will  be  partially  achieved  by  2020.  Eleven 
Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France, Croatia, 
Italy,  Slovenia  and  Slovakia)  indicated  that  all  of  their  actions  related  to  enhancing  the 
competitiveness of aquaculture businesses will be partially achieved by 2020. The EMFF plays a 
central  role  in  the  achievement  of  objectives  by  supporting  several  initiatives  set  by  Member 
States.  The  effective  implementation  of  the  EMFF  will  determine  the  level  of  achievement  of 
actions related to this priority in the coming two years.  By 2020, only 8% of actions will not be 
achieved. Member States explain this by the delay in the implementation of the EMFF and the 
small scale of aquaculture businesses. 

The mid-term review reports were the most relevant source of information. Only 20 reports were 
available  -  as  a  result,  the  following  findings  did  not  provide  a  full  picture  of  the  progress.  
According  to  the  analysis,  3  of  the  20  Member  States  that  submitted  their  mid-term  review 
reports  did  not  indicate  any  progress  towards  this  priority  (Croatia,  Czech  Republic  and 
Slovakia).  The  remaining  17  Member  States  reported  unequal  progress  in  implementing  this 
priority,  with  Cyprus,  France  and  Germany  among  the  Member  States  that  have  been  most 
proactive in enhancing the competitiveness of the aquaculture sector. The most important actions 
implemented  so  far  concern  the  development  of  research  in  the  aquaculture  sector, 
cooperation  and  knowledge  share  and  modernising  the  existing  aquaculture  units  and 
techniques. The willingness to use research findings in aquaculture is reflected in the adoption of 
relevant  planning  documents.  For  example,  Scotland  published  its  first  comprehensive 
aquaculture  science  and  research  strategy,  while  the  Netherlands  launched  a  multi-annual 
research  programme  for  the  cultivation  of  seaweed.  Actions  aimed  at  knowledge  transfer  and 
exchange  took  various  forms  and  a  group  of  Member  States  placed  emphasis  on  the 
modernisation of existing aquaculture units and techniques. For instance, Cyprus, France, Latvia 
and Lithuania are all providing funding for the modernisation of farms or stimulating productive 
investments.    Less  importantly,  some  Member  States  have  made  progress  in  enhancing  the 
businesses  resilience  against  fish  diseases  and  improving  marketing  of  aquaculture 
products.  France,  Germany  and  Spain  implemented  initiatives  aiming  to  combat  endemic  fish 
diseases31. France  has also been one of the Member States that put animal health issues on the 
agenda,  focusing  particularly  on  shellfish  aquaculture32.  The  Member  States  that  worked  in 
improving  marketing  of  aquaculture  production  were  Lithuania  and  Estonia  and  conducted  a 
study on the market outlook for aquaculture products.  

31  The  Member  States  which  did  include  these  issues  in  their  MANPs  are  Germany,  France,  Hungary,  Greece  and  Ireland.  

Spain worked on this issue, although it was not initially planned in its MANP. 

32 Mortalities are one of the most important challenge for maintaining and developing the shellfish sector in France.  

21 

 
 
                                                            
Promoting  a  level  playing  field  for  EU  operators:  Twenty-six  Member  States  developed  85 
actions to promote a level playing field for EU operators. Only Poland did not set actions on this 
specific objective. The promotion of aquaculture products was one of the most important actions 
defined  by  Member  States  (e.g.  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Estonia, 
Finland,  Greece, Italy, Netherlands and Portugal).  Member States  also put  a lot of attention on 
collaboration  and  sharing  experience  and  promoting  sustainable  aquaculture  practices.  Some 
Member States developed actions to develop advertising campaigns and promote local products 
with a high export value (e.g. Estonia). However, actions defined under “level playing field” are 
very similar to actions set under “competitiveness”. Table 4 provides a general overview of the 
expected level of achievement regarding level playing field by 2020. 

Table 4: Expected level of achievement of Member State actions on level playing field by 
2020 

Total number 
of actions in 
the MANPs 

Number of 
actions that 
are still valid  

Fully 
achieved 
by 2020 

Partially 
achieved 
by 2020 

At least 
partially 
achieved 

Actions that 
will not be 
achieved by 
2020  

85 

73 

17 (23%) 

46 (63%) 

63 (86%) 

10 (14%) 

Source: consultation of national administrations (N=27) 

Table  4  shows  that  from  the  73  actions  that  are  still  valid,  23%  (17  actions)  will  be  fully 
achieved.  Only  3  Member  States  indicated  that  they  will  implement  all  the  actions  in  their 
MANPs by 2020. There is no specific trend among Member States on the types of actions that 
will  be  fully  achieved.  The  results  from  the  consultation  of  NA  also  indicate  that  63%  (46 
actions) will be partially achieved and 14% (10 actions) will not be achieved by 2020. 

2) Results of the OMC in the Member States. 

For administrative simplification, the analysis showed that the implementation of MANPs did not 
bring major changes to the indicators "management of authorisation procedures (i.e. public bodies 
involved in authorisation, average license duration and average license costs)". The only indicator 
which  has  seen  significant  impact  is  the  length  of  the  licensing  process,  which  decreased  in  6 
Member  States.  However,  indicators  related  to  the  "results  of  the  authorisation  procedure  (i.e. 
number of processed applications, new licenses and success rate)" saw significant improvements in 
most Member States since the implementation of the MANPs.  

For  enhancing  coordinated  spatial  planning,  the  impact  of  MANP  implementation  was  less 
obvious. Only ten Member States reported an increase of the surface covered by spatial planning, 
even if marginal. This improvement was most obvious in coastal states, which have obligations for 
MSP.    The  other  Member  States  indicated  that  it  is  a  long-term  process  involving  different 
stakeholders and the spatial planning is under development.  

For  competitiveness the effects  of MANP implementation  concern  increasing production  volume 
with five Member States33 indicating progress in this field.   

For promoting a level playing field little information on the impact of MANP implementation has 

33 Cyprus, Croatia, Ireland, Spain and Portugal 

22 

 
 
                                                            
been gathered: only Italy, Greece and Spain reported tangible improvements.  

Evidence and argumentation 

Administrative simplification 

Impacts of the progress on administrative simplification since the implementation of the MANPs is 
assessed  through  analysis  of  indicators  proposed  in  the  Strategic  Guidelines.  Since  2013,  the 
European  Commission  encourages  Member  States  to  collect  information  on  the  following 
indicators:  

Category 1: management of authorisation procedures 

o  Number of public bodies involved in the authorisation procedure; 
o  Average time to complete licensing procedure in months; 
o  Average costs of licensing procedures for new businesses;  
o  Average duration of a license (Years/ months).   

Category 2: results of authorisation procedures 

o  Number of applications processed per year;  
o  Number of new licences granted per year; 
o  Success rate of applications for licenses. 

Only  13  Member  States  provided  quantitative  information  for  both  2014  and  2016.  Austria, 
Hungary  and  Slovakia  provided  only  information  for  one  year  -  trend  analysis  is  therefore  not 
possible for these countries. 

Management of authorisation procedures  

There  have  been  no  significant  changes  in  these  indicators  since  the  implementation  of  the 
MANPs, except for the indicator on the average length of the licensing processing. This indicator 
has seen the most significant progress, with 6 Member States34 noting a shorter average length of 
the licensing processing in 2016 than in the baseline year. The most significant progress has been 
made by Portugal where the average length of the licensing processing decreased by 52%.  For the 
indicators  related  to  the  number  of  public  bodies  involved  in  authorisation  procedures  and  the 
average licenses duration, there are no major changes between 2014 and 2016. This suggests that 
the  implementation  of  MANPs  did  not  result  in  major  changes  to  these  indicators.  The  average 
costs  of  licensing  procedures  for  new  businesses  have  overall  remained  unchanged,  except  in 
Greece  where  cost  of  licences  increased.  The  survey  revealed  major  differences  across  Member 
States. Average license durations have only changed in Greece (from 10 to 20 years). Overall, the 
consultation of NA indicates that the average license duration varied from ten years in Cyprus to 
up to  50 years in  Croatia in  2016. Both Romania and Estonia reported that  they grant  unlimited 
aquaculture licenses.  

Results of the authorisation procedures 

This category of indicators has seen significant changes since the implementation of the MANPs 
by the Member States. For Member States that provided data for both 2014 and 2016, 6 reported 
an increase in numbers of processed applications. Sweden and the United Kingdom progressed the 
most  with  an  increase  of  100%  and  138%  respectively  in  the  number  of  processed  applications. 

34 Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom 

23 

 
  
                                                            
Out of the 11 Member States that provided figures for both 2014 and 2016, in 7 Member States35 
there was an increase in the number of new licenses granted in 2016 compared to the baseline year, 
3 Member States36 experienced a decrease, while in Slovenia the number of new licences stayed 
the same. Most progress occurred in Ireland where the number of new licenses increased from 14 
to  122.  Concerning  the  success  rate,  all  Member  States  who  reported  on  this  indicator  in  the 
survey confirmed a success rate of 50% or over and 6 Member States reported a success rate of 
90%  or  over,  with  Estonia,  Greece and  Croatia all  reporting  a  100%  success  rate. Four  Member 
States37 had a higher success rate in 2016 compared to the baseline year, the United Kingdom saw 
a decrease, and 3 Member States38 reported the same numbers for both years.  

Overall, there is no correlation between progress made on the two categories of indicators. In fact, 
even though in some cases the length of the licensing process or number of public bodies involved 
in authorisation remained unchanged, the number of processed applications, new granted licenses 
and success rates increased.  

Enhancing coordinated spatial planning  

In  the  NA  survey  ten  Member  States  reported  an  increase  in  the  surface  covered  by  SP,  even  if 
marginal. From these Member States, Belgium, France, Malta, Portugal and the UK indicated that 
this area increased significantly. Five Member States did not increase the surface area covered by 
SP  since  2014.  In  their  mid-term  reviews,  Member  States  indicated  that  their  limited  progress 
reflects  the  long-term  processes  involving  different  stakeholders,  which  are  required.  The  most 
frequently mentioned reasons are related to the lack of quantitative data and the small amount of 
time  since  the  adoption  or  the  implementation  of  the  MANPs.  Portugal  and  Estonia  provided 
quantitative information in their mid-term review reports: Portugal reported on the creation of two 
new  aquaculture  production  areas,  one  in  the  Central  region  (area  with  1,000  hectares)  and  the 
other  in  the  Algarve  (974  hectares);  Estonia  reported  that  its  aquaculture  production  doubled 
during the period of 2012-2016, linking this increase to the creation of new aquaculture facilities.  

Stakeholders from the industry generally considered that initiatives implemented are of significant 
importance  for  the  development  of  aquaculture.  They  also  shared  views  on  different  spatial 
planning  tools  developed  in  the  different  Member  States.  For  instance,  in  Greece,  stakeholders 
considered  that  there  was  a  serious  problem  of  incompatibility  between  different  spatial  plans 
creating  conflicts  between  aquaculture  and  other  maritime  activities.  In  France,  the  surface  area 
covered by spatial planning increased as almost all regions developed their own regional schemes 
for  the  development  of  aquaculture.  However,  stakeholders  consulted  during  the  fieldwork 
considered  that  these  regional  schemes  must  be  integrated  in  broader  regional  development 
schemes  of  maritime  activities.  Also,  there  is  a  problem  related  to  low  social  acceptability  of 
aquaculture activities. 

Enhancing the competitiveness of aquaculture operators  

According  to  Data  Collection  Framework  (DCF)  data,  overall  EU  aquaculture  production 
increased  by  13%  between  2013  and  2016.  The  most  important  increases  were  in  Slovakia  and 
Slovenia with 96% and 77% respectively. However, 2013 saw a production decline in most of the 
five largest aquaculture producers in Europe, which influenced production achievements in 2016.  

35 Spain, Greece, Croatia, Ireland, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom 
36 Cyprus, France and Portugal 
37 Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Portugal 
38 Croatia, Slovenia and Romania 

24 

 
                                                            
The view of industry is that the impact and results of progress made regarding the implementation 
of  initiatives  related  to  the  competitiveness  are  not  obvious.  Stakeholders  considered  that 
aquaculture  production  could  be  increased  through  administrative  simplification  and  the  full 
implementation  of  spatial  planning.  The  EMFF  plays  an  important  role  to  support  producers  in 
adopting sustainable technologies (recirculation systems for instance). 

National  authorities  in  Member  States  monitor  results  at  macro  level  (national  production). 
However, industry reported results related to farm level (producers) or sector level (representative 
organisations).  

Promoting a level playing field for EU operators  

The mid-term reports provide almost no information on quantifiable effects of these initiatives. 
Member States reported that their MANPs are still in the early stages of implementation. The only 
2 Member States that reported impact are Spain and Italy. Italy reported an increase in the number 
of  farms  that  adopt  sector  certification  schemes  (in  freshwater  fish  farming  in  particular).  Spain 
monitors  some  relevant  indicators  such  as  consumption  of  aquatic  products,  trade  balance  of 
fishery products and weight of aquaculture in GDP. The case studies provided little information 
on the results and impact of initiatives targeted at creating a level playing field, except in Greece. 
To reward high production costs of the Greek aquaculture (qualitative products, shipping costs of 
reaching remote islands), national authorities established POs which proposed a set of actions to 
improve  the  competitiveness  of  Greek  products  (creation  of  labels,  promoting  collective  actions 
and research and technology) and to promote marketing. Only part of these results was achieved, 
and  it  is  expected  that  full  impact  will  be  seen  in  the  coming  years.  Feedback  from  industry 
indicates that the results achieved at national level are not perceived at industry level, where the 
focus  is  placed  on  tackling  issues  related  to  administrative  simplification,  spatial  plaining  and 
difficulties with claiming EMFF to enhance the competitiveness of their companies. 

3) Results of the OMC at EU level. 

The targets set in the Strategic Guidelines have been partially achieved: almost all Member States 
have drafted a MANP and have set quantified targets for growth in the sector. There has been an 
increased focus on administrative procedures and spatial planning in national strategies. 

The  Strategic  Guidelines  contributed  to  promoting  the  aquaculture  sector  within  EU  policy, 
encouraging funding from other sources (e.g. Horizon 2020) and greater focus in EUMOFA. 

The  Strategic  Guidelines  and  the  MANPs  have  contributed  to  improve  strategic  planning  and 
create a sense of common goals across Member States. National strategies existed before the OMC 
in  most  Member  States,  but  they  were  integrated  into  wider  strategies  in  many  cases  (e.g. 
strategies  for  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture  sector  as  a  whole).  The  Strategic  Guidelines  and  the 
MANPs  have  encouraged  Member  States  to  develop  a  comprehensive  strategy  for  aquaculture, 
with quantified targets for growth. 

Evidence and argumentation 

Responses  to  the  OPC39  about  participation  in  the  development  and  actual  use  of  OMC  tools 
indicate that the MANPs are the tools that have involved the largest number of stakeholders and 
that are the most widely used (25 respondents out of 42 participated in their development and/or 

39 See Annex 2 

25 

 
                                                            
used  them),  followed  by  seminars  and  events  (21  respondents),  EU  guidance  documents  (20 
respondents,  but  with  a  smaller  share  of  stakeholders  involved  in  the  development  and  a  larger 
share of users), and finally the Strategic Guidelines and available documents on best practice (17 
respondents each). 

Feedback  from  the  case  studies  show  that  the  Strategic  Guidelines  contributed  to  focus  national 
strategies on administrative issues and spatial planning. Even if MANPs are not always structured 
around the four EU specific objectives, the MANPs involved large consultations with the industry 
at national and regional level, and contributed to promote the priorities of the Strategic Guidelines.  

Analysis  of  the  actions  set  by  MS  in  their  MANPs  also  shows  some  convergence  of  strategies, 
especially for the first two specific objectives (administrative burden and spatial planning). 

On the contrary, except for Greece, there is no evidence from the case studies, that authorities in 
charge  relied  significantly  on  EU  guidance  documents.  They  may  have  been  used  for 
transposition into national laws (especially the EU guidance for the implementation of the WFD 
and  the  MSD)  but  there  has  been  little  dissemination;  and  administrations  in  charge  of 
administrative procedures and MSP, as well as the industry, tend to refer to the  legislations rather 
than to the guidance documents.  

4) Factors that influenced the achievements at national level and EU level.  

Simplification of the licensing procedure can be hindered by complex regulatory frameworks and a 
significant number of entities involved. On the other hand, good collaboration between stakeholders 
can facilitate change. The general development of spatial planning regulation and tools contributes 
to  improving  spatial  planning  for  aquaculture  but  its  actual  contribution  to  the  sustainable 
development of aquaculture is limited by the competition for land and marine use, as  well as low 
social acceptance.  Targeted investments through the EMFF should have contributed to enhance the 
competitiveness of aquaculture but delays in the implementation have limited the impact. The main 
issues identified in terms of level-playing field are differences in requirements  for products entering 
the EU market, which are not addressed through the OMC tools. 

Evidence and argumentation  

Simplify administrative procedures: the tight collaboration between administration and professionals 
has been identified as a key factor to establish new administrative processes. According to the NA 
survey, 17 out of 25 Member States that provided responses, declared to have established a platform 
for dialogue between industry and public administrations. These tools either existed before 2014 (4 
cases) or have been implemented since, in order to foster collaboration between stakeholders with 
the  objective  to  reduce  the  complexity  of  administrative  procedures.  On  the  contrary,  the 
complexity of institutional and regulatory frameworks and the number of administrations involved 
have  hindered  improvements  in  this  area.  The  issue  of  complex  bureaucratic  procedures  was 
highlighted for example in the mid-term reports of Italy, Germany and Romania. The case studies in 
France,  Greece  and  Spain  also  show  that  the  large  number  of  organisations  involved  results  in 
lengthy  procedures  and  also  makes  it  more  difficult  to  implement  changes.  The  Polish 
administration  established  a  new  entity  in  2018,  which  focuses  on  water  management  and 
administrative procedures related to water permits, including for aquaculture, with the objective to 
streamline  and  shorten  procedures,  but  it  is  too  early  to  assess  the  impact  on  the  administrative 
processes.  The  information  provided  shows  that  the  number  of  administrations  involved  has  not 
been  reduced  between  2014-2016,  which  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  it  usually  reflects  the 
administrative  organisation  of  the  Member  State  and  the  allocation  of  competences  among  the 

26 

 
different organisations. The example of Galicia shows that even where one-stop-shops have been or 
are  being  set-up,  it  does  not  necessarily  translate  into  a  reduction  of  the  overall  number  of 
administrations involved.  

Coordinated  spatial  planning:  the  level  of  Member  State  experience  in  spatial  planning  is  a  key 
driver  and  pre-requisite  for  the  integration  of  aquaculture  in  spatial  planning.  The  difficulties 
encountered  in  Poland  because  of  the  absence  of  maps  and  databases  in  areas  where  inland 
aquaculture could be developed is a good illustration of this. The adoption by Member States of new 
regulatory  frameworks  for  spatial  planning  also  contributed  to  achievements  in  this  area. 
Nevertheless,  land  pressure  and,  in  the  case  of  marine  aquaculture,  competition  for  space  with 
other  marine  activities  remain  strong  barriers.  Conflicts  can  arise  with  other  activities  such  as 
fishing  (professional  and  recreational),  tourism  and  other  marine  activities  or  among  different 
aquaculture  sectors.  Therefore,  the  ability  to  identify  suitable  space  for  the  development  of 
aquaculture  strongly  depends  on  local  policies  and  priorities,  which  can  be  different  from  the 
national  strategy  for  aquaculture.  Although  conflicts  of  use  exist  for  both  inland  and  marine 
aquaculture,  they  appear  to  be  stronger  in  the  latter  case.  In  some  Member  States,  the  low  social 
acceptance of aquaculture and the controversial image of farmed products tend to disadvantage fish 
farmers  in  this  competition  for  space.  Spatial  planning  can also  be  more  difficult  to  implement  in 
decentralised  Member  States.  For  instance,  in  Spain,  the  central  government  has  competence  for 
the  marine  public  domain  but  the  Autonomous  Communities  (AC)  have  competence  for  the 
development  of  aquaculture,  which  raises  legal  issues  about  the  implementation  of  the  MSP 
Directive and the definition of areas of interest for aquaculture. Some Member States are trying to 
address the issue of conflicts of use, for instance through positive communication on aquaculture, by 
integrating aquaculture into tourism activities (e.g. Taste the Atlantic route40 in Ireland) or by pre-
empting  possible  changes  of  use  when  producers  retire,  so  the  property  remains  allocated  to 
aquaculture (e.g. shellfish sector in France41), but these initiatives do not allow to identify potential 
new  spaces  for  aquaculture.  Other  Member  States  are  exploring  developing  off-shore  farms  as  a 
way to limit conflicts of use (e.g. in Greece). 

Enhancing  the  competitiveness  of  EU  aquaculture:  The  key  success  factors  to  enhance  the 
competitiveness  of  EU  aquaculture  are  the  access  to  funding,  through  public  funding  or  access  to 
credits, the level of knowledge  about the aquaculture and industry in  administrations and relevant 
private  stakeholders  (banks  in  particular),  ability  to  find  trained  staff  and  access  to  space  and 
licenses.  The  specific  pillar  for  aquaculture  under  the  EMFF  has  encouraged  Member  States  to 
support  targeted  investments.  However,  this  was  hindered  by  delays  and  other  difficulties 
encountered in the implementation of the EMFF.  The negative image of some consumers towards 
aquaculture products can be another limiting factor. Marketing and communication campaigns were 
implemented  to  improve  consumer’s  perception  of  aquaculture  products  (e.g.  campaign  for  the 
Label Rouge in France, supported by the EMFF), but the main barriers (i.e. access to funding, space 
and licences) have not been really addressed.  

Promoting a level playing field for EU operators by exploiting their competitive advantage: Success 
and hindering factors to promote a level playing field were difficult to identify as this priority was 
interpreted differently among Member States and was generally not well understood. Whereas the 

40 https://www.wildatlanticway.com/highlights/taste-the-wild-atlantic-way 
41 in April 2018, In Britanny (France), in order to prevent land from being inaccessible to producers, the two Shellfish Regional 
Committees  (Bretagne  Sud  and  Bretagne  Nord)  signed  a  convention  with  the  Société  d’aménagement  foncier  et 
d’établissement rural (SAFER), a network of companies with a mission of public service, specialised in the sale of rural 
properties.  According  to  this  convention,  the  SAFER  can  intervene  and  buy  an  aquaculture  farm  and  resell  it  later  to 
another active producer. This would protect shellfish farming in terrestrial areas, and thus reduce pressures on space. 

27 

 
                                                            
Strategic  Guidelines  implied  that  the  Member  States  should  improve  the  level  playing  field  in 
particular  through  a  better  organisation  of  the  sector,  only  few  Member  States  included  actions 
related to this aspect in their MANPs. The main issues usually highlighted by the industry in terms 
of  level  playing  field  are  not  addressed  by  the  OMC  tools:  (1)  Differences  in  production  costs 
among  EU  Member  States  and  with  third  countries  (e.g.  labour  costs  for  France,  extra  costs  on 
remote Greek islands); (2) Differences in legal requirements, in particular with third countries.  

5) Impact of the OMC on the CFP objectives.  

At  this  stage,  the  impact  of  the  OMC  on  the  wider  objectives  of  the  CFP  can  be  considered 
marginal. Only few Member States could measure effects in terms of sector growth. Some of the 
measures of the MANPs are related to enhanced sustainability or food security, one Member State 
reported an increase in the number of organic farms under the competitiveness objective. The EU 
guidance  should  theoretically  contribute  to  enhanced  sustainability  through  a  better  and 
harmonised implementation  of EU directives, but the information  collected does  not allow for a 
full  assessment  of  its  impact  on  the  environment  or  long-term  sustainability  of  aquaculture 
production.  Likewise,  the  technical  seminars  and  the  high-level  events  addressed  sustainability 
and food security issues, but impact will only be measurable in the long run.  

The MANPs reflect the OMC specific objectives, therefore the measures implemented by Member 
States relate to those objectives by definition. More generally, the intermediate results observed at 
EU level (increased focus on administrative procedures and spatial planning, increased support to 
aquaculture  through  various  EU  programmes)  should  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  general 
objectives of the CFP. 

6) Communication.  

Although  communication  is  a  key  tool  to  exploiting  the  high  environmental,  animal  health  and 
consumer  protection  standards  in  the  EU,  there  has  been  little  formal  advice,  standardisation  or 
coordination on communication between Member States. The one exception is the ‘Farmed in the 
EU’ campaign, which includes some online resources, as well as a school project in around 10 EU 
Member  States.  There  is  some  consistency  over  the  nature  of  communication  messages  coming 
from Member States as a result of the OMC. The OMC supports the use of good communication 
for  promoting  the  benefits  and  competitiveness  of  EU-farmed  seafood.    This  can  be  provided 
though the MANPs, with some funding available via the EMFF42. However, in practice, there is 
limited evidence that improved communication at Member State level has been actively facilitated 
by  the  OMC.  Some  simple  guidance,  based  on  practical  experience  of  communicating  to 
stakeholders in similar primary industries, would be a useful addition to the OMC tool set.   

5.2 EFFICIENCY 

1) Reduction of administrative procedures in the Member States. 

The three main actions taken to simplify administrative procedures have been (1) improvements to 
coordination  within  public  administrations,  (2)  streamlining  and  reductions  of  administrative 
procedures,  and  (3)  the  provision  of  a  platform  for  dialogue  between  industry  and  the  public 
administration.  Fewer  Member  States  took  actions  to  review  assessment  procedures,  prolonging 

42 Article 83 ( c) and  Article 91 

28 

 
 
                                                            
license  durations,  align  assessment  procedures  in  different  regions,  and  establish  a  mandatory 
timeframe  for  procedural  steps.  Only  two  Member  States  plan  to  set  up  a  one-stop-stop  in  the 
future.  There  were  other  planned  initiatives  to  support  administrative  simplification  beyond  what 
was  described  in  the  MANPs,  confirming  the  wide-ranging  set  of  initiatives  to  simplify 
administrative  procedures  across  the  Member  States  (simplifying  the  environmental  regulatory 
framework,  reforming  aquaculture  legislation,  as  well  as  developing  data  management  and 
information systems).  

However,  the  lack  of  quantitative  information  makes  it  difficult  to  confirm  that  administrative 
procedures  have  been  reduced  across  the  Member  States.  There  is  also  an  inherent  difficulty  in 
attributing any changes directly to the OMC. Nonetheless, the available evidence indicates that the 
impacts that can be identified relate to an increase in the number of new licenses and a decrease in 
the average time to complete licensing procedure.   

Evidence and argumentation 

Number  of  new  licenses  granted  per  year:  Eleven  Member  States  provided  figures  for  both  2014 
and 2016. In seven Member States (Greece, Croatia, Ireland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, UK) there 
was an increase in  the number of new licenses in  2016, in  three (Estonia, France, Portugal) there 
was a decrease and in one (Slovenia) the number of new licences granted was the same number in 
both years.  

Success  rate  of  applications  for  licenses:  As  only  11  Member  States  provided  data,  the  survey 
provides an incomplete picture. However, the evidence suggests that four Member States (Greece, 
Ireland,  Portugal,  Sweden)  had  a  higher  success  rate  in  2016,  one  (UK)  saw  a  decrease  and  four 
(Estonia, Croatia, Romania, Slovenia) reported the same numbers for both years43. 

Average time to complete licensing procedure in months: From the ten Member States that provided 
data  for  both  years,  six  (Spain,  Greece,  Ireland,  Portugal,  Slovenia,  UK)  had  a  shorter  average 
length of licensing procedure in 2016 than in 2014.  

Number of public bodies involved in the authorisation procedure: Seven of the 12 Member States 
for  which  2016  data  is  available  had  five  or  more  public  bodies  participating  in  the  authorisation 
procedure. However, the figures reported for both 2014 and 2016 were largely the same, indicating 
that the implementation of MANPs did not bring major changes to the management of authorisation 
procedures.  

Average  duration  of  a  license:  In  2016,  the  average  license  duration  varied  from  ten  years  in 
Cyprus, Spain and Ireland to up to 50 years in Croatia. Among the 11 Member States that provided 
data for both 2014 and 2016, there were almost no change in the average duration of a license. The 
only exception was Greece, where the average license duration increased from ten to 20 years. 

The  lack  of  quantitative  information  (and  the  sparse  data)  makes  it  difficult  to  confirm 
improvements. However, the case studies largely confirmed the key findings from the NA survey. 
The  evidence  indicates  that  the  actions  simplifying  administrative  procedures  had  not  much 
impact  on  the  ease  and  speed  of  use  of  procedures  and  processes  except  for the number  of  new 
licenses and the average time to complete licensing procedures. 

43 Since the figures provided by Romania appear to be incorrect, they were excluded from this review. According to the data 
entered  by  the  national  administration  of  Romania,  there  were  more  new  licenses  granted  than  processed  in  Romania, 
while the success rate was 1%. 

29 

 
                                                            
2) Cost savings from administrative simplification. 

There is limited information on costs available, both by national administrations and other private 
stakeholders. There is some information on costs of licenses, although there does not seem to be a 
clear  link  between  the  simplification  of  administrative  procedures  and  a  decrease  in  costs  of 
licenses, and private stakeholders in particular have not experienced a reduction in costs. There is 
some  evidence  to  suggest  that  administrative  simplification  will  result  in  time  saved  by 
administrations  and  operators,  such  as  through  shortening  of  licensing  procedures  and  new 
authorisations.  However,  the  limited  available  data  shows  that  administrative  simplification  has 
not yet significantly resulted in cost savings for the aquaculture sector.  

There is some evidence quantifying the average costs of licensing procedures for new businesses. 
Nine  Member  States  provided  data  on  this  for  2014  and  201644,  although  not  all  nine  provided 
data for both years. While in both 2014 and 2016 the procedure was free of charge in France and 
the UK, the costs were as high as €1,300 in Croatia and €15,000 in Greece for the year 2016. From 
2014 to 2016, there were very little changes in the average costs of licensing procedure for new 
businesses  in  the  seven  Member  States  (Belgium,  France,  Greece,  Croatia,  Romania,  Slovenia, 
UK)  that  provided  the  figures  for  both  years.  None  of  these  seven  Member  States  reported  a 
decrease in costs in 2016 compared to the baseline year (2014). 

The  evidence  from  the  case  studies  in  the  five  Member  States  shows  a  complicated  picture.  In 
Greece,  the  experience  of  operators  submitting  requests  following  licencing  procedures  showed 
that  the  gain  in  time  booked  through  simplification  of  legislation  did  not  imply  a  proportional 
reduction in terms of costs. The direct cost remains the same or even higher for locations included 
in  Natura  2000  areas.  Similarly,  in  Spain,  there  was  no  evidence  that  simplifications  in 
administrative  procedures  would  result  in  increased  cost  savings,  although  according  to  the 
national authority cost savings could be expected from the increased use of IT tools.   

3) Expected cost savings from further reductions in administrative burdens. 

The  further  planned  simplification  measures  are  wide-ranging  across  the  Member  States.  They 
include,  for  example,  introducing  or  shortening  the  time  limits  for  certain  administrative 
procedures,  improving  the  data  collection  and  information  systems,  simplifying  regulations,  and 
improving coordination within the public administration.   

There  is  no  evidence  to  suggest  that  Member  States  have  quantified  the  expected  cost  savings 
from the planned actions and there is an inherent difficulty in quantifying costs. Moreover, there is 
a lack of consensus among stakeholders on the potential impacts of future actions, for example in 
Greece,  there  was  a  general  expectation  that  the  establishment  of  Areas  for  Organised 
Development of Aquaculture (AODAs) would lead to cost savings and in Galicia the setting up of 
a  one-stop-shop  was  expected  to  significantly  improve  processes,  but  some  stakeholders  were 
concerned about the potential for increased delays.  

Given  the  limited  evidence  presented  by  stakeholders,  including  national  administrations  on 
actions planned in the next two years and possible savings, it is not possible to say with certainty 
that additional savings can be expected from planned improvements. 

44 The nine Member States that provided data were: Austria, Belgium, Spain, France, Greece, Croatia, Romania, Slovenia, UK.   

30 

 
 
                                                            
4) Cost of engaging with the OMC. 

It is difficult to quantify Member States’ costs of engaging with the OMC. In general, however, it 
can be expected that the costs are minimal. Nevertheless, there is evidence that stakeholders see 
the OMC as a benefit, emphasising the added value of the mechanism compared to what could be 
achieved without EU action. There is, therefore, a strong sense that  the benefits provided justify 
time  and  resources  committed  by  Member  States,  particularly  as  the  OMC  facilitated  more 
cooperation and mutual learning.  

There is no evidence to confirm the costs in terms of time and resources at Member State level. In 
France,  it  was  noted  that  the  financial  resources  available  are  often  limited  to  implement  all  the 
actions included in the MANP. In general, however, it can be expected that Member States’ costs 
are minimal.  

There is no evidence to confirm that the costs of engaging with the OMC are compensated by the 
benefits that are generated at Member State and EU level. However, most stakeholders consulted 
considered that the OMC is a benefit and emphasised its added value compared to what could be 
achieved by Member States at national/regional level without EU action. The OMC facilitated a 
common  approach  as  well  as  more  cooperation  and  mutual  learning.  The  OMC  also  helped  to 
ensure  that  Member  States  are  more  aligned  with  EU  policies  and  objectives  and  provided  a 
platform for Member States to exchange information and experiences. 

5)  Good  practices  and  difficulties  influencing  the  efficiency  of  the  changes  to  the 
administrative procedures. 

The two main good practices were: setting up coordination bodies and making legislative reforms.  

The  main  difficulties  include  the  complexity  of  the  regulatory  landscape,  the  level  of 
decentralisation,  and  the  lack  of  coordination  between  institutions.  Lack  of  cooperation  and 
coordination  among  institutions,  including  in  highly  decentralised  Member  States,  inhibits  the 
development  of  an  overarching  framework  to  make  administrative  changes  and  makes 
administrative procedures particularly burdensome for industry.   

The main factors supporting increased administrative simplification relate to the existence and set 
up  of  coordinating  bodies  and  legislative  changes.  In  some  Member  States,  such  as  Greece, 
Ireland, Sweden and the UK, legislative reforms are the drivers of administrative simplifications. 
For example, Sweden simplified the animal health regulations by merging four legislative acts into 
one  while  Greece  has  simplified  administrative  procedures  through  the  law  4282/2014  (entitled 
aquaculture development and other provisions).  

The  factors  that  limited  administrative  simplifications  include  the  complexity  of  the  regulatory 
landscape,  the  level  of  decentralisation,  and  the  lack  of  coordination  between  institutions.  In 
France, there are a large number of regulations governing aquaculture activities. Administrative 
procedures  are  different  according  to  the  types  of  farming  practiced  and  the  decentralisation  of 
aquaculture  management  means  that  several  authorities  could  intervene  in  any  application.  The 
decentralised landscape of the management of the aquaculture sector in  Spain’s ACs also limits 
administrative  simplification.  The  ACs  have  exclusive  competence  for  aquaculture,  such  that 
actions implemented at national level are mainly limited to coordination and harmonisation effects 
(e.g.  IT  harmonisation,  guidelines,  exchange  of  information,  etc.).  This  coordination  requires 
feedback  and  contributions,  which  can  be  varied  as  it  is  dependent  on  the  capacity  and  relative 
importance of aquaculture in each AC. Lack of coordination is also an issue in Poland.  

31 

 
Documents  are  issued  by  various  independent  institutions  not  cooperating  with  each  other. 
Although  there  is  no  licence  system  in  Poland,  growers  complain  about  the  multitude  of 
documents that they have to produce. 

5.3 COHERENCE 

1)  The  OMC  and  its  tools  are  fully  coherent  with  the  reformed  CFP  and  its  strategic 
objectives. The CFP’s strategic priorities include ensuring that “aquaculture activities contribute 
to  long-term  environmental,  economic,  and  social  sustainability”  and  “Aquaculture  should 
contribute to the preservation of the food production potential on a sustainable basis throughout 
the  Union”.    The  CFP  also  recognises  that  the  Commission's  Strategy  for  the  Sustainable 
Development of European Aquaculture (adopted in 2009) is the key starting point for the OMC, 
providing the basis for the Strategic Guidelines. The subsequent MANPs are also an explicit tool 
for  promoting  sustainable  aquaculture  (under  Art.  34).  The  reformed  CFP  states  the  need  for 
Member  States  to  exchange  information  and  best  practises through  the OMC  and  it  outlines the 
role  of  the  Commission  in  encouraging  the  exchange  of  information  and  best  practices  among 
Member States and the coordination of national measures foreseen in the MANPs.   

Evidence and argumentation 

Unlike wild fisheries management, the EU  shares competence for aquaculture management, with 
the  primary  competence  lying  with  the  Member  States.  Therefore,  there  was  a  need  for  a 
coordinated  approach  to  ensuring  sustainable  development  across  the  EU,  as  well  as  remaining 
competitive in a global market. The OMC was  developed to fulfil this purpose through a voluntary 
approach. It is also considered a ‘joined up’, sequential approach in that the  Strategic Guidelines 
established  the  key  objectives  of  the  OMC  following  considerable  stakeholder  input,  and  that 
public financial support though the EMFF built upon this strategy.  This was further reinforced by 
the  development  of  the  MANPs  at  Member  State  level,  which  again  was  fully  coherent  with  the 
earlier strategy and Strategic Guidelines. 

The main tools of the OMC are (i) the Strategic Guidelines, (ii) the design and implementation of 
the MANPs, and (iii) the exchange of good practices within and  between Member States.  These 
tools have been delivered sequentially and are fully consistent and interrelated: 

1.  The  Strategic  Guidelines,  which  included  an  outline  structure  of  the  MANPs,  linkages  to 
the  EMFF  Operational  Programmes  and  the  introduction  of  ‘exchange  of  best  practices’ 
based around technical seminars.  

2.  The  MANPs  were  developed  in  preparation  of  the  EMFF  OPs  (and  are  an  ex-ante 
conditionality for EMFF fund eligibility) and explicitly based around the specific objectives 
of the OMC and thus effectively enforce coherence with the Strategic Guidelines.   

3.  The  exchange  of  good  practice  is  linked  to  the  MANPs,  in  that  Member  States  are 
encouraged  to  submit  three  proposals  of  good  practice  in  their  MANP.  The  Commission 
organises, at least once a year, technical seminars to present the selected good practices and 
exchange information between Member States.   

The  five  case  studies  noted  that  this  process  was  a  logical  and  functional  approach  and  that  the 
main OMC tools are synergistic.   

The overlap between the CFP and the OMC is limited.  However, although the CFP is EU policy 

32 

 
 
and  aquaculture  management  via  the  OMC  is  a  voluntary  process,  the  reformed  CFP45  which 
entered  into force on 1 January 2014 does include aquaculture in its scope. It states that “the CFP 
should  ensure  that  fishing  and  aquaculture  activities  contribute  to  long-term  environmental, 
economic,  and  social  sustainability”.  The  CFP  also  explicitly  recognises  the  role  of  the  OMC, 
stating  in  paragraph  55  that  “Union  Strategic  Guidelines  for  national  strategic  plans  should  be 
developed to improve the competitiveness of the aquaculture industry, supporting its development 
and  innovation,  and  encouraging  economic  activity,  diversification  and  improving  the  quality  of 
life in coastal and inland areas. Furthermore, mechanisms should be introduced for the exchange 
between  Member  States  of  information  and  best  practices  through  an  open  method  of 
coordination  of  national  measures  concerning  business  security,  access  to  Union  waters  and 
space, and the simplification of licensing procedures”. This is defined in more precise terms in Art. 
34 (promoting sustainable aquaculture), where the role of MANPs is explained and that “Member 
States shall exchange information and best practices through an open method of coordination of 
the national measures contained in multiannual national strategic plans”.  The nature and role of 
an Advisory Council for aquaculture is also explicitly required and detailed in the reformed CFP.   

2) The EMFF Regulation is fully coherent with the specific objectives of the OMC.  It has a 
similar  origin,  in  that it was  designed  to  support  implementation  of  the  reformed  CFP,  replacing 
various previous financial mechanisms and merging policy direction with the Integrated Maritime 
Policy  (IMP)  Regulation46.    The  EMFF  Regulation  also  explicitly  recognises  the  role  of  the 
Strategic  Guidelines,  stating  that  “the  EMFF  should  support  the  environmentally,  economically 
and  socially  sustainable  development  of  the  aquaculture  industry”47.  With  MANPs  being  an  ex-
ante conditionality for EMFF funding, the structure and policy objectives of the OMC are further 
integrated into aquaculture development at Member State level.   

Evidence and argumentation 

Given the structural integration of the EMFF as a support tool to the reformed CFP and the latter’s 
goal of ensuring that “aquaculture activities contribute to long-term environmental, economic, and 
social sustainability”, there was broad consensus that the OMC objectives are fully coherent with 
the EMFF Regulation.  In particular, it was noted that the OMC has a strong role in ensuring that 
Member State MANPs were fully aligned with the Strategic Guidelines and thus integrated into the 
Member State EMFF OPs.     

The  EMFF  Regulation was  adopted  a  year  after  the  Strategic  Guidelines  were  published  and the 
same  year  as  the  reformed  CFP  entered  into  force  (2014).    The  EMFF  Regulation  intends  to 
support  the  implementation  of  the  CFP  and  includes  aquaculture  within  its  scope.  Aquaculture 
support  is  provided  under  the  shared  management  component,  although  the  AAC  is  funded  via 
direct management.  The EMFF Regulation recognises the role of the Strategic Guidelines, stating 
that  “the  EMFF  should  support  the  environmentally,  economically  and  socially  sustainable 
development of the aquaculture industry”. In recital 49, the EMFF Regulation focuses on financial 
assistance  on  SMEs,  and  specifically  refers  to  increasing  the  competitiveness  and  economic 
performance  of  aquaculture  activities.    Recital  51  notes  the  role  of  the  EMFF  in  supporting  the 
definition and mapping of [aquaculture] zones, thus contributing to maritime spatial planning.   

The EMFF Regulation also sets out six Union Priorities (UP) for the sustainable development of 

45 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 
46 Regulation (EU) No. 1255/2011 
47 Recital (47) 

33 

 
                                                            
fisheries  and  aquaculture,  which  includes  “Fostering  environmentally  sustainable,  resource-
efficient, innovative, competitive and knowledge-based aquaculture”, which lays the basis for the 
subsequent Chapter II on the sustainable development of aquaculture (see table below).   

Key aspects of the EMFF Regulation Chapter II (Art. 45 – 57) relevant to the OMC include: 

Specific Objectives of 
the OMC  

Simplifying 
administrative 
procedures (reducing 
administrative burdens) 

Securing sustainable 
development and 
growth of aquaculture 
through coordinated 
spatial planning 
(improving access to 
space and water) 

Enhancing the 
competitiveness of EU 
aquaculture  

Promoting a level 
playing field for EU 
operators by exploiting 
their competitive 
advantages (high 
quality, health and 
environmental 
standards). 

EMFF Regulation  

  Provides integrated financing of CFP and IMP 

expenditure. 

  The ex-ante conditionality for the development of 

MANPs ensures that a strategic approach to reduce 
administrative burden is reflected in Member State 
EMFF OPs.   

  EMFF support in marine protected areas is only 

eligible if an environmental impact assessment (EIA) 
shows that there is no negative environmental impact 
that cannot be adequately mitigated (Art. 46(5)).  

  Identification and mapping of the most suitable areas 

for developing aquaculture (Art. 51). 

  Innovation e.g. technical, new species development, 

new or improved processes, etc. (Art. 47). 

  Modernisation and diversification of aquaculture & 

species cultured (Art. 48). 

  Increasing energy efficiency (Art. 48). 

  Support organic or energy-efficient aquaculture (Art. 

53). 

  Reduce risk through aquaculture stock insurance (Art. 

57). 

  Reducing environmental impact (Art. 48) and support 

for EIAs (Art. 49). 

  Enhance the quality of, and adding value to, 

aquaculture products (Art. 48). 

  Improving health and safety standards (Art 49). 

  Supporting public health measures (Art. 55). 

  Foster animal health and welfare (Art. 56). 

34 

 
The MANPs are also closely related and complementary to the OPs of the EMFF, as: 

  Article 18 of the EMFF provides that SWOT analyses of the OPs shall be consistent with 

the MANPs. 

  Article 48(3) of the EMFF restricts the eligibility of measures for the increase in production 
and/or  modernisation  of  existing  aquaculture  enterprises,  or  for  the  construction  of  new 
ones  to  operations  that  are  consistent  with  the  multiannual  national  strategic  plan  for  the 
development of aquaculture. 

  Annex  IV  of  the  EMFF  makes  the  establishment  of  a  MANP  on  aquaculture  an  ex-ante 
conditionality  for  the  use  of  UP2  of  the  EMFF.  A  MANP  had  to  be  transmitted  to  the 
Commission at the latest by the day of transmission of the OP. The OP has to also include 
information on the complementarities with the MANP on aquaculture. 

  The EMFF shall be a major source of financing for initiatives foreseen in the MANPs (see 
also  Section  4.2  of  the  Strategic  Guidelines  for  the  sustainable  development  of  EU 
aquaculture). 

The EMFF Regulation is entirely consistent with the specific objectives of the OMC.  This is logic 
since they both emerged over a similar time period and are underpinned by the reformed CFP and 
its pre-cursor developments.   

3)  There  are  no  major  inconsistences  in  policy  texts  concerning  (i)  environment,  (ii)  food 
safety, (iii) animal health and welfare and (iv) research and innovation. EU strategic thinking 
on  sustainable  aquaculture  development  is  implicit  both  in  the  reformed  CFP  and  the  Strategic 
Guidelines.  Both of these key processes emerged after the Birds and Habitats Directives (1992), 
WFD  (2000)  and  MSFD  (2008)  and  thus  are  broadly  coherent  with  these  cornerstone 
environmental  directives.  Much  of  the  current  policy  directives  and  funding  mechanisms  are 
aligned  with  Europe  2020,  and  with  the  synchronisation  of  public  funding  through  the  EU 
cohesion  mechanism,  specifically  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation48    over  the  2014  –  2020 
period. This has helped enforce complementarity and coherence between the EMFF and other EU 
regulations in the environment, food safety and animal health and welfare in particular.   

Evidence and argumentation 

Although competence for aquaculture management is shared with the Member States, many related 
policy areas are set at EU level.  These include: 

1.  Fisheries: Common Fisheries Policy; 

2.  Environment: Birds and Habitats Directives49 ensuring that aquaculture is not environmentally 
damaging  in  Special  Areas  of  Conservation  (SACs)  and  Special  Protected  Areas  (SPAs), 
MSFD50  and  the  WFD51  aiming  at  improving  water  quality  and  aiming  at  ‘good  ecological 
status’ in inshore coastal waters, estuaries, rivers and ground water and at “good environmental 

48 Regulation No 1303/2013 
49 Directive 92/43/EEC 
50 Directive 2008/56/EC 
51 Directive 2000/60/EC 

35 

 
 
                                                            
status” in marine waters. 

3.  Food safety: General Food Law52;  

4.  Animal  health  and  welfare:  Protection  of  animals  kept  for  farming  purposes53,  European 
Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-201554, Council Directive on animal 
health  requirements  for  aquaculture  animals  and  products  thereof,  and  on  the  prevention 
and control  of  certain  diseases  in  aquatic  animals55,  Regulation  on    transmissible  animal 
diseases  and  amending  and  repealing  certain  acts  in  the  area  of  animal  health  (the  ‘Animal 
Health Law’56 ); 

5.  Research and innovation: Europe 2020; Horizon 2020.  

The evaluators could not find any significant inconsistencies between the Strategic Guidelines and 
the abovementioned policies.  

Environmental protection and sustainability are strongly built into the CFP and relative instruments 
such as the EMFF. In 2010, a gap analysis assessed the adequacy of EU legislation to address the 
key  pressures  related  to  aquaculture  (e.g.  introduction  of  alien  species,  changes  in  water 
biochemistry  etc),  and  no  significant  regulatory  gaps  were  detected57.    This  review  includes  the 
Birds and Habitats Directives, MSFD and WFD and is thus still relevant. In 2012 the Commission 
produced a ‘Guidance document on aquaculture activities in the Natura 2000 Network’58.  Another 
review into the legal and regulatory constraints in EU aquaculture59 noted Member States’ concern 
over  the  ability  of  the  WFD  to  provide  the  same  level  of  protection  as  the  Shellfish  Waters 
Directive  that  was  repealed  in  2013  as  the  WFD  became  better  consolidated.  In  2016  the 
Commission produced a Commission Staff Working Document on the application of the WFD and 
the MSFD in relation to aquaculture60. 

Food  safety  is  an  important  issue  for  aquaculture,  especially  given  the  extensive  trade  in  fresh 
seafood products, including highly perishable items such as shellfish and oily finfish (e.g. salmon).  
The Food and Veterinary Office in the Commission and the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed 
(RASFF) both cover aquaculture products. 

Research  and  innovation  are  a  key  part  of  the  OMC’s  objective  to  remain  competitive.  As 
discussed above, mechanisms to fund innovation and research in aquaculture are part of the EMFF, 
and  “Competitive  and  environmentally-friendly  European  aquaculture”  is  a  specific  topic  under 
Horizon 2020, most recently under a ‘Blue Growth’ banner.  

52 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 
53 Council Directive 98/58/EC 
54 COM(2012) 6 final 
55 Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 
56 Regulation (EU) 2016/429 
57 Huntington et al, 2010: Huntington, T., R. Cappell, J. McCue, K. Winnard, P. Tett, J. McCue, C. Hedley,. S. 
Payne, M. van Rijswick, S. Comber and L. Griffiths (2010).  ‘Impacts and pressures by aquaculture activities: 
evaluation, relations with good environmental status and assessment of the EU responses.  Final Report to the 
DG Environment of the European Commission.  30 pages plus appendices.   

58 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Aqua-N2000 guide.pdf  
59  Hedley  and  Huntington,  2009Hedley,  C.,  and  T.  Huntington  (2009).  Regulatory  and  legal  constraints  for 
European  aquaculture.  Directorate  General  for  Internal  Policies,  Policy  Department  B:  Structural  and 
Cohesion Policies, European Parliament.  IP/B/PECH/NT/2008_176. 91 pp plus appendices.   

60 SWD (2016) 178 final 

36 

 
                                                            
EU policies affecting aquaculture are coherent. However a couple of minor issues were noted: 

  The  OMC  is  lacking  quantified  targets  in  terms  of  reaching  its  specific  objectives,  and  how 
they  relate  to  other  policy  targets.    It  is  recognised  that  this  was  probably  not  possible  nor 
advisable  at  the  time,  but  any  revision  of  the  OMC  should  consider  broad  targets,  both  for 
aquaculture and related policy areas.   

  A  number  of  MANPs  were  seen  to  lack  recognition  of  the  possible  environmental 
consequences of some of the actions. It is recommended that this is addressed in the context of 
the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the next generation of EMFF programmes, 
as  consistency  between  such  programmes  and  MANPs  is  required  in  Article  23  (2)  of  the 
Commission’s proposal for the 2020-2027 programming period61.  

Evidence and argumentation 

In France, EMFF funding (via Art. 58) has been used to support communication, especially on the 
benefits of their Label Rouge ecolabel when used with farmed seafood.  Through this approach, the 
trout market has experienced significant growth in terms of value. This approach has been similar 
to  that  adopted  in  Spain  and  Greece,  although  there  has  been  less  dependence  upon  third-party 
certification, and more on (i) the role of POs in promoting the products from particular aquaculture 
segments  (e.g.  shellfish),  (ii)  improving  labelling  and  traceability  and  (iii)  promoting  linkages 
between  aquaculture  and  tourism.  In  Ireland,  the  latter  theme  is  also  common.  The  government 
agency Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) is proposing an EMFF-funded project focussing on improving 
communication  concerning  aquaculture.  Working  closely  with  the  European  Commission’s 
‘Farmed  in  the  EU’  initiative,  this  study  will  assess  the  economic  and  societal  benefits  of 
aquaculture  to  coastal  and  rural  communities.  In  Spain,  the  MANP  highlighted  the  absence  of 
strategic, sectorial communication and of specialised communication professionals in this field.  As 
a result, a “National Plan for the Communication on Spanish Aquaculture” was put in place under 
the  ’level-playing  field”  priority,  with  21  specific  actions  initiated  to  date.  In  Spain,  it  was  also 
noted that development of the “Acuivisor online GIS aquaculture planning tool” had limited levels 
of stakeholder communication and validation to date.   

5)  What  about  the  coherence  between  Member  States’  aquaculture  objectives  and  their 
environmental policy objectives ? 

EU environmental objectives (as provided via the Birds and Habitats Directives, the WFD and the 
MSFD)  apply  to  aquaculture.  Whilst  environmental  sustainability  is  a  common  theme  running 
through the MANPs, there is little evidence of any formal, systematic analysis ensuring coherence 
between environmental issues and aquaculture development.   

Evidence and argumentation 

The  Strategic  Guidelines  stated  that  aquaculture  is  dependent  on  clean  and  healthy  marine  and 
fresh  waters  and  that  EU  environmental  legislation  –  in  particular  the  WFD,  the  MSFD  and  the 
Regulation concerning use  of alien and locally absent  species in  aquaculture  - ensures that these 
preconditions  are  met62.    There  has  been  previous  work  on  the  subject63,  64,  and  in  2016  the 

61 COM(2018)390 final 
62 para. 1, page 3 
63 See Huntington, T., H. Roberts, N. Cousins, V. Pitta, N. Marchesi, A. Sanmamed, T. Hunter-Rowe, T. 
Fernandes, P. Tett, J. McCue and N. Brockie (2006). ‘Some Aspects of the Environmental Impact of 

37 

 
 
                                                            
European Commission produced a Commission Staff Working Document on the application of the 
WFD and the MSFD in relation to aquaculture65. 

The suggested outline structure for MANPs - provided as an Annex to the Strategic Guidelines - 
does  not  provide  specific  guidance on  how  ‘national  environmental  objectives’  are defined,  how 
environmental  considerations  should  be  included  in  the  MANPs,  how  they  might  be  related  to 
specific aquaculture objectives nor any discussion of the possible trade-offs that might have to be 
considered as a result.   

A review of the results of the targeted consultations with the NA suggests that there was little cross 
analysis of aquaculture development objectives and environmental considerations (or objectives, as 
set  out  in  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives,  the  WFD  or  the  MSFD).    An  examination  of  the 
MANPs  from  the  five  case  study  countries  confirms  this.    For  example,  in  Ireland  there  is  no 
cross-analysis of aquaculture development and environmental management objectives in the early 
framework and context setting sections. However, there is a section on ‘Ensuring Sustainability’, 
which does specifically require that aquaculture monitoring is consistent with the requirements of 
the MSFD.  The  French MANP did include the ‘sustainability of aquaculture ecosystems’ as an 
objective  and  refers  to  the  role  of  the  WFD  in  assessing  water  quality.    The  Spanish  MANP 
includes a general principle that sustainability is a pre-requisite for competitiveness and includes a 
specific objective on ‘Strengthening of environmental aspects’.  No environmental objectives were 
set  in  Poland  due  to  the  lack  of  information  on  the  environmental  impacts  of  aquaculture, 
especially for traditional carp farming systems.  

MANPs  and  their  mid-term  reviews  rarely  provide  any  details  of  ‘national  environmental 
objectives’.  On this basis, it is not possible to say whether they are contradictory or not. Likewise, 
the MANP mid-term reports usually provide little information on whether environmental aspects 
are  being  assessed  as  part  of  the  spatial  planning  initiatives  (with  the  positive  exception  of 
Cyprus66).   

5.4 RELEVANCE  

1) The OMC is still the most appropriate and relevant tool to address barriers to sustainable 
aquaculture across the EU. The OMC has, through the Strategic Guidelines and the EMFF ex-
ante conditional MANPs, provided a common but largely relevant development framework across 
the EU. It is also valued for its participatory nature and the non-prescriptive approach.  However, 
the needs of the sector have changed since 2013 and this should be taken into account. In addition, 
the  potential  of  non-food  production67  (e.g.  algae,  seaweeds  for  value  added  products, 
biotechnology) should be recognised and the linkages with the EU’s ‘Blue Growth’ agenda should 
be incorporated.  

Evidence and argumentation 

The ex-ante conditionality for the development of MANPs to access EMFF funding has been a useful 
mechanism to encourage Member States to develop commonly structured high- level strategic plans for 

Aquaculture in Sensitive Areas’. Report to the DG Fish and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission.  
See https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/publications/aquaculture_environment_2006_en.pdf  

64 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Aqua-N2000%20guide.pdf  
65 SWD (2016) 178 final. 
66 Cyprus not only designated a new aquaculture zone but also carried out the associated environmental impact study, which 

should be considered a good practice example. 

67 See ‘Food from the Oceans’ https://ec.europa.eu/research/sam/pdf/sam_food-from-oceans_report.pdf  

38 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                             
aquaculture development going beyond the identification of needs related to funding possibilities. It has 
really contributed to define strategies in terms of administrative simplification and spatial planning.   

The  five  case  studies  were  unanimous  in  their  support  for  the  OMC  process  and  its  continued 
relevance to supporting sustainable aquaculture development.  Whilst the process is still relevant 
and appropriate, there is a need for some change. For instance, the current feeling in Ireland is that 
the process needs to be refreshed, possibly through an update of the Strategic Guidelines that could 
prepare for new MANPs.  It should address emerging issues, such as the need for a more integrated 
approach to aquaculture development in coastal and inland economies, as well as a move to new 
systems  that  are  both  adaptive  and  resilient  to  climate  change,  as  well  as  being  responsive  to 
changing consumer needs.  France raised a number of issues related to the relevance of the OMC 
such  as  (1)  the  need  for  an  in-depth  benchmarking  of  administrative  procedures  in  all  Member 
States,  (2)  the  need  for  environmental  experts  to  participate  in  OMC  meetings,  (3)  the  lack  of 
resources that could be an important barrier to finance all actions recommended by the MANP and 
(4) the fact that the EMFF could be used with a more strategic approach, by supporting collective 
projects,  new  installations  and  the  development  of  new  technologies  and  innovative  production 
methods.  

2) The OMC needs to evolve in two key ways. 

(1) The Specific OMC objectives (= priorities of the Strategic Guidelines) remain highly relevant: 
administrative  simplification  is  considered  a  top  priority,  spatial  planning  continues  to  be  a  high 
priority,  enhancing the competitiveness of EU aquaculture is still relevant and promoting a level 
playing field remains relevant although it is not always well understood.. In addition there are other 
emerging issues that need addressing, such as the emergence of non-food aquaculture, and the role 
of aquaculture in the wider IMP/blue growth environment. In order to ensure that MANPs reflect 
this change, the Strategic Guidelines need to be reviewed and refreshed.  

(2) The tools and processes as encompassed by the operational objectives of the OMC also need to 
evolve.  Their  generic  nature  means  they  remain  relevant,  but  they  need  more  structure  and 
presence.   

Evidence and argumentation 

Eight persons from EU public authorities responded to the OPC and ranked the continued need for 
administrative  simplification  as  highest  of  six  criteria  explored.    Improving  communication 
campaigns for EU aquaculture was ranked second, whilst spatial planning was ranked last. 

The five case studies also considered the continued relevance of the four specific objectives: 

a.  Simplify  the  administrative  burden:  In  Ireland,  delays  in  aquaculture  licensing,  and 
implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Aquaculture Licensing Review are 
still  considered  as  top  priority.  In  France  administrative  simplification  is  considered  a  long-
term aim, and thus needs to be continued. In Spain respondents considered that administrative 
simplification is still relevant.   

b.  Securing sustainable development and growth of aquaculture through coordinated spatial 
planning:  Spatial  planning  continues  to  be  a  high  priority  in  Greece,  as  disagreements  over 
planning priorities in coastal areas still inhibits aquaculture development.  A key future need is 
to develop local capacity in MSP in line with the MSP Directive requirements. In Ireland MSP 
is also still highly relevant, especially as Ireland moves beyond its current ‘MSP Roadmap’ and 

39 

 
starts to develop its national MSP plan in readiness for the 2021 EU deadline imposed by the 
MSP Directive.  France indicated that MSP is also considered a long-term aim, and thus needs 
to be continued. 

c.  Enhancing  the  competitiveness  of  EU  aquaculture:  In  Ireland  the  industry  considered  that 
measures to improve competitiveness are still relevant, but they are not really addressed by the 
OMC to date.  In particular there is a need to address the lack of scale in Irish aquaculture by 
building  on  specific  issues  like  low-density  farming  and  organic  farming.  In  France  this  is 
considered one of the most challenging objectives and maintaining linkages with the EMFF is 
key.  In  Greece,  competitiveness  is  strongly  linked  to  resolving  the  spatial  planning 
‘bottleneck’, especially when compared to other Mediterranean countries.   

d.  Promoting  a  level  playing  field  for  EU  operators  by  exploiting  their  competitive 
advantages:  In  Ireland  development  of  a  level-playing  field  was  not  part  of  the  MANP,  and 
stakeholder  responses  suggest  that  the  concept  itself  is  difficult  to  understand.  In  Greece  the 
level  playing  field  issue  is  considered  to  remain  relevant,  but  the  Greek  aquaculture  industry 
thinks  rather  of  level  playing  field  in  European  dimension.  It  has  been  emphasized  from  all 
operators that the Greek industry suffers from unfair competition from non-EU countries which 
have  privileged  export  status  to  the  European  markets  without  the  obligations  of  the  EU 
producers. 

One of the common lessons learned from the interviews with the MS authorities is the benefit of 
the holistic yet non-prescriptive approach of the OMC.  This means that these generic tools can be 
applied in each MS at a level and in a way suitable for local conditions.  It also allows the OMC to 
focus on new and emerging issues relevant to one or more MS. With such a wide bio-geographical 
area covered by the EU, there will always be different development and management priorities, but 
so long as the  EU remains responsive to stakeholder needs, the system  is  considered sufficiently 
flexible.   

A key mechanism to ensuring realistic and sustainable investments at EU and national level is the 
linkage with the EMFF. It is important that the Strategic Guidelines are reviewed before the next 
funding period starts.  The MANPs will also require discussion in order to ensure it fully captures 
the emerging needs and requirements. 

3) The current OMC tools are still appropriate and relevant to the sector but they could be 
better  tailored  to  address  the  current  needs  of  the  sector.  Their  adaptive  and  participatory 
nature  has  made  them  a  valuable  approach  to  cross-fertilising  good  practice  and  innovative 
solutions across EU aquaculture. However, they do need to evolve to have greater regional impact, 
as well as responding to demand to address new challenges as they emerge. This may require the 
development of new tools to inform and enable stakeholders to contribute to the objectives of the 
OMC.   

Existing tools could be better tailored in the following way: 

1.  High  level  events  on  aquaculture  have  limited  lower-tier  industry  and  SME  industry 
involvement, especially for those sub-sectors dominated by SMEs.  It is necessary to find new 
mechanisms – including at national level, to reach all parts of the industry. Greater use could be 
made of the outputs, both at EU and MS levels, to ensure they are better communicated across 
and  down  the  sector.  Further  efforts  could  be  made  to  ensure  that  a  wide  range  of  subject 
matters are regularly reviewed, prioritized and allocated to the appropriate fora.   

2.  Technical seminars: are useful for aligning MS administrations with EU legislation, especially 

40 

 
associated  with  the  EMFF,  key  EU  environmental  legislation,  the  MSP  Directive,  as  well  as 
with  EU  data  collection  requirements.  A  greater  focus  on  specific  issues,  rather  than  generic 
guidance,  was  voiced.  The  current  participatory  system  to  identify  and  prioritise  subjects  of 
common interest to EU Member States needs to be systemised to ensure that finite resources 
for seminars and meetings are spent effectively and to a wide audience across the different EU 
aquaculture stakeholders as possible.  

3.  Guidance  on  relevant  EU  environmental  legislation  is  too  general  and  not  focused  on 
specific  legal  issues  that  are  commonly  encountered  across  a  range  of  Member  States.    A 
similar situation exists for spatial planning, which is likely to become more acute as the March 
2021 MSP Directive deadline draws nearer, and practical difficulties in including aquaculture 
at local level MSP become more apparent.   

4.  The  OMC  should  have  a  greater  regional  focus  especially  in  the  area  of  MSP  which  will 
require local, rather than national aquaculture spatial planning solutions. This suggests that the 
regional approach needs to be extended ‘up’ the OMC process e.g. to be made implicit in the 
MANPs.   

5.  Communication: a number of the communication tools have been poorly disseminated and are 
only available in English. More effort should be made to organize outputs e.g. via some form 
of portal and meta-database, with documents translated into different EU languages if demand 
exists.  The  ‘Farmed  in  the  EU’  initiative  has  shown  that  communication  with  concerned 
citizens and consumers is  a valid tool,  especially when linked to the younger generations via 
school-based  campaigns.    It  should  be  taken  up  by  Member  States,  especially  in  cooperation 
with aquaculture-related POs. This also infers a role of the EMFF in funding such initiatives, 
thus requiring a scoping and prioritisation process via the MANPs.    

6.  New mechanisms to make the OMC relevant to more disconnected stakeholders are required. 
They  will  need  to  be  demand-led,  suitable  (e.g.  the  internet  is  still  not  widely  used  by  all 
stakeholders,  although  this  situation  is  changing)  and  adaptive.    Information  portals  and 
toolboxes are useful for stakeholders to understand the implications and necessary responses to 
new  EU  and  national  legislation  affecting  their  aquaculture  businesses  and  again  need  to  be 
developed on a demand-led basis.  

4) There is some pressure to better engage regional stakeholders in the OMC processes. To 
some  extent,  this  is  already  occurring,  with  national  authorities  coordinating  with  their  regional 
counterpart bodies to reflect the OMC specific objectives in their local planning and development 
support  functions.    However,  it  is  far  from  systematic,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  lower-tier 
stakeholder  feel  disconnected  from  the  OMC.    This  is  not  deliberate  (the  EMFF  support  to 
aquaculture is specifically aimed at smaller businesses) but is largely the consequence of the OMC 
being a relatively low budget and voluntary approach.  

One approach to encouraging a more systematic access to regional and local authorities (and other 
stakeholders) is by asking each Member State to develop a structured stakeholder communication 
and outreach programme into the MANPs.  But this process itself needs to be fully participatory to 
ensure it is balanced, needs driven and not seen as too prescriptive.   

Evidence and argumentation 

The evaluation focused mainly on the role of regional authorities and their progress on enhancing 
coordinated spatial planning.  Of the 24 MS authority respondents, 16 had or were going to share 

41 

 
best  practices  at  regional  /  local  levels,  whilst  eight  considered  it  either  not  applicable  or 
undesirable.  Seven national administrations indicated that they aim to promote the use of common 
criteria for the identification of aquaculture sites at regional and local level by 2020, although only 
six Member States have already taken this action.   

Outside MSP, in Italy regional ‘one stop shops’ have been set up in some areas for site licensing. 
Other  MS,  such  as  Croatia,  have  adapted  their  national  aquaculture  laws  to  include  a  regional 
dimension. Others (CZ, DE) have tried to promote regional aquaculture products via branding and 
promotional  schemes.    Another  approach  has  been  linking  the  Fisheries  Local  Action  Groups 
(FLAGs)  with  the  local  aquaculture  sector  to  access  EMFF  funding  for  community-led  local 
development.  In the UK there has been an attempt to promote partnerships between the devolved 
administrations, growers and research bodies to drive competitiveness in the sector. In summary, 
where deemed necessary, Member States have tried to devolve responsibility for some aspects of 
the  OMC  to  regional level,  especially  in  licensing  and  MSP.    However,  others,  such  as  Ireland, 
have  decided that a single, centralised approach is  more efficient and less prone to contradictory 
approaches  merging  at  regional  levels.    In  the  end  there  is  no  single  ‘best’  approach,  as  the 
structure, geography and make-up of regional governance varies so much within the EU Member 
States.   

One issue is the diversity of regional management and its extent through the EU.  For instance, in 
Ireland  the  sector  is  managed  at  central  level,  whilst  some  other  countries  have  some  level  of 
devolved  government  at  regional  and  departmental  levels.     In  term  of  aquaculture management, 
this  devolvement  may  take  a  number  of  forms,  including  developing  sub-plans  for  local 
implementation  of  the  MANPs,  local  spatial  planning  for  marine  and  inland  aquaculture,  and 
establishing ‘one stop shops’ for aquaculture and environmental permitting. 

There was a willingness to engage regional and local authorities further with the OMC, but only if 
this did not interfere with or contradict national level activities.  This was echoed by the national 
authorities who preferred to coordinate this activity from a central level to ensure a united front. 

One  possible  method  of  increasing  and  formalising  regional  involvement  in  the  OMC  is  via  the 
MANPs.  The current guidance (from the Strategic Guidelines) includes a section of ‘Governance 
and partnership’, including key contributions from the main actors involved (regional and / or local 
authorities,  industry,  stakeholders  and  NGOs).    This  could  be  made  explicit,  requesting  a  more 
formal  communication  and  outreach  plan  for  OMC  related  activities,  including  who  should  be 
involved in sector decision-making, the means by which this will be achieved and how this can be 
enabled.  The problem with this is that it is moving towards a more prescriptive approach, so any 
such approach needs to be carefully formulated in consultation with the stakeholders themselves.   

5. 5 EU ADDED VALUE  

1) EU Added value resulting from the OMC. 

The  OMC  has  facilitated  a  common  approach  as  well  as  more  cooperation  and  mutual  learning.  The 
technical  seminars  in  particular  are  useful  in  demonstrating  that  there  are  common  issues  and 
constraints  faced  by  other  Member  States.  The  OMC  has  also  ensured  that  Member  States  are  more 
aligned  with  EU  policies  and  objectives  and  provides  a  platform  for  Member  States  to  exchange 
experiences. The non-binding and bottom-up nature of the OMC is well-regarded, as it is considered to 
be responsive to Member States’ needs and consistent with the expectations of industry. Despite initial 
results achieved in addressing the four specific objectives across Member States, there is a difficulty in 
attributing causality of results directly to the OMC. The OMC has given the European Commission a 

42 

 
much more in-depth understanding of the evolution of the aquaculture sector at Member State level.  

Evidence and argumentation  

All stakeholders consulted overwhelmingly accept that there are key benefits to the OMC, emphasising 
the  added  value  of  the  mechanism  compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  by  Member  States  at 
national/regional level without EU action. They underline that without the OMC, it would take longer 
for Member States to address the specific objectives by themselves. As emerged from the case study in 
Spain, stakeholders agree that the aquaculture sector would be worse without the OMC. The case study 
in  France  highlighted  that  the  OMC  has  provided  a  common  and  relevant  development  framework 
across  the  EU,  allowing  stakeholders  to  concentrate  existing  efforts  and  initiatives  in  a  common 
strategic framework and encouraging stakeholders to take part in its implementation. Before the OMC, 
the Commission’s information on aquaculture was limited to EMFF actions. The OMC has enabled the 
EU  to  support  national-level  progress  and  has  facilitated  a  more  common  approach  that  would 
otherwise not be there. 

2)Do  the  needs  of  the  aquaculture  sector  addressed  by  the  OMC  still  require  action  at  EU 
level ? 

EU  level  action  is  still  required  to  address  the  issues  faced  by  the  aquaculture  sector,  which  are 
addressed  by  the  OMC  (simplified  administrative  procedures,  spatial  planning,  competitiveness). 
Although Member States are at different stages of aquaculture development, many of the problems 
faced  relate  to  administrative  burdens,  overall  sector  planning  and  coordination  which  are  issues 
that require EU-level support and that the OMC aims to address. However, the sector is evolving, 
and  the  focus  of  the  OMC  needs  to  be  considered  in  this  light  and  brought  up  to  date. 
Improvements  could  be  made  to  the  scope  of  the  OMC,  which  would  strengthen  its  EU  added-
value. The meaning of “enhancing competitiveness” and “creating a level-playing field” should be 
clarified and a focus on the European environmental directives, border controls, and labelling and 
traceability of EU aquaculture products should be included. 

Evidence and argumentation 

Member States confirm that EU level support will continue to add value and is still necessary  to 
meet  the  needs  of  the  sector.    Several  issues  were  identified  that  are  not  addressed  yet  and  that 
could  bring  additional  EU  added  value  notably:  several  Member  States  are  still  hampered  by 
bureaucracy especially at the regional level, the objective of ‘level playing field’ is not universally 
understood  and  needs  clarification,  EU  aquaculture  products  need  to  be  better  labelled  and 
traceable, there are concerns about competition from third countries leading to cheaper imports in 
the EU, there is a need for a more integrated approach to aquaculture development in coastal and 
inland economics, a regional approach could be helpful to address some challenges, and the image 
of aquaculture still needs to be improved. 

Most of these points were also raised during the public consultation: 78.5% noted that simplified 
administrative  procedures  is  one  of  the  areas  that  most  requires  improvements,  67%  of 
stakeholders  suggested  there  is  a  strong  need68  for  improved  communication  campaigns  on 
domestic aquaculture. Complicated and time-consuming administrative procedures (e.g. licensing), 
competition  from  outside  the  EU  and  communication  to  consumers  about  aquaculture  were 
selected  by  stakeholders  as  some  of  the  factors  most  affecting  the  sustainable  development  of 

68 ‘Strong need’ is defined as respondents who selected the rating ‘4’ or ‘5’.  

43 

 
                                                            
aquaculture69.  

The need for further guidance on the application of the European environmental directives (mainly 
the  MSFD  and  the  WFD)  to  the  aquaculture  sector  was  highlighted  by  stakeholders  in  France. 
Another  issue  raised  by  stakeholders  in  Poland  concerns  border  controls:  reliable  and  thorough 
controls (biological, genetic and documentary control) on fish entering the EU market is needed in 
order to prevent the presence of antibiotics and other prohibited substances, as well as the spread of 
diseases.  

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

This section summarises the main conclusions of the evaluation. 

Effectiveness 

  The four priorities of the Strategic Guidelines were addressed in most MANPs. Even in 
Member  States  that  drafted  their  strategy  around  priorities  defined  at  national  level,  there 
has been specific attention to cover the issue defined in the Strategic Guidelines. 

  The level of achievement of the MANPs’ objectives at this stage is difficult to assess as 
there  were  few  quantified  targets  (and  none  for  mid-term),  and  because  actions  planned 
under the MANPs often involve long-term processes. The overall level of achievement can 
therefore  only  be  measured  through  the  percentage  of  national  actions  expected  to  be 
partially  or  fully  achieved  by  2020  under  each  of  the  four  priorities.  A  majority  of  those 
actions are expected to be partially achieved by 2020, with a better level of achievement for 
the  administrative  simplification  and  spatial  planning  objectives,  than  for  competitiveness 
and level-playing field. 

  Measurable  results  or  impacts  at  this  stage  are  still  limited.  The  number  of 
processed  aquaculture  applications,  new  licenses  and  success  rates  have  improved  in 
some  Member  States.  The  duration  of  licensing  procedures  has  decreased  in  six 
Member  States.  Ten  Member  States  reported  an  increase  of  the  surface  covered  by 
spatial planning, even if marginal.  

  The targets set in the Strategic Guidelines have been partially achieved. Almost all 
Member States drafted a MANP and set quantified objectives for growth in the sector. 
Administrative procedures have been analysed, bottlenecks have been identified, there 
has been progress at national level towards simplification of administrative procedures 
and there is a better monitoring of some key indicators at EU level. The integration of 
aquaculture in spatial planning has improved or is expected to improve by 2020 in most 
Member  States.  EMFF  implementation  has  been  delayed  but  the  budget  allocated  to 
aquaculture  at  EU  level  is  significant  (€1.8  billion).  The  number  of  POs  has 
significantly  increased  from  17  to  28.  The  EU  has  supported  aquaculture  through 
different funds and programs. 

69  34  out  of  42  respondents  indicated  that  the  administrative  procedures  had  a  considerable  affect.  Competition 
from  outside  the  EU  was  the  2nd  most  significant  factor  listed  affecting  the  development  of  sustainable 
aquaculture. A slightly lower number of respondents chose the response options 5 and 4 when assessing the 
importance  of  the  amount  of  space  available  in  waters  and  land  (21),  communication  to  consumers  about 
aquaculture products (21) & the lack of innovation in the sector (20). 

44 

 
                                                            
  The  OMC  tools  have  contributed  to  improve  strategic  planning  and  created  a 
sense  of  common  goals  across  EU.  The  Strategic  Guidelines  and  the  MANPs  have 
encouraged  Member  States  to  develop  a  comprehensive  strategy  specifically  for 
aquaculture,  with  quantified  targets  at  least  for  the  level  of  production.  The  guidance 
documents  provide  a  common  interpretation  of  relevant  EU  legislation,  but  are  not 
always well-known. The number of Member States contributing and participating in the 
technical  seminars  and  high-level  events  shows  that  there  is  a  common  interest  in 
making progress on some key issues and learning from practices in other MS.  

  The  main  hindering  factors  in  the  achievement  of  the  priorities  identified  in  the 
Strategic Guidelines are a result of the complexity of the regulatory framework for 
aquaculture  activities  and  the  number  of  entities  involved,  which  led  to  delays  in 
simplifying  administrative  procedures  and  implementing  spatial  planning.  The 
competition for marine space and land with other users also makes it difficult to identify 
potential areas of interest. Actions planned under the competitiveness priority may have 
been delayed partly as a result of delays in implementing the first two priorities, but also 
as  a  result  of  the  delayed  implementation  of  the  EMFF.  Promoting  the  level-playing 
field  was  not  well  understood  and  the  actions  planned  were  considered  to  be  lower 
priority.  

  At  this  stage,  there  is  little  information  on  the  impact  of  the  OMC  on  the  wider 
objectives  of  the  CFP  e.g.  on  sector  growth  and  competitiveness.  Only  a  few 
Member States could measure the direct effects in terms of sector growth. Some of the 
measures  described  in  the  MANPs  are  related  to  enhanced  sustainability  or  food 
security. EU guidance should contribute to enhanced sustainability through a better and 
harmonised  implementation  of  EU  directives,  but  the  information  for  this  evaluation 
collected  does  not  allow  for  a  full  assessment  of  its  impact  on  the  environment.  The 
technical  seminars  and  high-level  events  addressed  sustainability  and  food  security 
issues, but their impact may be longer term.  

Efficiency  

  All Member States have taken steps to simplify administrative procedures during the 
evaluation  period.  A  range  of  initiatives  were  undertaken,  including  a  focus  on 
improvements  to  coordination  within  public  administrations,  streamlining  and  reductions 
of administrative procedures, and the provision of platforms for dialogue between industry 
and the public administration.  

  Although  there  is  a  lack  of  data  to  confirm  specific  reductions  in  administrative 
procedures, the evidence suggests that administrative simplification does not necessarily 
equate to a reduction in the number of steps or length of administrative procedures.  
However,  in  a  few  Member  States  there  has  been  an  increase  in  the  number  of  licences 
issued and/or a decrease in the duration of licence procedures. 

 

It cannot be concluded that steps taken to simplify administrative procedures had a 
direct  impact  on  cost  or  generated  savings  for  the  aquaculture  sector.  Public 
administrations  do  not  have  processes  in  place  to  calculate  these  cost.  Private  sector 
stakeholders were also not able to define whether cost savings were generated. 

 

It  is  not  possible  to  make  a  clear  cost-benefit  analysis  of  participation  in  the  OMC 
from a Member State perspective. It has not been possible to quantify Member States’ 

45 

 
exact costs of engaging with the OMC, but Member States consider that the costs are at an 
acceptable  level.  There  is  consensus  that  the  OMC  provides  significant  benefits,  and 
feedback  that  it  supports  greater  efficiency  compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  without 
EU  action.  From  a  Member  State  perspective,  the  benefits  provided  by  the  OMC  justify 
their time and resource commitment.  

 

It is difficult to assess the appropriateness and sufficiency of European Commission 
support  to  the  OMC,  because  of  the  lack  of  available  benchmarks.  The  Commission’s 
financial resources suffice even if there is no dedicated budget line or funding ring-fenced 
for the OMC. However, there are some efficiency gains possible in the application of the 
different OMC tools. For example, high-level events are considered to offer less value for 
money than the technical seminars. For communication, resources should be increased to 
strengthen communication and collaboration at the regional level.  

  Key limiting factors to simplify administrative procedures include the complexity of the 
regulatory  landscape  and  the  level  of  decentralisation  and  coordination  between 
institutions. Setting up coordination bodies and making legislative reforms are crucial to 
pave the way for simplified administrative procedures. 

  Whilst  the  guidelines  on  EU  legislation  have  been  valued  in  many  Member  States, 
some Member States indicated that they could be made simpler and more understandable 
and be better disseminated, possibly through an online information platform.   

Coherence 

  The  CFP  explicitly  recognises  the  role  of  the  OMC  stating  that  “Union  Strategic 
Guidelines for national strategic plans should be developed to improve the competitiveness 
of  the  aquaculture  industry,  supporting  its  development  and  innovation,  and  encouraging 
economic  activity,  diversification  and  improving  the  quality  of  life  in  coastal  and  inland 
areas”.  It also explicitly recognises the role of the OMC in developing mechanisms for the 
exchange of information and best practices between Member States. 

  The  CFP  also  explicitly  recognises  the  role  of  the  MANPs  and  of  the  Aquaculture 
Advisory  Council  (AAC)  for  the  promotion  of  sustainable  aquaculture.    Both  the 
MANPs and the AAC are strongly linked to the EMFF. The development of an MANP is 
an ex-ante conditionality for EMFF funding. The AAC is funded via the direct management 
element of the EMFF.   

  The  EMFF  explicitly  supports  the  environmentally,  economically  and  socially 
sustainable  development  of  the  aquaculture  industry.  The  MANPs  provide  a  direct 
linkage between the EMFF and the OMC.  Many of the EMFF funding criteria are directly 
related  to  the  specific  objectives  of  the  OMC,  including  supporting  environmental 
sustainability,  innovation,  energy  efficiency  and  improving  the  safety  and  quality  of 
aquaculture products.   

  EU  policies  affecting  aquaculture  are  generally  coherent,  especially  the  Birds  and 
Habitats  Directives  (e.g.  ensuring  that  aquaculture  is  not  environmentally  damaging  in 
SACs/SPAs) and the WFD (improving water quality and achieving ‘good ecological status’ 
in in-shore coastal waters, estuaries, rivers and ground water).  Some actions in the MANPs 
lack recognition of possible environmental consequences.  

  At  EU  level,  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  major  inconsistencies  in  EU  policy  texts 
concerning  (i)  environment,  (ii)  food  safety,  (iii)  animal  health  and  welfare  and  (iv) 
research  and  innovation  and  the  OMC.    Much  of  the  current  policy  directives    and 

46 

 
funding mechanisms are also aligned with the “Commission’s Europe 2020 Strategy”70, and 
with  the  synchronisation  of  public  funding  through  the  EU  cohesion  mechanism, 
specifically the Common Provisions Regulation71 over the 2014 – 2020 period.   

  Although  communication  is  a  key  tool  for  exploiting  the  high  environmental,  animal 
health and consumer protection standards in the EU, there has been little formal advice, 
standardisation  or  coordination  between  Member  States.  The  one  exception  is  the 
‘Farmed in the EU’ campaign launched by the EU.   

  There  is  some  consistency  over  the  nature  of  communication  messages  coming  from 
Member  States  as  a  result  of  the  OMC.  No  good  practice  guidelines  exist  on 
communication  related  to  aquaculture  -  some  simple  guidance,  based  on  practical 
experience  of  communicating  to  stakeholders  in  similar  primary  industries,  would  be  a 
useful addition to the OMC tool set.   

  EU  environmental  objectives  (as  provided  via  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives,  the 
WFD and the MSFD) are coherent with the objectives of EU aquaculture.  MANPs and 
their mid-term reviews rarely provide any details of ‘national environmental objectives’.   

Relevance 

  The  OMC  has  -  largely  through  the  Strategic  Guidelines  and  EMFF  ex-ante 
conditionality of the MANPs - provided a common but largely relevant development 
framework  across  the  EU.    The  strong  linkages  with  the  CFP  and  the  EMFF  ensure  it 
remains relevant to EU fisheries policy and implementation approaches. 

  The  non-binding  nature  of  the  OMC  means  that  it  is  adaptable  and  well  balanced. 
This adaptability allows Member States to determine the subject and agenda of technical 
consultations.   

  Since  the  aquaculture  sector  in  the  EU  is  evolving,  some  aspects  of  the  Strategic 
Guidelines may be less relevant, and there are emerging challenges that may need a 
greater strategic focus.  (1) Simplifying administrative procedures is still highly relevant, 
despite  being  the  OMC  focus  to  date.  (2)  Coordinated  spatial  planning  of  aquaculture  is 
becoming  increasingly  relevant  as  the  2021  deadline  for  maritime  spatial  planning 
approaches. (3) Enhanced competitiveness of EU aquaculture is still as relevant as before 
with  the  continued  growth  of  low-cost  aquaculture  outside  of  the  EU.  Progress  in 
achieving this specific objective has been slow. (4) Promoting a level playing field was not 
always  well  understood  and  there  is  no  clear  line  between  the  priority  “improve 
competitiveness” and “improve level-playing field”.     

  The  Commission's  Strategic  Guidelines  need  to  be  revisited.    Although  still  largely 
relevant, the latest challenges and opportunities for aquaculture should be included and the 
priorities should be re-evaluated.    

  The  majority  of  the  OMC  tools  e.g.  development  of  MANPs  and  the  need-driven 
technical  seminars  are  still  useful  and  relevant.    However,  there  are  demands  for  the 
OMC to have a greater regional focus as the approach matures, especially in the area of 
MSP, which will require local, rather than national aquaculture spatial planning solutions.   

70  COM(2010)2020.  Communication  from  the  Commission  “EUROPE  2020  -  A  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable 

and inclusive growth” 

71 No 1303/2013 

47 

 
                                                            
  There is some pressure to better engage regional stakeholders in the OMC processes. 
To some extent, this is already occurring, with national authorities coordinating with their 
regional counterpart bodies to reflect the OMC specific objectives in their local planning 
and development support functions. However, it is far from systematic.  

EU Added-Value  

  Consulted  stakeholders  see  the  added-value  of  the  OMC  as  a  mechanism  to  support 
aquaculture with an EU-wide approach that would not otherwise have been developed by 
Member  States  at  national/regional  level  without  EU  action.  The  OMC  has  facilitated  a 
common  approach  as  well  as  increased  cooperation  and  mutual  learning.  It  has  ensured 
that Member States are more aligned with EU policies and objectives. Without the OMC, 
it would take longer for Member States to address the specific objectives by themselves. 

  The OMC has given the European Commission a much more in-depth understanding 
of the evolution of the aquaculture sector at Member State level. Before the OMC, the 
Commission’s  information  on  aquaculture  was  limited  to  EMFF  actions.  The  OMC  has 
enabled  the  EU  to  support  national-level  progress  and  has  facilitated  a  more  common 
approach that would otherwise not be there. 

  The underlying needs of the aquaculture sector addressed by the OMC still require 
EU action. Although Member States are at different stages of aquaculture development, 
many of the challenges faced relate to administrative burdens, overall sector planning and 
coordination. These challenges are linked to areas that the OMC aims to address or that 
require EU-level support.  

  Improvements could be made to the scope of the OMC, which would strengthen its EU 
added-value.  The  Strategic  Guidelines  should  clarify  the  meaning  of  “enhancing 
competitiveness” and “creating a level-playing field” and include a focus on the European 
environmental directives, border controls, and labelling and traceability of EU aquaculture 
products. 

48 

 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING 

Lead DG: Directorate-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) 

Decide planning reference: 2017/DG MARE/1068  

The  evaluation  of  the  OMC  for  aquaculture  is  not  formally  required  by  the  Regulation 
governing the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). However, its conclusions will contribute 
to  further  developing  evidence-based  policy  making  for  the  sustainable  development  of 
EU aquaculture.  

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

A  roadmap  summarising  the  design,  purpose  and  scope  of  the  interim  evaluation  was 
published on 21 June 2017.  

The "Study on an interim evaluation of the Open Method Of Coordination (OMC) for the 
sustainable development of EU Aquaculture", Coffey (Specific contract 2: S12. 769 633) 
was  launched  on  15  December  2017  and  ended  on  26  April  2019.  The  final  report  was 
approved on 22nd July 2019.  

An  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  was  set  up  composed  of  representatives  of 
Directorates-General ENV, SANTE, SG, GROW, EMPL, RTD, EAC and DEVCO. In the 
course of the evaluation the ISSG met several times and the main task of the group was to 
ensure the overall quality of the evaluation work. The last ISSG meeting took place on 24 
May 2019.   

An open public consultation has been carried out in the period from 26th May 2018 until 
20th  July  2018.    A  total  of  42  responses  was  received  from  16  EU  Member  States  (see 
Annex 2 for summary of the results).  

3.  EVIDENCE AND SOURCES 

The evaluation is based on a wide range of evidence and sources comprising: 

  Study on an interim evaluation of the Open Method Of  Coordination  (OMC) for the 

sustainable development of EU Aquaculture", Coffey.72  

  "Economic  Report  of  the  EU  Aquaculture  sector"  by  the  Scientific,  Technical  and 

Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF-18-19)73  

  The EU Fish Market 2018 Report74 

72 https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/83f2aed6-b33c-11e9-9d01-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en 
73 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/economic/-/asset_publisher/d7Ie/document/id/2446795 
74 https://www.eumofa.eu/documents/20178/132648/EN_The+EU+fish+market+2018.pdf 

49 

 
 
                                                            
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

The following consultation activities were conducted to reach the different stakeholder groups: 

  Open  Public  Consultation:  The  European  Commission’s  Directorate-General  for  Maritime 
Affairs  and  Fisheries  ran  an  Open  Public  Consultation  from  26  May  2018  to  20  July  2018 
regarding  the  effectiveness  of  the  OMC  as  a  process  to  promote  and  guide  the  sustainable 
development of aquaculture across the European Union.  

  Consultation  of  national  administrations:  a  survey  of  all  27  national  administrations75  was 
carried  out  by  the  independent  consultant  with  the  aim  of  assessing  the  progress  made  in  the 
field  of EU aquaculture. The survey was sent to Member States between 30 April and 6 June 
2018; all 27 Member States completed the survey by 1 July 2018. .  

  Targeted  consultations  –  case  studies  in  five  Member  States  (Ireland,  France,  Spain, 
Poland and Greece). The case studies, carried out by the independent consultant provide more 
in-depth  insight  into  progress  at  national  level,  coherence  with  other  EU  legislation,  the 
difficulties  encountered  to  achieve  the  MANPs  objectives,  rationale  for  the  Member  States’ 
various implementation choices, and the aquaculture sector’s needs. 

  Consultations with experts in the Technical seminars and with the Aquaculture Advisory 
Council (AAC) provided an opportunity to gather feedback on the OMC. During the technical 
seminars  -  organised  by  the  European  Commission  at  least  once  a  year  -  experts  from  the 
Member States expressed their views on the working of the OMC. The AAC includes balanced 
representation  of  professional  bodies  from  the  28  Member  States  (farmers,  processors,  feed 
manufacturers and NGOs) and is entitled to formulate advice to the Commission, the European 
Parliament and Member States. 

Description of the results of the consultations. 

1. Open Public Consultation. 

Introduction 

The OPC questionnaire asked respondents about the OMC and their experiences on its impact on 
aquaculture  development.  It  had  a  total  of  18  questions76.  Respondents  were  able  to  provide 
additional  comments  when  answering  the  questions  and  could  also  submit  contributions.  The 
European  Commission  received  two  formal  contributions  through  this  OPC77.  The  following 
sections  provide  an  overview  of  the  main  results  of  the  consultation  and  issues  raised  by 
respondents. 

Overview of profile respondents 

More  than  half  of  the  42  survey  respondents  participated  in  the  public  consultation  in  their 
professional capacity or on behalf of an organisation. Eighteen respondents who were replying in 
their  personal  capacity  resided  in  12  different  Member  States.  There  were  four  respondents  from 
Spain,  three  from  France  and  two  from  Greece.  The  remaining  nine  respondents  indicated  nine 
different countries of residence, with one of them residing in a non-EU country (Albania).. Fourteen 
of  the  24  respondents  indicated  that  their  organisation  was  established  in  either  Belgium  (five), 
Spain (five) or Czech Republic (four). The majority of the respondents replying in their professional 

75 The only EU Member State that did not participate in the survey was Luxembourg as it does not have a MANP. 
76 Ten questions were in section 1, though this excludes counting e.g. 7a etc. as a separate question.  
77 The contributions received cannot be regarded as the official position of the European Commission and its services and thus does 

not bind the European Commission. 

50 

 
                                                            
 
capacity  or  on  behalf  of  an  organisation  worked  in  a  private  enterprise  (nine)  or  regional/local 
authority  (five,  with  four  of  them  in  a  regional  authority).  Three  respondents  worked  in  a  trade, 
business  or  professional  association,  with  two  of  them  specifying  that  their  employer  was  a 
representative of professions or crafts and one categorising his employer as a business organisation. 
Two respondents worked for a national public authority or agency. Two respondents worked in an 
academic  institution.  Finally,  there  were  two  respondents  who  worked  in  a  non-governmental 
organisation,  platform  or  network  and  one  person  who  chose  the  response  option  “Professional 
consultancy, law firm, self-employed consultant”. 

Questions 

Question 1: To what extent are you familiar with the following EU policy, programmes and guidance? 
Please indicate in the scale: 1 (not very familiar at all) to 5 (very familiar).  

Respondents’ familiarity with the different elements of EU Policy Framework on Aquaculture was 
fairly  similar.  The  survey  shows  that  the  MANPs  are  the  most  well-known  policy  instrument,  as 
more than half of the respondents (26) rated their familiarity with them as 4 or 5. However, five of 
the nine respondents who worked for private enterprises were not familiar with MANPs or had only 
very limited knowledge of it. Half of the respondents indicated good familiarity with the Strategic 
Guidelines,  while  national  good  practices  and  the  guidance  documents  on  the  application  of 
relevant  legislation  were  well  known  by  slightly  less  than  half  of  the  respondents  (20  and  19 
respectively). The least well-known EU policy instrument was the OMC to support EU aquaculture, 
as most respondents (25) admitted to having little to no familiarity with it. 

Question 2: Has your organisation participated in the development of or used any of the following 
OMC tools in its activities? 

The survey shows that from the five OMC tools that were listed, MANPs and guidance documents 
on  the  application  of  relevant  legislation  were  used  most  widely  among  the  organisations 
responding to the survey. Seventeen respondents indicated that their organisation used these OMC 
tools.  Thirteen  respondents  confirmed  that  their  organisations  used  Strategic  Guidelines.  It  is 
important  to  note  that  the  profile  of  organisations  that  used  OMC  tools  is  highly  varied.  For 
example, the survey suggests that MANPs were not only used by national or regional authorities but 
also  by  academic  institutions,  non-governmental  organisations,  representatives  of  professions  or 
crafts and private enterprises. The survey also shows that the available documents on best practices 
were used less frequently by the respondents’ organisations, with 13 respondents confirming their 
usage. 

The number of organisations that participated in the development of OMC tools was lower. In total, 
13 respondents indicated that their organisations participated in the development of MANPs  – the 
highest  figure  among  all  OMC  tools.  In  contrast,  four  respondents  noted  that  their  organisation 
Guidelines.
participated 

development 

Strategic 

the 

of 

in 

Question 3: Please provide your view on the usefulness of the [OMC] tools. Please indicate in the 
scale: 1 (not useful at all) to 5 (very useful).  

The survey shows that MANPs, good practice events and dissemination of good practices were all 
seen as useful or very useful by the majority of respondents. The perceived usefulness of Strategic 
Guidelines  and  the  guidance  documents  was  lower,  with  less  than  half  of  the  respondents  rating 
these  tools  as  useful  (4)  or  very  useful  (5).  In  the  comments  section,  few  respondents  noted  the 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
limited use and application of these tools. One respondent specifically referred to the EU guidance 
documents, stressing that some of them are disregarded by national authorities. Another respondent 
highlighted  the  importance  of  having  a  sound  monitoring  system  to  track  the  implementation  of 
MANPs. 

Question 4: Please confirm whether you are aware of the following activities [happening at national 
level]. 

The  majority  of  respondents  confirmed  that  their  Member  State  has  a  national  strategic  plan  for 
aquaculture (36) and has set objectives for the development of sustainable aquaculture (32). Slightly 
fewer  respondents  were  aware  of  the  communication  campaigns  to  improve  the  image  of 
aquaculture  products  (25)  and  the  guidance  on  EU  legislation  provided  by  their  public  authority 
(23). Less than half of the respondents (18) could confirm that their industry sector was consulted 
on the national aquaculture strategy.  

In the comments sections, there were some comments that the communication campaigns were not 
aimed at increasing the consumption of aquaculture products and were focused on fisheries instead. 
The  campaigns’  limited  effectiveness  was  another  problem  raised.  There  was  one  comment  that 
there is potential for more support and awareness raising for a sustainable aquaculture sector with 
high  animal  welfare  and  fish  health  standards.  There  was  also  a  comment  that  the  development 
authorities.
goals 

communicated 

clearly 

were 

not 

the 

by 

Question 5: To what extent do the following affect the sustainable development of aquaculture in 
your country? Please indicate in the scale: 1 (no effect at all) to 5 (big effect).  

Respondents were asked to rate78 the five factors that were likely to have an effect on sustainable 
aquaculture  development.  The  results  indicate  that  the  most  significant  factor  (listed)  was 
complicated and time-consuming administrative procedures, for example for licensing. Thirty-four 
out  of  42  respondents  indicated  that  the  administrative  procedures  had  a  considerable  effect79. 
Competition  from  outside  the  EU  was  the  second  most  significant  factor  (listed)  affecting  the 
development of sustainable aquaculture,  according to  the majority of respondents (26). A slightly 
lower number of respondents chose the response options 5 and 4 when assessing the importance of 
the  amount  of  space  available  in  waters  and  land  (21),  communication  to  consumers  about 
aquaculture  products  (21)  and  the  lack  of  innovation  in  the  sector  (20).  Some  respondents  added 
further comments in relation to this question of the survey. For example, one respondent noted the 
low prices of sea fish as a factor that hinders the development of the aquaculture sector. There were 
a  few  respondents  who  emphasised  the  environmental  aspects  of  sustainable  aquaculture 
development.  Another  respondent  highlighted  the  fact  that  the  sustainable  aquaculture  sector 
depends on the protection of the environment and high animal welfare. It was also mentioned that 
high pollution has been a hindering factor for the development of shellfish farming areas. 

Question 6: To what extent has there been any improvement over the last 3-4 years in those areas? 
Please indicate in the scale: 1 (no improvement) to 5 (big improvement). 

The majority of survey respondents did not see clear improvements in any of the five listed areas. In 
each  case,  the  majority  of  respondents  considered  that  there  either  has  been  no  or  almost  no 
improvements. The largest number of respondents chose response options 1 and 2 when assessing 

78 We note that the question in the OPC had both the terms ‘affect’ (in the formulation of the question) and ‘effect’ (in the rating). 
79 Twenty-three chose option ‘5’ and 11 chose option ‘4’.  

52 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
the  improvements  made  in  the  areas  of  administrative  procedures  (29)  and  spatial  planning  (28). 
Lack  of  innovation  was  the  factor  most  rated  3  by  the  respondents  (14).  Of  the  five  listed  areas, 
between one and four out of 42 respondents indicated that there had been improvements in each of 
the  areas  listed.  Of  these,  four  respondents  indicated  that  these  improvements  had  been  in 
addressing complicated and time-consuming administrative procedures as well as lack of innovation 
and/or opportunities for business diversification.  

Question 7: To what extent is there a need for the following [improvements] in your country? Please 
indicate in the scale from 1 (no need at all) to 5 (strong need).  

The survey respondents considered that there was a need for each of the six improvements listed. 
The areas where respondents indicated the greatest need for improvement by rating with scores of 4 
or 5 were: (1) simplified administrative procedures (33 respondents, of which 27 indicated a strong 
need  (5  rating));  (2)  improvements  in  terms  of  coordinated  spatial  planning  for  aquaculture 
activities  (31  respondents,  of  which  15  indicated  a  strong  need  (5  rating));  and  (3)  improved 
communication campaigns on domestic aquaculture (28 respondents, of which 19 indicated a strong 
need  (5  rating)).  Some  other  improvements  were  also  suggested  by  the  survey  respondents.  The 
following needs were highlighted: (1) to reduce pollution by ensuring appropriate implementation 
of  the  Water  Framework  Directive;  (2)  to  ensure  the  effective  control  of  unregulated  aquaculture 
production; (3) to increase the number of officials working with the promotion of aquaculture and 
its  products;  (4)  to  adopt  the  EU  legislative  act  on  freshwater/marine  aquaculture,  which  would 
ensure the wide-scale simplification of the aquaculture business, including the simplifications in the 
areas  of  environment,  biodiversity,  Water  Framework  Directive/Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive and veterinary aspects. 

Question 8: Do you have any other comments or recommendations that you would like to share in 
relation to the open method of coordination in aquaculture / issues affecting the management of 
aquaculture in your country? 

Respondents’ comments highlighted very different issues, reflecting the different profiles of those 
participating  in  the  consultation.  The  following  recommendations  were  made  by  the  survey 
respondents:  (1)  to  develop  non-binding  EU-level  guidelines  to  support  the  involvement  of 
stakeholders, especially local communities. According to the respondent, stakeholders’ participation 
in  the  decision-  making  process  could  help  avoid  conflicts  in  the  implementation  phase;  (2)  to 
include more governmental departments (especially those specialising in environmental affairs) into 
the  OMC  process;  (3)  to  ensure  that  private  actors  are  better  informed  about  the  actions  and 
documents adopted by the EC; (4) to make sure that the OMC tools address fish welfare as well as 
the  impact  of  aquaculture  on  antimicrobial  resistance;  and  (5)  to  set  up  a  single,  simplified  and 
business-friendly licensing system that could operate at EU-level. One respondent emphasised that 
the existing tools were non-binding and thus lacked proper control mechanisms. 

Contributions to the OPC 

In addition to the open comments provided in the survey, two formal contributions were submitted 
as part of this public consultation. The first contribution confirms the importance of biosecurity and 
health for the aquaculture sector. The contribution notes that monitoring quality and health is key to 
integrated  management  plans  of  the  sector  and  this  must  be  accompanied  by  early  and  accurate 
diagnosis,  including  optimised  therapeutic  protocols.  It  also  highlights  the  fact  that  biosecurity 
standards,  if  applied  intelligently,  can  support  and  facilitate  decision-making  in  aquaculture 
companies for sustainable activity.  

53 

 
 
 
 
The  second  contribution  submitted  is  a  report  of  the  aquaculture  study  carried  out  in  Sweden  in 
2017.  The  purpose  of  the  study  was  to  compile  knowledge  on  the  licensing  and  monitoring 
processes  that  were  in  place  in  Sweden,  as  well  as  to  provide  recommendations  on  how  these 
processes can become more effective.  

2) Targeted consultation of National Administrations 

In  June  2018,  a  survey  of  all  27  national  administrations80  was  carried  out  by  an  external 
consultant81 with the aim of assessing the progress made in the field of EU aquaculture. The survey 
was sent to Member States between 30 April and 6 June 2018; all 27 Member States completed the 
survey by 1 July 2018. The survey aimed to complement the information that was provided by the 
Member  States  in  the  mid-term  reviews  of  their  MANPs.  Therefore,  each  national  administration 
received  a  tailored  questionnaire  that  took  into  account  the  actions  stated  in  the  Member  States’ 
MANPs  for the promotion of sustainable aquaculture as  well as  the information  included in  mid-
term  reviews.  All  27  Member  States  that  have  developed  MANPs  participated  in  the  national 
administrations’ survey.  

Key findings 

The results from the survey of national administrations confirm the wide variety of measures and 
actions  that  have  been  taken  by  the  Member  States  to  implement  MANPs.  There  are  important 
differences between the Member States in terms of the number and types of actions implemented.  

To simplify administrative procedures, most Member States have been trying to introduce changes 
to  the  public  administration  system;  15  of  the  27  Member  States  have  taken  action  to  improve 
coordination  within  the  public  administration  since  2014,  while  five  other  Member  States  are 
planning  to  take  this  kind  of  action  by  2020.  This  was  followed  by  14  Member  States  that  have 
implemented measures to streamline or reduce administrative procedures, with four others planning 
to do so by 2020; and 13 Member States providing a platform for dialogue between industry and the 
public administration.  

In order to enhance coordinated spatial planning, the mapping of existing aquaculture facilities has 
been  the  most  common  type  of  action  in  the  field  of  spatial  planning.  Twelve  Member  States 
indicated that they have made public up-to-date maps of existing aquaculture facilities since 2014, 
and four other Member States intend to do so by 2020. Eleven Member States shared best practices 
at regional / local level, with four Member States planning to do the same by 2020. Importantly, ten 
Member  States  have  identified  potential  areas  for  new  aquaculture  sites  since  2014,  with  seven 
Member  States  planning  to  achieve  this  by  2020.  Out  of  15  Member  States,  ten  have  reported  at 
least  a  marginal  increase  in  the  surface  area  covered  by  maritime  spatial  planning  since  2014. 
Belgium, France, Malta, Portugal and the UK all indicated that this area increased significantly.  

Member States have implemented various measures to enhance the competitiveness of aquaculture, 
the  most  frequent  among  them  being  the  provision  of  support  for  cooperation  between  research 
institutions and producer organisations (19 Member States), followed closely by: providing national 
research  funding  to  support  innovation  in  aquaculture  (18);  and  promoting  research  and 
development in aquaculture (17).  

The most frequent activity in the innovation field has been supporting cooperation between research 
institutions and producer organisations (19 Member States). Providing national research funding to 

80 The only EU Member State that did not participate in the survey was Luxembourg as it does not have a MANP. 
81See Annex 2: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/83f2aed6-b33c-11e9-9d01-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

54 

 
                                                            
support innovation in aquaculture (18 Member States) and promoting research and development in 
aquaculture (17 Member States) have also been widespread among the Member States since 2014. 

3) Case studies82 

The five case studies (Ireland, France, Greece, Poland and Spain) that have been conducted as part 
of this interim evaluation aimed to provide detailed insights of the implementation and results of the 
OMC at national, regional and local levels, beyond the information gathered through the synthesis 
of MANPs mid-term review reports and the targeted consultation of the national administrations in 
27 Member States.  

Key findings 

Ireland 

Most  elements  of  the  OMC  are  highly  relevant,  especially  administrative  simplification  and 
coordinated  spatial  planning.  In  terms  of  the  former,  the  delays  in  licensing  seem  to  be  largely 
addressed. However, there are still potential barriers in the way, including the need to simplify and 
digitise  application/renewal  processes.  MSP  is  also  still  highly  relevant.  The  industry  considered 
that measures to improve competitiveness are still relevant, but not really addressed by the OMC in 
Ireland to date. Development of a level-playing field was not part of the MANP, and stakeholder 
responses suggest that the concept itself is difficult to understand.   

Whilst some progress has been made in implementing the MANP, it is recognised that most of the 
24 Actions in the plan will have to be addressed over the longer term. Administrative simplification 
has  occurred,  mainly  due  to  the  changes  in  the  EIA  screening  requirements,  but  aquaculture 
licensing  has  been  highly  impacted  by  the  2007  ECJ  ruling,  which  has  resulted  in  considerable 
administrative  and  cost  impediments  for  the  sector  as  a  whole.    The  coordination  of  aquaculture 
with MSP is beginning to have some effect, although there is still a long way to go. Although less 
explicit  in  the  MANP,  there  are  measures  to  improve  the  competitiveness  of  Irish  aquaculture. 
Much of this was to be funded under the EMFF, but the inability of farms with outdated licenses to 
access this funding has blunted its impact.   

It was difficult to determine quantitative efficiency changes that can be attributed to the OMC. One 
event that has led to significantly less time being spent on aquaculture licensing administration was 
the reduction in EIA screening thresholds but this cannot be attributed directly to the OMC.  The 
ECJ  judgement  has  increased  environmental  compliance  costs  for  industry.  Most  stakeholders 
consulted consider the OMC a flexible and adaptive system for providing common guidance across 
the EU.     

The changes in the EIA Directive in 2014 have significantly benefited the sector, especially for the 
85%  of  (mainly  shellfish)  farms  that  now  come  under  the  new  thresholds.  This  has  certainly 
contributed to lowering the administrative burden, as well as reducing the cost to businesses who no 
longer need to produce an EIA.  

The current feeling in Ireland is that the OMC process needs to be refreshed, possibly through an 
update of the Strategic Guidelines. It needs to address emerging issues, such as the need for a more 
integrated approach to aquaculture development in coastal and inland economies, as well as a move 
to new systems that are both adaptive and resilient to climate change, as well as being responsive to 
changing consumer needs.  

82 The full case study reports are available in Annex 4 of the study -    
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/83f2aed6-b33c-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

55 

 
                                                            
 
France 

Some stakeholders were less aware about the OMC’s tools and voiced concerns about the lack of 
their involvement in the OMC’s approach.  

Progress towards administrative simplification mainly concerns the establishment of a progress plan 
for freshwater fish farming, an approach based on continuous collaboration between administration 
and professionals.  

Progress  regarding  spatial  planning  is  also  important  but  has  experienced  delays  and  overall 
dissatisfaction from producers. The identification of the best  possible aquaculture locations in the 
framework of the regional schemes for the development of marine aquaculture has been delayed in 
most regions and producers are not satisfied with this tool as it is not a binding tool.  

Enhancing  the  competitiveness  of  aquaculture  was  based  on  financial  support  provided  by  the 
EMFF  to  support  “research  and  innovation”  to  address  the  most  challenges  issues  (e.g.  closed-
containment fish farming, food, sanitary issues in shellfish farming, etc.) and to support developing 
the competitiveness of aquaculture companies.  

It  was  not  possible  to  gather  specific  quantitative  information  on  the  impact  of  the  OMC  at  this 
stage.  Most  stakeholders  consider  that  more  detailed  guidance  on  how  to  apply  the  European 
environmental  regulations  and  directives  is  needed.  Producers  as  well  as  their  representative 
organisations  recognise  the  importance  of  EU  environmental  directives  for  their  current  activities 
and for the future development of aquaculture. However, they expressed a number of concerns: (1) 
the  lack  of  specific  guidance  on  the  consideration  of  aquaculture  in  the  application  of  EU 
environmental  legislation  (particularly  the  WFD  and  the  MSFD);  (2)  the  required  EIA  is 
disproportionate  in  comparison  to  the  projects'  size;  (3)  Producers  regret  that  the  Shellfish  Water 
Directive  has  been  repealed;  (4)  Shellfish  producers  perceive  environmental  aspects  to  be  more 
considered  than  the  development  of  the  aquaculture  sector.  They  mentioned  the  example  of  the 
application  of  the  Birds  Directive  2009/147/EC,  which  has  led  to  the  development  of  the  great 
cormorant population.  

The added value of the OMC is that it allows Member States to compare their policies in the field of 
aquaculture,  which  creates  an  additional  stimulus  for  them  and  enables  them  to  exchange  best 
practices  and  initiatives.  Overall,  stakeholders  consider  the  OMC  to  be  relevant  (despite  their 
limited  awareness  of  the  approach)  and  are  willing  to  further  assist  in  the  development  of 
aquaculture at the European level. However, they consider that its tools have to be reinforced and 
further promoted.  

Spain  

There is a general consensus in Spain concerning the relevance of having coordination tools at EU-
level.  Guidance  on  EU  legislation  is  clearly  necessary.  Nevertheless,  the  tools  elaborated  by  the 
European Commission have not been actively disseminated despite the fact that the topics are still 
very relevant. For some of the documents, the fact that they are only available in English is clearly a 
limitation for dissemination, but in general there is no clear explanation from the interviews about 
the limited dissemination and use of those documents. The Strategic Guidelines and the objectives 
set in those guidelines are still relevant. There is little tangible progress for the industry at this stage 
in terms of administrative simplification, spatial planning, competitiveness and level-playing field, 
although all the interviewees agreed on the relevance of the objectives. The relevance of having a 
MANPs is underlined in Spain by the administrative organisation and the fact that aquaculture is an 
exclusive competence of the ACs. Exchanges of good practice are considered very relevant both at 
national and EU-level.  

In  terms  of  administrative  simplification,  the  main  achievements  include  administrative  re-
organisations,  the  analysis  and  harmonisation  of  the  procedures,  and  the  setting-up  of  one-stop-

56 

 
shops in some ACs. However, procedures are still long (21 months in average), and the uncertainty 
can  be  very  high  for  the  installation  of  new  farms.  The  national  administration  has  worked  on 
harmonised  criteria  and  parameters  for  spatial  planning  and  has  developed  an  online  GIS  tool 
showing aquaculture installations and their main characteristics as well as other relevant layers. The 
integration of aquaculture in spatial planning is underway in nine ACs, but only three ACs seem to 
have  identified  areas  of  interest  or  possible  areas  for  aquaculture.  More  importantly,  there  is  no 
guarantee that the spatial  planning  tools  being developed will actually reduce the conflicts of use 
faced by the aquaculture sector. Achievements in terms of competitiveness and level-playing field 
are difficult to assess at this stage, as only very few actions have been completed largely because of 
the difficulties faced with the implementation of the EMFF. The link between the OMC tools and its 
achievements is thus difficult to establish.  

The perceived EU added value mainly lies in the ability to promote a level-playing field at EU level 
and to contribute to implement a common strategy. 

Poland 

Many  aquaculture  producers  undertake  activities  aimed  at  increasing  the  competitiveness  of  their 
entities. They finance such activities from aid funds or from their own funds.  

OMC rules were  effectively presented to  the aquaculture producers  during seminars organised by 
state and local administration. Breeders emphasised that comparison of administrative procedures in 
other  countries  was  most  beneficial for  them  and  they  would  like to  continue  such  visits to  other 
countries and meetings with local administration. The mid-term evaluation has not been carried out 
so  there  are  no  figures  available  to  gauge  the  effectiveness  of  the  implementation  of  the  MANP. 
Representatives of administration and science noted the development and adoption of the "Code of 
Good Fishing Practices" as a success in the domestic market. 

There is no uniform document (for example, in the form of a license) conferring the right to engage 
in  aquaculture.  Presently,  farmers  must  meet  requirements  related  to  water,  environmental, 
construction  and  veterinary  requirements.  For  obtaining  each  of  such  permits,  farmers  must  visit 
different  offices.  In  accordance  with  the  OMC  guidelines,  the  national  administration  tries  to 
minimise  administrative  burdens  associated  with  obtaining  the  necessary  documents  to  run 
aquaculture  farms.  Some  documents  related  to  water  management  will  be  available  at  the  newly 
established  "Wody  Polskie"  institution,  but  currently  there  are  no  ready-made  procedures. 
Digitalisation of the procedures did not fully cover all the processes related to acquiring documents. 
Efforts  to  digitalise  procedures  result  in  the  digital  exclusion  of  older  people,  who  constitute  a 
significant  percentage  of  people running  aquaculture  farms.  These  two  factors  impede  production 
activity in the aquaculture sector. 

The  need  to  introduce  regulations  related  to  predators  (such  as  cormorants,  herons,  otters,  and 
beavers)  were  raised.  As  indicated  by  stakeholders,  the  introduction  of  increased  aid  funds  will 
increase  production.  Thanks  to  the  OMC,  breeders  have  the  opportunity  to  effectively  exchange 
knowledge and find solutions for important issues at the EU-level.  

Greece  

A key finding is that the level of knowledge of the OMC varies amongst aquaculture stakeholders. 
The most familiar with the OMC are people from administrative and policy-making bodies. This is 
followed by operators. All operators know the components of the OMC, but they do not know that 
they are part of a structured OMC policy.  

The  OMC  is  considered  by  all  aquaculture  stakeholders  as  a  relevant  tool  and  it  is  generally 
expected that it will develop the sector in a sustainable way. Furthermore, it was underlined that the 
managing authorities should better distribute the information concerning the OMC activities to the 
regional authorities and individual operators.   

57 

 
 
The OMC performs well in Greece. It is expected that most of the objectives set in the MANP will 
be achieved. Most of the stakeholders interviewed appreciate the non-binding and flexible character 
of  the  OMC.  The  OMC  provides  a  framework  to  address  the  four  priority  areas  of  the  Greek 
Operational Programme. The application of the OMC has led to accelerated licensing. In the long-
term, the trend is towards cost savings. Additionally, the acceleration of licensing procedures and 
the  associated  time  gains  could  be  translated  into  corporate  profit.  The  Greek  administration 
acknowledges  the  coherence  among  the  OMC  tools  and  between  the  different  policies  related  to 
aquaculture  and  their  support  to  implementing  the  Greek  OP  and  MANP.  Although  not  all 
stakeholders  have  a  comprehensive  and  coherent  picture  of  the  OMC,  they  all  consider  the 
management of aquaculture through the OMC as successful.   

4) Consultations with experts in technical seminars 

Below  is  an  overview  of  the  technical  seminars  organised  by  the  Commission  between  2015  and 
2018 with national administrations. The overview includes the focus of each seminar. 

TECHNICAL 
SEMINAR 

FOCUS OF SEMINAR 

First Technical 
Seminar (November 
2015) 

Administrative procedures (defining quantitative indicators, 
streamlining procedures, access to the information) and spatial 
planning (e.g. identifying dedicated areas, governance issues) 

Second Technical 
Seminar (May 2016) 

Environmental Impact Assessment criteria, good practices for 
licensing procedures and integrated coastal management 

Third Technical 
Seminar (October 
2016) 

Promotion (Farmed in the EU campaign), environmental issues 
(alien species, water discharges, escapes) and animal health 

Fourth Technical 
Seminar (April 2017) 

Governance (state of progress towards the achievement of the 
MANPs, EMFF implementation, mission of the AAC) 
technical standards in aquaculture and animal welfare 

Fifth Technical 
Seminar (December 
2017) 

Sixth Technical 
Seminar (May 2018) 

Governance (FLAGs), administrative procedures and strategic 
planning examples 

Joint session with national administrations and members of the 
Aquaculture Advisory Council. Regulatory issues (labelling, 
animal welfare and health, MSP, WFD). Presentation of the 
AAC missions and the present interim evaluation 

Seventh Technical 
Seminar (November 
2018) 

Administrative simplification, tools for assessment and 
planning of aquaculture sustainability (TAPAS), and European 
Aquaculture Innovation and Technology Platform (EATiP). 
Presentation of the present interim evaluation 

5) Consultations with the Aquaculture Advisory Council (AAC) 

58 

 
 
 
 
The  AAC  was  established  in  late  2016  in  the  framework  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy.  This 
stakeholder-led  organization  has  as  main  objective  to  provide  the  European  institutions  and  the 
Member States with recommendations and advice on issues related to the sustainable development 
of  the  sector.  The  AAC  is  composed  of  representatives  from  the  industry  and  other  stakeholders. 
Opinions and advice prepared by the Advisory Council can be found on their website83. During the 
inception  phase  of  the  study  the  contractor  conducted  interviews  with  the  Aquaculture  Advisory 
Council to understand its working methods. During the second day of the sixth technical seminar on 
“Good  practices  and  exchange  of  information  on  European  aquaculture” (Brussels,  16  &  17  May 
2018),  the  Commission  and  Member  States  exchanged  views  with  the  Aquaculture  Advisory 
Council on the functioning of this stakeholder-led organisation and there was an update on the mid-
term  Evaluation  of  the  OMC  provided  by  a  representative  of  the  consortium  of  contractors 
undertaking the study. 

83 https://www.aac-europe.org/en/ 

59 

 
 
                                                            
Annex 3: Methods and analytical models 

The analytical framework of the evaluation was developed on the intervention logic presented on 
page 10 and the following evaluation questions: 

Effectiveness 

  Question 1: Which objectives developed by the Member States in their MANPs were achieved 
and  to  what  extent?  Which  objectives  were  not  achieved  and  why?  Which  objectives  are 
expected  to  be  achieved  as  a  result  of  adopted  measures  which  are  expected  to  be  fully 
implemented within the next two years?  

  Question  2:  What  were  the  results  achieved  through  the  OMC  in  the  Member  States  which 

participated ? 

  Question 3:  What are the preliminary results/intermediate impact of the OMC at EU level? Is 
there  a  causal  link  between  national  achievements  and  the  tools  set  up  at  EU  level  in  the 
framework of the OMC ? 

  Question 4: What factors influenced the achievements observed  both at national level and EU 

level?  

  Question  5:  To  what  extent  were  the  OMC  objectives  for  aquaculture,  as  set  out  in  the  CFP 
Basic  Regulation,  achieved?    What  factors  influenced/did  not  influence  these  achievements 
(both successes and failures)? 

  Question  6:  To  what  extent  the  OMC  (specific  objectives)  contribute  to  the  CFP  Basic 

Regulation and its wider achievements?  

Efficiency 

  Question 1:To what extent can we find evidence of the reduction of administrative procedures 

in the Member States? 

  Question  2:  To  what  extent  has  administrative  simplification  resulted  in  cost 

savings for the sector?  

  Question 3: To what extent will additional cost savings and reductions in administrative burdens 

result from measures to be implemented within the next two years? 

  Question 4 (i): What are the costs for MS who engage with the OMC and do the MS consider 

that the benefits provided justify time and resources committed?  

  Question 4 (ii):What are the costs to the EC of managing the OMC  and do EC staff consider 

that the benefits provided justify the time and resources ? 

  Question 5: What factors (difficulties/good practices) influenced the efficiency of the changes 

to the procedures ?  

  Question 6: To what extent is there scope for further simplification of the current OMC put in 

place for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture? 

Coherence 

  Question  1:  How  coherent  are  the  different  tools  of  the  OMC  to  reach  the  CFP  strategic 

priorities? 

  Question 2: How coherent and complementary is the EMFF Regulation with OMC objectives? 
  Question  3:  How  coherent  are  EU  policies  affecting  aquaculture  (in  particular  environmental 

policy, namely the MSFD and WFD)?  

  Question  4:  How  coherent  and  complementary  are  the  actions  developed  at 

regional/local levels?   

60 

 
  Question 5: How coherent are Member States’ aquaculture objectives with their environmental 

policy objectives, for example under WFD and MSFD  

Relevance 

  Question  1:  To  what  extent  is  the  OMC  a  relevant  tool  for  the  sustainable  development  of 

aquaculture?  

  Question 2: To what extent do the objectives of the OMC still correspond to the current needs 

of the sector?  

  Question  3:  How  could  the  OMC  tools  be  better  tailored  to  address  the  current  needs  of  the 

sector?  

  Question 4: How could the OMC reach regional authorities?   

EU added value 

  Question  1:  What  is  the  added  value  resulting  from  the  OMC,  compared  to  what  could  be 

achieved by Member States at national and/or regional level without any EU action? 

  Question  2:  To  what  extent  do  the  underlying  needs  of  the  aquaculture  sector 

addressed by the OMC still require action at EU level?  

  Question 3: What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the OMC 

for the aquaculture development? 

The  table  below  describes  the  analytical  framework,  including  evaluation  questions,  judgement 
questions
criteria, 

indicators 

methods 

answer 

used 

and 

the 

to 

61 

 
UPDATED EVALUATION QUESTIONS MATRIX 

EFFECTIVENESS 

Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

Progress achieved and anticipated in the Aquaculture sector to address the four main barriers to date 

EQ1. i. Which objectives84 developed by the 

  Extent that MS have achieved the 

Member States in their MANPs were 
achieved and to what extent?  

objectives they set under the 4 strategic 
priority areas.  

  Member States have MANPs which state the 
objectives set (including some quantified 
targets). 

ii. Which objectives were not achieved 
and why? 

iii. Which objectives are expected to be 
achieved (as a result) of adopted 
measures and which are expected to be 
fully implemented within the next two 
years? 

 

 

It is possible to identify and confirm 
objectives that were not achieved and 
the reasons for non-achievement. 

  There is documentary evidence / feedback from 

MS authorities to confirm objectives that have 
been met. 

It is possible to identify objectives that 
are likely to be achieved in the next 
two years, the likelihood of their 
achievement and the factors that may 
influence this. 

  Members States confirm objectives not yet 

achieved and they and other stakeholders 
confirm reasons for non-achievement. 

  Member States confirm objectives that are most 
likely to be achieved over the next two years. 

  Synthesis of mid-term reports of MANPs  

  Targeted consultation of NAs 

  Case studies in 5 MS  

EQ2. What were the (results) impacts 

  Extent that it is possible to identify 

  MS authorities confirm actual and likely impacts. 

  Desk research 

achieved through the OMC in the MS 
which participated with regards to the 4 
strategic priorities)?  

early impacts of achievements in the 
four priority areas in each participating 
MS. 

N.B. Changed from results to impacts as 
results will be defined under EQ1 

  Extent that it is possible to identify 

likely impacts in the period up to 2020 
in the four priority areas in each 
participating MS. 

  Stakeholders confirm the influence of specific 

  Targeted consultation of NAs 

changes. 

  Case studies in 5 MS 

  There is aggregated and accessible data to 

confirm impacts and effects achieved (re. targets 
in the Strategic Guidelines: no of new licenses 
granted, success rate of applications for licenses, 
average time to complete licensing procedures, 
number of public bodies involved in 
authorisation procedure, average costs of 

84 This question relates to objectives set under the four strategic priorities: simplifying administrative procedures, securing sustainable development and growth of aquaculture through 
coordinated spatial planning; Enhancing the competitiveness; Promoting a level playing field for EU operators by exploiting their competitive advantages (high quality, health and 
environmental standards).  

62 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

EFFECTIVENESS 

licensing procedures for new businesses, average 
duration of a license, progress in terms of 
coordinated spatial planning and securing 
allocation of space for sustainable aquaculture 
development, use of CMO and EMFF tools to 
support the aquaculture sector, development of 
producer and inter-branch organisations) 

EQ3i.What are the preliminary results / 

impacts (benefits) of the OMC at EU 
level? 

  Extent to that it is possible to identify 
‘EU’ level benefits through OMC 
coordination, for example: 

  EU staff confirm enhanced communication, 
understanding and coordination of the sector 
through OMC. 

 

Interviews with DG MARE staff 

  Case studies 

 

 

Increased consistency of the 
approaches to addressing problems 

  Documentary evidence / data to confirm 

influence / support of the OMC at EU level. 

  OPC  

Increased sharing of good practice and 
evidence of weaker MS taking up more 
advanced systems / methods. 

  Feedback from MS authorities and national 

stakeholders. 

  Enhanced communication across the 
sector and between MS and the EC. 

EQ3ii. Is there a causal link between 

  Extent that it is possible to identify 

national achievements and the OMC 
process and tools set up at EU level in 
the framework of the OMC? 

improvements to strategic planning in 
the sector since the introduction of the 
OMC. 

  Extent that it is possible to identify the 

contribution of the OMC process and 
tools (Strategic Guidelines, Guidance 
on EU legislation, MANPs, Exchange 
of Good Practice to achievements in 
the four priority areas at national level 
and regional level. 

  There was a national strategy for aquaculture in 
place before the introduction of the OMC 

  Targeted consultation of NAs 

  OPC 

  Case studies  

  National authorities / stakeholders confirm that 
industry contributed to national aquaculture 
planning before the OMC / Strategic Guidelines 

  There were quantified objectives before the 
OMC and data is available to confirm 
achievement quantitative targets in the Strategic 
Guidelines (no of licenses granted, etc.) before 
the OMC. 

  Extent to which it is possible to define 

whether current / planned achievements 
would have been realized without the 

  There is data and feedback at EU / national and 
regional level to confirm outputs and outcomes 
of specific OMC tools. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

OMC 

  Strategic guidelines:  

EFFECTIVENESS 

  Level of awareness of objectives public 

admin /industry 

  Extent that targets have been adopted 

  Perceptions of usefulness of guidelines 

  Specific examples of contribution to 4 

main barriers to growth. 

  Guidance on EU legislation: 

  Level of awareness of public admin 

  Stakeholders perceptions of usefulness 

  Specific examples of contribution to 

improved procedures, new legislation, 
legal clarifications related to 4 main 
barriers to growth. 

  MANPs /national actions:  

  Level of take up and use by MS / 

regional authorities 

 

Involvement of key stakeholders in 
drafting objectives 

  MANPs’ specific contribution to 4 

growth areas. 

  Evidence of increased investments. 

  Extent that MANPs have led to 

definition and pursuit of national 

64 

 
Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

EFFECTIVENESS 

actions that would not have otherwise 
been included. 

  Exchange of good practice 

  Numbers of ppts from different EU 

Member States 

  Feedback on usefulness of topics / 

speakers, etc. 

  Level of awareness of good practices 

shared national and regional 
authorities/ industry. 

 

Involvement in events to share good 
practices 

  Creation of national / regional good 

practice sharing tools, factsheets, etc. 

  Evidence of specific improvements in 

four growth areas as a result of good 
practices. 

  National and regional authorities confirm that 
improvements identified would not have 
occurred without support of OMC tools and 
processes. 

  There is documentary evidence, which confirms 
positive and negative influences on 4 specific 
growth areas of the Aquaculture sector in the 
MS. 

  MS and EU and national stakeholders confirm 

success factors and barriers 

65 

  Synthesis of mid-term reports of MANPs  

  Targeted consultation of NAs 

  Case studies 

EQ4. What factors influenced the 

 

achievements observed both at national 
level and EU level?  

It is possible to identify the main 
factors driving or limiting 
improvements in the four specific 
priority areas for Aquaculture in the 
Member States. 

 
Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

EFFECTIVENESS 

  There are actions taken or planned at MS level to 

counter the barriers (if any) 

EQ5i. To what extent were the OMC 

objectives for aquaculture, as set out in 
the CFP Basic Regulation, achieved? 

  Extent that MS specific objectives (as 
described in MANPs) were achieved. 

  Evidence of achievement of specific objectives / 

  Desk research 

indicators set (as described in MANPs). 

  Extent that operational objectives were 

  Evidence that operational objectives were 

achieved in each country. 

achieved. 

  Targeted consultation of NAs 

  Case studies 

EQ5ii. What factors influenced/did not 

  Covered under EQ4 

  Covered under EQ4 

  Covered under EQ4 

influence these achievements (both 
successes and failures) 

EQ6. To what extent the OMC (specific 

  Extent that it is possible to identify 

  Feedback from MS authorities and stakeholders 

  Desk research 

objectives) contribute to the CFP Basic 
Regulation and its wider 
achievements? 

measures at national level which have 
enhanced sustainability, food security, 
growth and employment in 
Aquaculture. 

  Extent that the identified measures 
relate to the specific or general 
objectives of the OMC 

confirms improvements relating to sustainability, 
etc. 

  Case studies 

  Feedback from MS authorities confirms the 
impact or influence of the OMC on these 
measures. 

Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

EFFICIENCY 

66 

 
 
Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

EFFICIENCY 

EQ1. To what extent can we find evidence of 

the reduction of administrative 
procedures in the Member States? 

  Extent that it is possible to identify that key 
administrative procedures have been 
simplified during the timeframe under 
examination. 

  Extent that stakeholders confirm that 

procedures and processes are easier to use. 

 

There is existing documentary evidence to 
confirm administrative simplifications, such as: 

  Case studies 
  Targeted consultation of 

NAs 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Coordination within the public 
administration 

Prolonging license duration 

Establishing a mandatory timeframe for 
procedural steps 

Providing an industry / public admin 
platform 

Setting up a one-top-shop 

Streamlining assessment procedures 

o  Aligning procedures in different regions 

o  Other simplifications to be identified 

  MS authorities confirm which key administrative 

procedures (above or other) have been 
simplified and / or are likely to be simplified in 
the future. 

  National level stakeholders identify that key 

procedures are quicker and / or easier to use in 
comparison to 2014, for example: 

o  There is an increase in the no of new 

licenses granted per year. 

o  There is a higher success rate for 

applications for licenses 

67 

o  The average time to complete licensing 

procedures is shorter (months) 

o  Few public bodies / contact points are 
involved in the authorisation process 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

EFFICIENCY 

EQ2. To what extent has administrative 

simplification resulted in cost savings 
for the sector?  

  Extent that it is possible to identify links 
between simplification of administrative 
procedures and cost savings achieved by MS 
authorities and other aquaculture 
stakeholders 

  Extent that improvements have been 

measured in terms of costs and time saved by 
the administrations and the operators 

  MS authorities confirm that administrative 
simplification: has achieved cost savings: 

o  Case studies 
o  Targeted consultation of 

NAs 

o  cost savings have been achieved at 

national / regional level;  

o  average costs of licensing procedures for 

new business have gone down. 

  Extent to which coordinated spatial planning 

savings have been achieved. 

helped facilitating access to space and 
reducing administrative procedures 

  National and regional stakeholders (public and 
private) confirm that cost savings have been 
made. 

  There is data available to confirm that cost 

EQ3. To what extent will additional cost 
savings and reductions in 
administrative burdens result from 
measures to be implemented within 
the next two years? 

  Extent that it is possible to identify further 
savings that can expected as a result of 
improvements planned in the next 2 years. 

  MS authorities have or are able to calculate the 
potential cost savings that will be achieved 
through further planned simplification 
measures. 

  Case studies 
  Targeted consultation of 

NAs 

  Future cost savings at national level have 

already been documented. 

68 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

EFFICIENCY 

EQ4i   What are the costs for MS who engage 
with the OMC and do the MS consider 
that the benefits provided justify time 
and resources committed? 

EQ4ii. What are the costs to the EC of 

managing the OMC and do EC staff 
consider that the benefits provided 
justify the time and resources 
committed / there are other more 
efficient management approaches that 
should be considered? 

  Extent that it is possible to identify costs in 
terms of time and resources at MS level. 

  MS estimate the amount of time and resources 

  Targeted consultation of 

committed to date per annum. 

NAs 

  Extent that there is evidence to confirm that 
the costs of engaging with the OMC are 
recompensed by the benefits that generated 
at MS and EU level. 

  Extent that there is evidence to confirm 

resource allocation to managing the OMC. 

  Extent that there is consensus that the OMC 

represents an efficient approach / justifies the 
resources allocated 

  MS and other stakeholders confirm that the 
benefits of the OMC outweigh the costs of 
involvement. 

  EC staff estimate the amount of time and 
resources committed to date per annum. 

  EC staff agree that the costs are justified by the 
benefits / do not identify other more efficient 
coordination / management approaches. 

  Case studies 
 

Interviews with DG MARE 
staff 

EQ5. What factors (difficulties / good 

practices) influenced the efficiency of 
the changes to the procedures? 

  Extent to which MS authorities and regional 
authorities are able to define positive and 
negative factors that influenced the 
simplification of procedures. 

EQ6. To what extent is there scope for 

  EC officials have identified possible options for 

further simplification of the current 
OMC put in place for the sustainable 
development of EU aquaculture? 

simplification of the OMC. 

  MS authorities consider that certain aspects of 

the OMC could be simplified. 

  MS authorities agree with suggestions from EC 

official re. simplification options. 

  MS authorities confirm key factors that 
have supported or limited increased 
administrative simplification 

 

 

 

Stakeholders confirm key factors that have 
supported or limited increased 
administrative simplification. 

It is possible to identify options for 
simplification. 

There is consensus among MS authorities 
that possible options are workable / 
desirable. 

 

 
 

 

Targeted consultation 
of NAs 
Case studies  
Conference with 
regional and local 
authorities. 

Interviews with DG 
MARE, EMPL and EAC 

  OPC 
 

Case studies 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

COHERENCE 

EQ 1. How coherent with each other are the 
different tools of the OMC to reach the 
CFP strategic priorities? 

  There is consensus among EC staff that the tools are 

  EC staff confirm coherence 

 

Interviews with DG MARE staff 

coherent. 

 

It is not possible to detect overlaps / incoherence 
between tools (guidelines, MANPs and exchange of 
good practices) 

  There are synergies between the tools 

 

It is not possible to detect incoherence with CFP. 

  Documentary evidence does not 

  Desk research  

show overlaps or inconsistencies. 

  Case studies 

  Member State administrations 
consider that tools complement 
each other  

EQ2. How coherent and complementary is 

  There is consensus among EC staff that the objectives 

  EC staff confirm coherence 

 

Interviews with DG MARE staff 

the EMFF Regulation with OMC 
objectives? 

are coherent with the EMFF Regulation 

 

It is not possible to detect inconsistences between the 
OMC objectives and the EMFF Regulation 

  Documentary evidence does not 
show overlaps or inconsistencies 

  Desk research  

EQ 3. How coherent with each other are EU 
policies affecting aquaculture (in 
particular environmental policy namely 
MSFD and WFD)? 

  There is consensus among EC staff that policies 

  EC staff confirm coherence  

affecting aquaculture are coherent 

 

Interviews with EC staff (DG 
MARE, SANTE, ENV) 

 

It is not possible to detect inconsistences in policy texts 
concerning: 

  There are no inconsistencies in 
the wording of relevant policy 
texts. 

  Desk research  

o  environment,  

o  food safety,  

o  animal safety and welfare, 

o  research and innovation 

EQ 4. How coherent and complementary are 
the actions developed by MS at 
regional/local levels (in terms of 
communication for example)? 

  Extent that communication materials and messages 
about MS actions at regional and local level are 
similar. 

  Evidence of specific materials 
and messages collected via the 
case studies.  

  Case studies 

  Conference targeting regional and 

local authorities. 

  Extent that communication materials and messages 
about MS actions at regional and local level are 

  Good practice guidelines on 

communication at regional and 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

COHERENCE 

different. 

local level. 

  Consistency with good practice guidelines on 
communication where these have been shared. 

EQ 5. How coherent are Member States’ 

aquaculture objectives with their 
environmental policy objectives, for 
example under WFD and MSFD?  

  Extent of alignment between EU environmental policy 
objectives (WFD and MSFD) and national aquaculture 
objectives. 

  There are no obvious 

  Desk research 

contradictions between EU 
environmental objectives and 
aquaculture objectives. 

  Consultation of national authorities 

  Extent that environmental considerations were 

considered when national aquaculture objectives were 
set. 

  Extent that aquaculture objectives may lead to results / 
outcomes that contradict or compromise environmental 
objectives. 

  National authorities confirm that: 

  Case studies. 

  account was taken of 

environmental objectives 
when aquaculture objectives 
were set 

 

there is coherence between 
aquaculture objectives and 
national environmental 
objectives. 

  National stakeholders confirm 
coherence between national 
aquaculture objectives and 
national environmental objectives 

71 

 
Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

EQ1.To what extent is the OMC a 

relevant tool for the sustainable 
development of aquaculture? 

  Member State authorities consider that the 
OMC is helping to support the sustainable 
aquaculture development. 

  EC officials consider that the OMC is the 

most appropriate tool available given that the 
EU has no competence vis-à-vis the MS in the 
area of aquaculture. 

 

Interviews with DG MARE 
officials 

  Case studies 

RELEVANCE 

  EC officials confirm that there are other EU 
tools / processes / options available, which 
would better address barriers to sustainable 
aquaculture across the EU. 

  There is consensus among MS authorities that 
the OMC corresponds to their needs in the face 
of barriers to sustainable development. 

  MS authorities think other options (if they 

exist) would better suit their needs. 

EQ2 To what extent do the objectives of 
the OMC still correspond to the 
current needs of the sector? 

  Extent that the OMC’s specific objectives 
still reflect the main needs in the sector. 

  MS authorities confirm that specific objectives 
(4 barriers to growth) are targeted on the right 
needs 

  OPC 
  Case studies 
  Meeting with stakeholder groups in 

  Extent that there are no other needs that 
should be reflected in the specific 
objectives? 

  MS authorities identify other objectives / issues 
that should be included as specific objectives. 

  Conference with regional and local 

authorities 

the AAC 

  Extent that the operational objectives 

  MS authorities confirm that the general 

(development of mutual learning, changes 
in national legislation creation of guidance 
docs, realistic and sustainable investments 
at EU and national level) still support 
specific aquaculture needs? 

objectives are appropriate to meet needs / 
support sustainable development. 

  MS authorities identify other tools (codes of 
practice, toolboxes) that could be included as 
general objectives. 

  Extent that MS authorities agree that other 
possible OMC operational objectives 
(identified in discussions with other DGs / 
MARE) would be more useful / should be 
added. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
EQ3. How could the OMC tools be better 
tailored to address the current needs 
of the sector? 

  Member State authorities have views on 
how existing tools85 could be better 
tailored:  

o  high level events on aquaculture 

o  seminars for national administrations 

o  regional cooperation (platform for 

regions) 

o  communication with citizens via 

national and EU events and websites 

  Stakeholders have views on how existing 
tools could be better tailored to suit 
aquaculture needs 

EQ4. How could the OMC reach regional 

  Extent to which regional authorities have 

authorities?  

been informed of the OMC and its 
initiatives (actions/ events) 

  Feedback from MS authorities regarding the 
suitability of tools to meet their needs  

  Evidence of other modalities (e.g. Codes of 
Practice; toolboxes) offering more tailored 
approach   

Interviews with DG MARE 

 
  Case studies 
  OPC 
  Conference with regional and local 

authorities. 

  Level of regional authority participation in MS 
events and or EU level events and activities 

  Case studies 

  Conference with regional and local 

authorities 

  Extent that MS authorities identify ways to 
extend reach of the OMC to the regions. 

  MS authorities confirm sharing / joint 

responsibility for OMC objectives with 
regional authorities. 

  Extent to which the regional authorities 

would be receptive to increased outreach  

  MS authorities and when consulted regional 
authorities confirm how to improve the 
outreach to regional stakeholders, including 
preferred methods of: 

o  Contact 

o  Engagement  

o  Benefits and limitations of each of the 

methods  

85 Use of the word tools could relate to the operational objectives of these specific tools listed. In EQ3 we focus on events, seminars, etc. whilst relevance to operational objectives is 

assessed under EQ2.  

73 

 
 
                                                            
 
 
EU ADDED VALUE 

Evaluation questions 

Judgement criteria 

Indicators 

Methods 

EQ 1.What is the added value resulting 
from the OMC, compared to what 
could be achieved by Member States 
at national and/or regional level 
without any EU action? 

  Extent that the OMC has provided additional 
impetus / support to address the four main 
barriers to growth. 

  There is consensus among MS authorities that 
the OMC has provided a significant boost to 
addressing barriers to growth. 

  Targeted consultation of NAs 

  Case studies 

  Extent that it is possible to isolate results and 
outcomes that could or would not have been 
otherwise achieved without the OMC 
contribution. 

 

It is possible to identify results / outcomes that 
can be directly attributed to the OMC (see 
effectiveness question on causality). 

  There is consensus among MS authorities and 

stakeholders that the identified results / 
outcomes would not have been achieved 
without the OMC. 

EQ2. To what extent do the underlying 
needs of the aquaculture sector 
addressed by the OMC still require 
action at EU level? 

  Extent that MS authorities confirm that EU 
level support will continue to add value / is 
still necessary to meet each of the specific 
needs of the sector. 

  Extent that there continue to be significant 
disparities between MS in the evolution of 
the sector that can be addressed through 
planning, coordination and sharing of plans / 
practices at EU level. 

  Summative stakeholder’s feedback on their 

needs and expectations (as per EQ2) 

 

Interview with AAC chair and 
meetings with members 

  Strengths and weaknesses of national 

  Targeted consultation of NAs 

governance structures to support aquaculture 
development 

  Case studies 

  Conference with regional and local 

authorities 

EQ 3. What would be the most likely 
consequences of stopping or 
withdrawing the OMC for the 
aquaculture development? 

  Extent that MS authorities are able to 

  MS authorities identify main positive and 

  OPC 

identify positive and negative implications 
of stopping or withdrawing from the OMC 

negative implications. 

  Targeted consultation of NAs 

  Case studies  

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4:  
"Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture"86:  
targets 

Simplifying the administrative procedures. 

  Target  for  the  Member  States:  With  the  objective  to  identify  possibilities  to 
improve  procedures  and  to  reduce  administrative  burdens,  Member  States  are 
encouraged  to  collect  information  by  the  end  of  2013,  on:    (1)  Number  of  new 
licences granted in the period 2007-2013 (n), (2) Success rate of applications for 
licences  (%)  (3)  Number  of  applications  currently  being  processed  (n.)  (4) 
Average  time  to  complete  licencing  procedures  (months)  (5)  Number  of  public 
bodies  involved  in  authorisation  procedure  (n.)  (6)  Average  costs  of  licencing 
procedures for new business (€) (7) Average duration of a licence (years).  

  Targets  for  the  Commission:  On  the  basis  of  the  data  collected  by  the  Member 
States,  to  work  with  relevant  authorities  to  identify  by  summer  2014  best 
practices  and  margins  for  improvement  including  through  the  support  of  the 
Commission High Level Group on Administrative Burdens, whose mandate is to 
help Member States' public administrations to implement EU legislation in a way 
that is more efficient and responsive to the needs of stakeholders. To prepare by 
second  quarter  2014  guidance  documents  addressing  the  requirements  of  the 
WFD and the MSFD in relation to aquaculture, in order to assist Member States 
and  the  industry  in  the  implementation  of  EU  law  and  illustrate  how 
environmental protection can be compatible with sustainable aquaculture.   

  Target for Aquaculture Advisory Council: to perform by April 2014 a screening 
of  administrative  procedures  and  a  mapping  exercise  of  the  main  administrative 
burdens  in  terms  of  time  and  costs  in  different  types  of  aquaculture  in  the 
Member States.  

Securing sustainable development and growth of aquaculture through 
coordinated spatial planning  

  Target  for  the  Member  States:  to  put  in  place  coordinated  spatial  planning, 
including maritime spatial planning at sea basin level, to ensure that aquaculture's 
potential and needs are taken into account and to secure an adequate allocation of 
space in waters and land for sustainable aquaculture development.   

  Target  for  the  Commission:  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  coordinated 
maritime planning, to disseminate studies and experiences to help Member States 
in their planning. To organise a best practice exchange seminar in summer 2014. 

Enhancing the competitiveness of EU aquaculture  

  Target for the Member States: To make full use of the proposed CMO and EMFF 
to  support  business  growth  through  adequate  allocation  of  funds  to  aquaculture 
including  for  production  and  marketing  plans  and  to  improve  the  links  between 

86 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable 
development of EU aquaculture (COM(2013)229 final) 

75 

 
 
                                                            
R&D  and  the  industry  (especially  SMEs).  To  support  educational  &  vocational 
programmes covering the needs of the aquaculture sector.    

  Target  for  the  Commission:  To  coordinate  and  support  research  and  innovation 
for aquaculture through all the relevant EU programmes  and funds. To promote 
the  transfer  of  knowledge,  best  practices  and  innovation,  including  EU  research 
project  findings.  To  deliver  a  user  friendly  EU  market  Observatory  to  provide 
market intelligence.   

Promoting a level playing field for EU operators by exploiting their competitive 
advantages.  

  Target  for  the  Member  States:  To  support  the  development  of  producer  and 
interbranch  organisations  including  at  transnational  level.  This  would  facilitate 
collective  management  and/or  self-regulatory  initiatives  between  producers, 
processors, retailers, in cooperation with consumer associations and NGOs where 
appropriate.  To  support,  implement  and  control  labelling  requirements  and 
provisions.   

  Target for the Commission: To ensure that labelling rules, in particular as regards 
freshness, provenance and commercial name are fully implemented.  To improve 
markets transparency and disseminate markets information on trends at local, EU 
and  international  levels.  To  launch  by  the  end  of  2013  a  Communication 
campaign on the strengths of EU aquaculture. 

  Target  for  Aquaculture  Advisory  Council:  To  support  structuring  of  the 
aquaculture  production  and  marketing  including  certification  and  labelling.  To 
contribute  to  improved  market  intelligence  of  the  sector.  To  facilitate  self 
regulatory  initiatives87  and  help  communicating  these  characteristics  to  the 
consumer.  

87  Self-regulatory  initiatives  are  controlled  by  the  people  involved  in  them,  rather  than  by  outside 

organizations or rules. 

76