COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Interim Evaluation of the direct management component of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)
Date: 2020-10-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, aquaculture, common fisheries policy, distribution of EU funding, fishery management, integrated maritime policy, marine environment, sea fishing, sustainable fisheries

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.10.2020  SWD(2020) 221 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Interim Evaluation of the direct management component of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)      {SWD(2020) 222 final}  
 
 
1.  CONTENTS 
Glossary ..................................................................................................................................... iii 

1. 

2. 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 

Background to the initiative ............................................................................................ 1 

Description of the initiative and its objectives ........................................................................ 1 

Development  and  implementation  of  integrated  governance  of  maritime  and  coastal 
affairs (Article 82.1) ............................................................................................................ 2 

Development of cross-sectoral activities (Article 82.2) ...................................................... 2 

Support for sustainable economic growth, employment, innovation and new technologies 
(Article 82.3) ....................................................................................................................... 3 

Promotion of the protection of the marine environment (Article 82.4) ............................... 3 

Collection,  management  and  dissemination  of  scientific  advice  under  the  CFP  (Article 
85.1) ..................................................................................................................................... 4 

Specific control and enforcement measures under the CFP (Article 85.2) ......................... 4 

Voluntary contributions to international organisations (Article 85.3) ................................ 4 

Advisory Councils and communication (Article 85.4) ........................................................ 5 

Market intelligence, including the establishment of electronic markets (Article 85.5) ...... 5 

Intervention Logic ................................................................................................................... 6 

Baseline ................................................................................................................................... 6 

Common Fisheries Policy .................................................................................................... 6 

Integrated Maritime Policy .................................................................................................. 7 

3. 

Evaluation questions ....................................................................................................... 9 

General questions .................................................................................................................... 9 

Specific questions linked to the various intervention categories: ........................................... 9 

Public consultation ................................................................................................................ 11 

External study ....................................................................................................................... 12 

Other information .................................................................................................................. 13 

Limitations – robustness of findings ..................................................................................... 13 

4. 

5. 

Implementation state of play ......................................................................................... 14 

Answers to the evaluation questions ............................................................................. 16 

Relevance .............................................................................................................................. 16 

Efficiency .............................................................................................................................. 18 

Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................... 21 

Integrated governance ........................................................................................................ 22 

Marine knowledge ............................................................................................................. 23 

Spatial planning ................................................................................................................. 25 

Maritime surveillance ........................................................................................................ 26 

Blue growth ....................................................................................................................... 27 

Marine environment .......................................................................................................... 28 

i 

 
 
Scientific advice ................................................................................................................ 29 

Control and enforcement ................................................................................................... 30 

Voluntary agreements ........................................................................................................ 31 

Advisory Councils ............................................................................................................. 32 

Market intelligence ............................................................................................................ 33 

Technical assistance .......................................................................................................... 35 

Coherence ............................................................................................................................. 38 

EU added-value ..................................................................................................................... 40 

6. 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 42 

Relevance .............................................................................................................................. 42 

Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................... 43 

Efficiency .............................................................................................................................. 44 

Coherence ............................................................................................................................. 44 

EU added value ..................................................................................................................... 44 

ii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
GLOSSARY 

ABAC 
AC 
Baltic SCOPE 
BTM 
CCAMLR 

CFP 
CISE 
CMO 
DCF 
DG 
EASME 
EFCA 
EMFF 
EMODnet 
EMSA 
ENV 
ERIC 
ESI 
EU 
EUMOFA 
FAIR 
FAME 

FAME SU 

FARNET 

FLAG 

FRONTEX 
GES 
GFCM 
GROW 

IATTC 
ICCAT 
ICES 
IFDM 
IMP 
IMS 
INTERREG 

IPCC 
IT 

Accrual-based accounting – the European Commission’s accounting system 
Advisory Council  
Project on spatial planning in the Baltic 
Blue Time Machine – digital representation of blue planet 
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources – part of the 
Antarctic Treaty System 
EU’s Common Fisheries Policy 
Common Information Sharing Environment (for maritime surveillance) 
Common Market Organisation (for fisheries) 
Data Collection Framework (for fisheries) 
Directorate General of the European Commission 
Executive Agency for Small and Medium Enterprises 
European Fisheries Control Agency 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
European Marine Observation and Data Network 
European Maritime Safety Agency 
Directorate General for Environment of the European Commission 
European Research Infrastructure Consortium 
European Structural and Investment (Fund) 
European Union 
European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products 
findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable 
Fisheries and Aquaculture Monitoring and Evaluation under the European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund (EMFF) 
Fisheries and Aquaculture Monitoring and Evaluation under the European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund (EMFF) Support Unit 
Fisheries Area Network the community of people implementing Community-Led Local 
Development (CLLD) under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) 
Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs) are partnerships between fisheries actors and 
other local private and public stakeholder 
European Border and Coastguard Agency 
Good Environmental Status 
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean 
European Commission Directorate General for Internal Market, Industry, 
Entrepreneurship and SMEs 
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 
Integrated Fisheries Data Management 
Integrated Maritime Policy 
Information Management System (for maritime surveillance) 
Part of the European Regional Development Fund supporting cross-border, 
transnational and interregional cooperation 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
Information technology 

iii 

 
 
MARE 
MedFish4Ever  Ministerial declaration for strengthening fisheries management and governance in the 

European Commission Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

MS 
MSFD 
MSP 
RCG 
RFMO 
SimCelt 
SROCC 
STECF 
UN 
UNCLOS 

Mediterranean 
Member State (of the European Union) 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
Maritime Spatial Planning 
Regional Coordination Groups (for fisheries data) 
Regional Fisheries Management Organisation 
Cross-border spatial planning project involving UK, Ireland and France 
IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate 
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 
United Nations 
United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea 

iv 

 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

The  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF)1  supports  the  EU’s  Common  Fisheries 
Policy (CFP) and Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP). National authorities implement 90% of the 
Fund  under  shared  management.  Just  over  10%  (a  total  of  €647,275,400  over  the  seven-year 
funding  period  2014-2020)  has  been  earmarked  for  measures  that  are  implemented  directly  by 
the  European  Commission  and  the  Executive  Agency  for  Small  and  Medium  Enterprises 
(EASME). Between 200 and 300 contracts under this direct management part of the programme 
are signed each year. 

This interim evaluation assesses the efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, coherence and added 
value of the measures managed under direct management. The results will be used to guide the 
implementation of the last year of the programme and its follow-up in 2021-2027. 

The analysis presented in this report draws on information from several sources: an external 
study2  (the  Coffey  evaluation  report),  an  open  public  consultation,  opinions  expressed  on 
individual components of the EMFF in open literature and insights of  officials in the European 
Commission  and  the  Executive  Agency  for  Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  (EASME).  It 
covers the period 2014-2018 which is slightly more than halfway through the programme. 

The  measures  under  direct  management  cover  nine  specific  objectives,  each  with  an 
earmarked  budget  allocation  which  was  amended  by  a  delegated  regulation  in  2017.3  One  of 
these, “cross-cutting actions”, included three very distinct sub-objectives which required separate 
treatment. This evaluation therefore covers measures to meet 11 identifiable objectives as well as 
technical assistance to support the shared management component of the EMFF. 

Communication activities were not included as they have been evaluated separately.  

2.   BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

DESCRIPTION OF THE INITIATIVE AND ITS OBJECTIVES 

The  Common  Fisheries  Policy4  aims  to  ensure  that  fishing  and  aquaculture  activities  be 
environmentally sustainable over the long-term and managed in a way that is consistent with the 
objectives  of  achieving  economic,  social  and  employment  benefits,  and  of  contributing  to  the 
availability of food supplies. The Integrated Maritime Policy is based on a clear recognition that 
all matters relating to oceans and seas are interlinked, and that sea-related policies must develop 
in a joined-up way if we are to achieve the desired results5. 

The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund supported these objectives through a package of 

measures, each with a specific objective. 

1  
2  

3  

4  

5  

Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 

Interim evaluation study of the implementation of the direct management component of the EMFF Regulation (Articles 15 and 125) Coffey and Partners, 2018  

 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1f424d68-d670-11e8-9424-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

C(2017) 3881 

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 
COM(2007) 574 

1 

 
 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 2 

Development and implementation of integrated governance of maritime and coastal affairs (Article 
82.1) 

5% of budget, increasing to 6% after the 2017 amendment 

The aim was to help break down silos between ministries, departments and agencies and between 
countries in order to lead to a more integrated approach to matters concerning the sea. Particular 
emphasis was  placed  on encouraging cooperation amongst  authorities around  a sea basin. This 
included  non-EU  countries  which  is  particularly  relevant  for  the  Mediterranean  and  the  Black 
Sea. 

This  was  largely  accomplished  through  events,  the  largest  being  European  Maritime  Day 
held  each  year  in  a  different  coastal  city,  and  through  assistance  mechanisms;  these  being 
secretariats  who  maintained  on-line  platforms,  gathered  information  on  relevant  activities  and 
funding opportunities, organised workshops for stakeholders and disseminated this information  

Development of cross-sectoral activities (Article 82.2) 

33% of budget, falling to 24% after 2017 amendment 

The aim of these three activities was to improve coordination between different authorities within a 
country and between different countries. There were three strands, each targeting a separate objective: 

1)  improving the sharing and usability of marine data 

Data  on  the  marine  environment  is  essential  for  those  managing  or  engaging  in  economic 
activity  on  the  sea.  A  prototype  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Network  (EMODnet)  was 
already  gathering  data  held  by  institutions  in  the  EU  and  neighbouring  countries  and 
distributing them in a FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) manner. Following 
on  from  the  2012  Commission  Green  Paper  “Marine  Knowledge  2020”6,  the  aim  was  to 
continue  this  “flagship  project  to  build  a  seamless  multi-resolution  digital  seabed  map  of 
European waters by 2020 (…) accompanied by access to timely observations and information 
on  the  present  and  past  physical,  chemical  and  biological  state  of  the  overlying  water 
column”.  The  work  under  the  EMFF  involved  (1)  building  a  partnership  of  over  100 
institutions  to  construct  this  digital  map  (2)  undertaking  stress  tests  to  identify  gaps  and 
fitness  for  purpose  and  (3)  supporting  the  deployment  of  Argo  floats7  to  measure  oceanic 
temperature and salinity. 

2)  facilitating  the  sharing  of  information  between  authorities  responsible  for  management, 
safety  and  security  of  activities  at  sea,  particularly  through  the  Common  Information 
Sharing Environment (CISE) 

The  aim  was  to  complement  the  flow  of  information  between  maritime  authorities  – 
coastguards, border guards, fisheries inspectors, navigation authorities, customs officers, etc. 
– with a voluntary sharing of relevant information not already legally required in accordance 

6  
7  

COM(2012) 473 final. 
A global array of 3,800 free-drifting profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper 
2000 m of the ocean. 

2 

 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 3 

with  EU-law  to  be  collected,  reported,  exchanged  and  shared,  in  order  to  build  up  an 
enhanced picture of what is happening at sea and to detect illegal or dangerous activity. This 
was  accomplished  in  two  ways  (1)  creating  a  coastguard  forum  to  bring  coastguards  from 
different countries together to share experience and best practice and (2) building a Common 
Information  Sharing  Environment  (CISE)  that  would  allow  information  to  pass  between 
authorities in a secure and efficient manner. 

3)  helping  Member  States  implement  the  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Directive,  with  a 

particular focus on ensuring coherence between neighbouring countries 

The 2014 Maritime Spatial Planning Directive8 obliged EU Member States to develop plans 
for their waters by 2021 defining where and how activities would be permitted in their waters. 
The  objective  of  the  EMFF  measure  was  to  help  Member  States  achieve  this  objective. 
Particular  emphasis  was  given  to  facilitating  the  obligation  for  Member  States  to  take  into 
account the plans of their neighbours through projects that brought authorities from different 
Member States sharing a common sea basin together. 

Support  for  sustainable  economic  growth,  employment,  innovation  and  new  technologies  (Article 
82.3) 

2% of budget, increasing to 17% after 2017 amendment 

The Commission Communication on Blue Growth9 originally aimed to promote growth in five 
strategic  areas  not  already  subject  to  significant  EU  attention  –  aquaculture,  coastal  tourism, 
marine  biotechnology,  ocean  energy  and  seabed  mining  –  but  later  covered  a  broader  set  of 
activities;  particularly  those  that  contributed  to  societal  goals  such  as  decarbonisation  or  the 
circular economy.  

Initial spending on this objective was largely on studies to identify the state of play in these 
five sectors, especially bottlenecks to growth. And, since many of these studies identified lack of 
investment as a significant barrier, later efforts focused on this aspect. After the 2017 amendment 
to the EMFF regulation, an increasing proportion of the budget was spent on bottom-up projects 
whereby small and medium-sized enterprises obtained grants enabling them to enter the market 
or  scale-up  their  activities.  From  2019  these  grants  were  conditional  on  obtaining  a  letter  of 
intent  from  a  body  willing  to  invest  in  the  activity  subject  to  the  grant  award.  An  assistance 
mechanism was set up to provide coaching and advice to the enterprises seeking investment. 

Promotion of the protection of the marine environment (Article 82.4) 

5% of budget 

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive10 has been identified as the environmental pillar of the 
integrated maritime policy. It sets an objective of achieving good environmental status (GES) of 
the EU's marine waters by 2020 and thus protecting the resource base upon which marine-related 

8  
9  
10  

Directive 2014/89/EU. 
COM(2012) 494 final. 
Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a 
framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy.  

3 

 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 4 

economic  and  social  activities  depend.  The  environmental  status  is  constructed  from  11 
descriptors. Measures under the EMFF mainly involved studies to identify how to measure these 
descriptors and how to identify and quantify the human activities that influence them. 

Collection, management and dissemination of scientific advice under the CFP (Article 85.1) 

11% of budget 

The EU is responsible for setting measures to ensure the sustainability of the European fishing 
industry  by  protecting  fish  population  size  and  productivity  over  the  long  term.  This  requires 
significant scientific expertise to identify the appropriate measures – quotas for catches, limits to 
fishing effort, temporary or permanent avoidance of protected areas, restrictions on fishing gear 
etc.  Since  the  marine  environment  and  fishing  practices  change  with  time  and  since  there  are 
many  unknown  or  unmeasurable  factors  that  influence  the  size  and  nature  of  the  stocks,  the 
scientific advice needs to be updated regularly. Most stock advice is reviewed annually. 

Advice on specific questions was mainly provided by scientists working under the auspices 
of the International Council  for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES and the Scientific, Technical 
and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), supported by the Commission’s Joint Research 
Centre,  which  provided  the  secretariat.  Some  advice  on  Mediterranean  stocks  was  provided 
separately  under  Article  85.3  of  the  EMFF  “voluntary  contributions  to  international 
organisations”. 

Where advice was needed that required more information than can be obtained from readily 

available data, the EMFF has financed studies. 

Data collection was co-financed separately under the shared management component of the 
EMFF.  The  direct  management  component  helped  countries  to  coordinate  this  collection  with 
other countries sharing the same sea basin. 

Specific control and enforcement measures under the CFP (Article 85.2) 

19% of the budget, falling to 11% after the 2017 amendment 

Member States  are responsible for enforcing the  Common  Fisheries Policy rules in their water 
and in their vessels but need to communicate and report to other Member States, to the European 
Fisheries Control Agency and the Commission. Most of the budget was allocated to building and 
maintaining  an  information  technology  system  that  could  facilitate  this.  A  smaller  share  was 
dedicated to inspections by the Commission of national control and enforcement processes. 

It was originally intended to finance the joint chartering of patrol vessels but this option was 

not taken up for reasons explained later in this evaluation (page 43) 

Voluntary contributions to international organisations (Article 85.3) 

10% of the budget, increasing to 13% after the 2017 amendment  

Regional  fisheries  management  organisations  (RFMOs)  are  international  organisations  formed 
by countries with fishing interests in a given area. Some of them manage all the fish stocks found 
in  that  specific  area,  while  others  focus  on  particular  highly-migratory  species,  notably  tuna, 
throughout  vast  geographical  areas.  The  European  Commission  represents  the  Member  States 

4 

 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 5 

who fish the stocks in question. The European Commission plays an active role in 6 tuna and 11 
non-tuna RFMOs or other regional fisheries bodies. 

The  EMFF  awarded  grants  to  14  separate  bodies  (over  and  above  the  membership  fees)  to 
cover specific purposes such as scientific research or administrative capacity. A significant share 
of  the  financing  to  the  United  Nations  Food  and  Agriculture  Organisation  was  allocated  to 
building capacity at the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. 

Advisory Councils and communication (Article 85.4) 

9% of total budget, falling to 7% after the 2017 amendment 

The  Advisory  Councils  (ACs)  are  stakeholder-led  organisations  that  provide  the  Commission 
and  EU  countries  with  recommendations  on  fisheries  management  matters.  This  may  include 
advice on conservation and socioeconomic aspects of management of fisheries and aquaculture, 
and on simplification of rules. Advisory Councils are consulted in the context of regionalisation. 
They can also contribute to data for fisheries management and conservation measures. 

Advisory Councils are composed of representatives from the industry and from other interest 
groups  (with  a  60%  -  40%  allocation  of  the  seats  in  the  general  assembly  and  the  executive 
committee).  Ten  Advisory  Councils  received  EU  financial  assistance  from  the  EMFF  over  the 
period of this evaluation for pursuing an aim of general European interest. A new Council for the 
Outermost Regions was set up in 201911. 

Market intelligence, including the establishment of electronic markets (Article 85.5)  

9% of total budget, falling to 7% after the 2017 amendment. 

The  EMFF  supports  the  enhance  of  transparency  and  efficiency  of  the  market  for  fishery  and 
aquaculture products for producers, processors, importers, retailers, consumers, markets' analysts 
and policy makers through the EU Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture products 
(EUMOFA) 

EUMOFA  enables  direct  monitoring  of  the  volume,  value  and  price  of  fishery  and 
aquaculture products, from first sale to the retail stage, including imports and exports. Data are 
collected from EU countries, Norway, Iceland and from EU institutions, updated every day. 

INTERVENTION LOGIC 

The  EMFF  measures  were  designed  to  stimulate  the  blue  economy  and  strengthen  healthy 
ecosystems.  Cooperation  between  the  different  communities  and  government  departments 
responsible  was  a  third  objective  which  contributed  to  the  other  two.  A  broad  package  of 
measures aimed at private industry, public authorities, the research community and civil society 
involving advice, events, studies, capacity building, organisational support, dissemination of data 
and knowledge and bottom-up projects were financed. 

The relationship and pathways between the measures and the desired outcomes is illustrated 

in Figure 1. 

11  

Communication from the Commission regarding the start of functioning of the Advisory Council for 
Outermost Regions (2019/C 219/03). 

5 

 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 6 

Figure 1intervention logic 

BASELINE 

Common Fisheries Policy 

Although  there  were  some  differences  in  detail,  measures  in  support  of  the  Common  Fisheries 
Policy (Articles 85.1-85.4) were mainly continuations of measures previously carried out under 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  861/2006.  A  study  to  evaluate  the  first  three  of  these  measures12 
provides a baseline. It drew the following conclusions. 

Collection, management and dissemination of scientific advice under the CFP (Article 85.1) 

The study found that the timeliness of data submissions could have been improved and that 
better  tracking  was  needed  to  assess  how  the  advice  is  taken  account  of  in  fisheries 
management.  Nevertheless,  the  objectives  could  not  have  been  met  by  individual  Member 
States alone. Responsibility for data collection shifted to the shared management part of the 
EMFF  after  2013  with  regional  coordination  handed  to  Member  States  in  line  with  the 
Common Fisheries Policy’s regionalisation strategy. 

12  

Ex post evaluation on Union financial measures for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy 
and in the area of the Law of the Sea 2007-2013 Study. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/d5c69773-de15-11e6-ad7c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-101508012  

6 

EMFF fundingBetter products or servuceseventsSecretariats to bring stakeholders togetherassembling and disseminating  environmental, economic and market dataMore effective operaionsadvice and studiesMaritime forumShift from lab to marketAcquired  best practiceReduced riskAchieved common objectivesClarified options, opportunities and  bottlenecksMore informed participationbottom-up projects for innovationInformation repositories, eventsInformation technology Reports, recommendationsdirect support to intergovernmental bodiesGateways to dataCommunication betwen authoritiesDeclarations, matchmakingMore competitive blue economyMore protection to ecosystemsMore joined-up governance between countries and between policiesPrivate companiesPublic authoritiesCivil societyBetter regulationBetter regulation 
 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 7 

Specific control and enforcement measures under the CFP (Article 85.2) 

The budget was largely taken up by introduction of new technologies, in particular IT tools. 
The work was  beset  by underspending, failure to implement projects  or  projects  started  and 
then  abandoned.  The  study  recommended  a  more  long-term,  flexible  plan  for  control  and 
enforcement, in particular for data exchange and IT tools development. 

Voluntary contributions to international organisations (Article 85.3) 

The  study  found  that  financial  support  was  effective  and  efficient  and  clearly  benefited  the 
organisations concerned, though some administrative processes could have been streamlined. 
Better performance indicators would have helped demonstrate the favourable outcomes.  

There  has  been  no  evaluation  of  the  other  two  measures  related  to  fisheries:  Advisory 

Councils and market intelligence. 

Advisory Councils (Article 85.4) 

Seven  Advisory  Councils  were  set  up  following  a  2004  Council  Decision13.  Reform  of  the 
Common Fisheries Policy in December 201314 created four new Councils and reinforced their 
role  in  the  regionalisation  process.  The  impact  assessment  for  this  reform  did  not  cover 
Advisory  Councils,  though  there  had  been  some  questioning  of  whether  the  pre-reform 
Common  Fisheries  Policy  top-down  system  focusing  on  the  setting  of  Total  Allowable 
Catches (TACs) provided space for such multi-actor reflection and deliberation.15 

The reform introduced the obligation for 40% of members to be from outside the industry, 
for  instance  environmental  lobbies  or  labour  organisations.  It  was  expected  that  this  would 
deliver not only more balanced advice but would also enable local stakeholders to hear a more 
diverse range of views. 

Market intelligence (Article 85.5) 

The project to develop an EU market intelligence tool, EUMOFA, began in 2010 following a 
request from the European Parliament for the Commission to implement a preparatory action. 
Before this, there was little economic knowledge and understanding of the Union market for 
fisheries  and  aquaculture  products  along  the  supply  chain.  It  only  became  fully  operational 
during the period of this evaluation. 

Integrated Maritime Policy 

In 2007, the Blue Book16 announced the launch of an integrated maritime policy. It had no dedicated 
fund. It identified a number of maritime policy activities, notably the European Marine Observation and 
Data Network (EMODnet), the Common Information Sharing Environment (CISE) and spatial planning, 
which were initially funded through pilot projects and preparatory action proposed by the European 

13  
14  
15  

16  

Regulation 2004/585/EC. 
Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.  
Wilson DC. The Paradoxes of Transparency Science and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries 
Management in Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 2009. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European 
Union{COM(2007) 574 final). 

7 

 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 8 

Parliament. Following these pilots, €40 million of financing was allocated under Regulation 1255/2011 
establishing a programme to support the further development of an Integrated Maritime Policy17. 
Several of the 70 projects started under this regulation were not completed before a study for the ex-
post evaluation18 so the conclusions drawn were tentative. These were: 

Development and implementation of an integrated governance of maritime and coastal affairs (Article 
82.1)  

The study confirmed that events  were well attended. In particular stakeholders reported that 
the  European  Maritime  Days  and  regional  workshops  helped  raise  awareness  of  maritime 
affairs and the sustainable development of the blue economy. 

Development of cross-sectoral initiatives (Article 82.2) 

According to the study: 

  The  European  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Network  (EMODnet)  was  operational  but 
still in its infancy. The basic idea was that marine data collected for one purpose should be 
available  for  others.  Stakeholders  responding  to  the  interim  evaluation  asked  that  the 
network distribute data products such as digital maps as well as raw data. 

  The  Common  Information  Sharing  Environment  for  the  maritime  domain  (CISE)  was  a 
new  and  complex 
investment  was  considered 
worthwhile given the substantial improvement it could bring to the efficiency of Europe’s 
maritime  awareness  capabilities  by  exchanging  maritime  information  across  sectors  and 
borders. 

information-sharing  concept.  The 

  Projects  on  spatial  planning  mainly  focused  on  raising  awareness  amongst  stakeholders, 
including through cross-border projects. This may have contributed to the adoption of the 
Maritime Spatial Planning Directive in 201419. 

Support  for  sustainable  economic  growth,  employment,  innovation  and  new  technologies  (Article 
82.3) 

The  studies  on  emerging  economic  activities  funded  under  the  programme  for  further 
development  of  maritime  policy  focused  on  those  identified  by  the  Commission’s 
Communication  on  Blue  Growth20  (coastal  tourism,  deep-sea  mining,  blue  biotechnology, 
ocean energy and aquaculture). According to the ex-post evaluation, these provided a useful 
knowledge base for future activities to maximise their potential. 

Promotion of the protection of the marine environment (Article 82.4) 

Eleven descriptors of good environmental status had been listed in the 2008 Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive and a Commission Decision21 was adopted in 2010 laying down criteria 

17  
18  
19  
20  
21  

Regulation 1255/2011. 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/node/3731 
Directive 2014/89/EU. 
COM/2012/0494 final. 
Commission Decision 2010/477/EU. 

8 

 
 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 9 

and standards for their determination. Despite this a 2014 report by the Commission22 on the 
first phase of implementation identified many shortcomings. Articles 3(5)b and 5(2) impose 
coherence  at  a  regional  and  EU  level  but  the  report  found  no  shared  EU  understanding  of 
good  environmental  status.  There  were  over  20  different  determinations  across  the  EU,  and 
therefore no common or comparable goals. Studies and workshops supported by  Regulation 
1255/2011 began investigations into these questions but had made little progress in resolving 
them. 

3.  EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

GENERAL QUESTIONS 

relevance 

  To what extent is the measure still relevant? 

efficiency 

  To what extent has the measure been cost-effective? 
  Is the indicative distribution of funding reasonable? (Are the funds being used, if not why 

not? Are more funds needed, and if so, why)? 

effectiveness 

  To what extent have the objectives been achieved? 
  What have been the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure? 
  Regarding  contracts  over  €1  million  per  year,  are  the  deliverables  being  used  by  DG 

MARE or by stakeholders? 

coherence 

  To  what  extent  is  the  measure  coherent  internally  (with  the  objectives  of  the  Common 
Fisheries  Policy  and  integrated  maritime  policy)  and  externally  (with  wider  EU  policy 
objectives)? 

EU added value 

  What is the additional value resulting from the EU action taken compared to what could 

be achieved by Members States at national and/or regional levels? 

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS LINKED TO THE VARIOUS INTERVENTION CATEGORIES: 

Development and implementation of an integrated governance of maritime and coastal affairs (Article 
82.1) 

  Have the measures contributed to a more integrated  governance of maritime and  coastal 

affairs? 

22  

COM/2014/97 final. 

9 

 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 10 

Development of cross-sectoral initiatives (Article 82.2) 

  Are the marine knowledge activities contributing to reducing costs of offshore or coastal 

activities, promoting innovation and reducing uncertainty in knowledge of the sea? 
  Have the marine spatial planning activities helped Member States set up spatial plans? 
  Will  the  maritime  surveillance  activities  lead  to  an  operational  system  for  exchanging 

information between maritime authorities? 

Support  for  sustainable  economic  growth,  employment,  innovation  and  new  technologies  (Article 
82.3) 

  Have ‘Blue Growth’ initiatives funded by the EMFF facilitated the development of marine 

economic activities (MEAs) and the jobs they generate? 

Promotion of the protection of the marine environment (Article 82.4) 

  Will  the  action  taken  help  Member  States  report  the  state  of  the  marine  environment  as 

part of their obligations under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive? 

Collection, management and dissemination of scientific advice under the CFP (Article 85.1) 

  To  what  extent  have  the  studies,  pilots  and  scientific  advice  funded  under  direct 
management contributed to improving the overall effectiveness and relevance of scientific 
advice to policy-making? 

  To  what  extent  have  the  studies,  pilots  and  scientific  advice  funded  under  direct 

management been coherent with research funded Horizon 2020? 

  How have data collection-related measures strengthened regional cooperation? 

Specific control and enforcement measures under the CFP (Article 85.2) 

  Which  measures  are  most  frequently  implemented,  and  why?  Which  measures  are  least 

used, and why? 

  Why  is  there  a  reluctance  from  Member  States  to  apply  for  joint  chartering  and/or 
purchase  of  control  means?  Should  this  measure  be  abandoned?  If  not,  under  which 
conditions that measure would be relevant in the next programming period? 

Voluntary contributions to international organisations (Article 85.3) 

  Are the voluntary agreements in line with the objective of the CFP? Do the contributions 
help  improve  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  international  organisations  (please 
provide a counterfactual - with and without Partnership Agreements - as proof). 

Advisory Councils (Article 85.4) 

  Have the Advisory Councils been able to provide substantial and timely recommendations 
on  fisheries  management  matters,  including  advice  on  conservation  and  socioeconomic 
aspects of fisheries, and on simplification of rules? 

10 

 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 11 

Market intelligence, including the establishment of electronic markets (Article 85.5) 

  To  what  extent  has  EUMOFA  delivered  on  the  Commission  commitments  on  market 

intelligence as defined in article 42 of the CMO Regulation (1379/2013)? 

Technical assistance 

  Are  the  tasks  that  FARNET  implements  meeting  a  need  of  the  local  community?  If  so, 
what structures are in place to hand over these tasks after 14 years of implementation? 
  What  has  FAME's  contribution  (EU  value  added)  been  to  a  more  efficient  and  effective 
implementation of the monitoring and evaluation system of the shared management of the 
EMFF both at Member State and EU level? 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

A public consultation opened on 29 May 2018 and closed on 7 September 2018. The three main areas 
covered by maritime and fisheries policies – fisheries, marine environment and blue economy – elicited 
replies by representatives of all four stakeholder categories (public authorities, academia and research, 
private bodies and civil society). About one third had received EMFF funding. There were 200 
respondents overall. Annex II gives more information on the results. 

Figure 2. Interests of respondents to public consultation 

11 

 
 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 12 

Figure 3. Proportion of respondents who had received EMFF funding 

EXTERNAL STUDY 

Following  an  open  call  for  tender,  a  team  led  by  Coffey  International  was  contracted  on 
20 December 2017 for €179,420 to answer the questions set out in Section 3 of this report. The 
contract ended nine months later in September 2018. Since few of the measures resulting from 
the 2017 work programme had produced results, the study only covered the first three years of 
the programme from 2014-2016. 

Given  that  it  was  unfeasible  to  check  all  projects,  the  approach  taken  was  to  look  at  a 
representative sample, agreed with the Commission. The study team questioned stakeholders in a 
more targeted way than the public consultation. The conclusions of the final report were almost 
entirely  based  on  the  answers  received  rather  than  on  quantitative  analysis.  The  distribution  of 
the respondents was as follows. 

Table 1 Stakeholders consulted in the Coffey evaluation study. 

All 

77 

European 
Commission 

EASME 

civil 
society 

contractor  private 
body 

public 
authority 

researcher 

18 

1 

14 

1 

2 

39 

2 

The study also looked in more detail at 5 out of the 747 projects run between 2014 and 2016 that 
they  had  agreed  with  the  Commission  as  being  representative.  These  covered  spatial  planning, 
environmental evaluation, scientific advice, advisory councils and market intelligence. 

12 

 
 
 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 13 

This study23 is referred to as “the Coffey evaluation study” in this document.  

OTHER INFORMATION 

The analysis presented in this report takes into account information from the Coffey evaluation 
report, from the public consultation, opinions expressed on individual components of the EMFF 
in open literature and insights of officials from the Commission and EASME. 

Two  of  the  cross-cutting  objectives  of  the  maritime  policy  (Article  82.2  of  the  EMFF 
regulation),  better  marine  knowledge  and  more  effective  maritime  surveillance,  underwent 
separate evaluations24 during this period. Their conclusions were also taken into account. 

Financial information is taken from Commission decisions on annual work programmes for 
the programmed amount and from the Commission’s financial information  system, ABAC, for 
the commitments and payments. 

LIMITATIONS – ROBUSTNESS OF FINDINGS 

The main challenges in evaluating this programme were: 

  The number and variety of measures financed by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. 
Between 200 and 300 contracts through grants and procurement) were signed each year on 
topics  ranging  from  tuna-tagging  in  the  Indian  Ocean  to  coastguard  fora  in  the 
Mediterranean.  
the novelty of many of the actions. Other than the short 2011-2013 preliminary programme, 
this was the first financial programme dedicated to the maritime policy.  

 

  The  EMFF  Regulation  was  adopted  in  May  2014  and  the  financial  decision  for  the  2014 
work  programme  in  July  2014.  Only  a  small  proportion  of  projects  were  completed  by  the 
time  of  the  Coffey  evaluation  study  which  only  covered  activity  programmed  in  the  years 
2014  to  2016.  This  meant  that  bottom-up  “innovation”  projects”  for  the  maritime  policy 
which absorbed almost half the maritime policy part of the budget from 2017 onwards could 
not be evaluated. 

  The lack of performance indicators or catalogue of project reports meant that too much effort 
was  spent  in  finding  and  assembling  the  output  of  activities  rather  than  assessing  their 
impact.  

Despite  these impediments,  this interim evaluation was able to  determine what the programme 
delivered.  More  time  is  needed  before  it  is  feasible  to  quantify  the  full  impact  on  society,  the 
economy and the marine environment25. 

23  

24  

25  

Interim evaluation study of the implementation of the direct management component of the EMFF 
Regulation (Articles 15 and 125) Coffey and Partners, 2018, 
 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1f424d68-d670-11e8-9424-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 
Commission Staff Working Document Review of the Common Information Sharing Environment (CISE) 
for the maritime domain: 2014 – 2019, SWD(2019) 322 final. 
When asked about the influence of the French Revolution in the 1970s, the late Chinese premier Zhou 
Enlai is reputed to have said: 'Too early to say.' 

13 

 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 14 

4.  IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY 

At  the  beginning  of  each  year,  the  Commission  adopted  a  work  programme  in  a  decision  that 
allocated  the  year’s  budget  to  a  set  of  identifiable  measures  for  each  specific  objective  of  the 
EMFF regulation. The budget was split between these objectives as set out in section 3. 

Nearly  all  the  programmed  budget  was  committed  (Table  2).  The  only  exception  was  for 

fisheries control. The reasons are explained in the following section. 

The Financial Regulation stipulates that commitments must be made by the end of the year 
following the budget  allocation.  Many projects  span  two to three  years so payment figures lag 
the commitments. 

DG-MARE  delegated  part  of  the  implementation  of  the  programme  to  EASME  under 
Commission  Decision  C(2014).  DG-ENV  implemented  the  part  of  the  programme  under 
Article 82.2(4) which concerned protection of the marine environment.  

Each  year  there  were  approximately  250  separate  contracts  signed,  either  through 

procurement or grants. 

Each  measure  was  monitored  by  the  contracting  authority  –  DG-MARE,  DG-ENV  or 
EASME. Payments were conditional on fulfilment of the terms of the contract. Correspondence, 
contracts and reports were registered and stored in the Commission’s document registry ARES 
(Advanced  Records  System)  and  financial  information  on  the  Commission’s  ABAC  (Accrual 
Based Accounting) system. A number of the study reports are published on the web-site of the 
publications office of the EU. 

Other than consumption of the budget (Table 2), there were no key performance indicators. 
The Commission reported annually to the EMFF Committee26 who expressed an opinion on the 
following year’s work programme. Specific strands of the work were presented at Expert Group 
meetings  such  as  the  Maritime  Policy  Expert  Group27  or  at  stakeholder  meetings  such  as  the 
annual European Maritime Day28. 

The  Commission  has  been  developing  tools  for  managing  expenditure  that  reduce  the 
bureaucracy of budget management; both for the contracting authority and for the beneficiaries. 
However,  during  the  period  of  this  evaluation,  2014  to  2018,  few  were  in  operation.  This  is 
reflected in the conclusions on efficiency described in the next section. 

Table 2.  Implementation of EMFF. The programmed amount was that published in the annual Commission decisions for the DG 
MARE work programme29 and their amendments The Commission does not routinely analyse the budget execution to 
this level of detail. The analysis was undertaken specifically for this evaluation. 

All 

2014 

2015 

Year 

2016 

2017 

2018 

fisheries 

Advisory Council 

committed (€) 

12,012,732  1,750,000  1,750,000  2,700,000  2,908,861  2,903,871 

contracts 

paid (€) 

44 

7 

7 

9 

10 

11 

10,377,111  1,647,554  1,658,956  2,137,498  2,532,340  2,400,763 

programmed (€)  14,400,000  1,750,000  2,750,000  3,300,000  3,300,000  3,300,000 

communication 

committed (€) 

10,481,410  1,146,985  3,124,048  2,090,388  2,732,637  1,387,352 

26  
27  
28  
29  

https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/legislation 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/frontpage/156 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/frontpage/328 
 https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/annual-work-programme-grants-and-procurement_en 

14 

 
  
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 15 

All 

2014 

2015 

Year 

2016 

2017 

2018 

contracts 

paid (€) 

222 

23 

70 

44 

58 

27 

8,204,289 

874,740  2,687,716  1,738,433  2,196,552 

706,848 

programmed (€)  15,682,016  3,741,245  3,743,771  1,778,000  4,119,000  2,300,000 

committed (€) 

26,174,580  3,984,352  6,466,116  4,802,962  5,430,142  5,491,009 

contracts 

paid (€) 

306 

28 

59 

59 

78 

82 

21,421,819  3,566,184  4,017,099  4,258,764  4,764,112  4,815,660 

programmed (€)  49,286,624  15,439,690  16,110,967  6,010,967  6,225,000  5,500,000 

control and 
enforcement 

market intelligence  committed (€) 

21,400,964  4,047,880  4,047,880  4,565,030  4,462,375  4,277,798 

contracts 

paid (€) 

13 

1 

1 

3 

3 

5 

19,354,126  4,047,880  4,047,880  4,565,030  4,462,375  2,230,961 

programmed (€)  24,199,726  4,944,000  4,944,966  4,827,880  4,667,880  4,815,000 

scientific advice 

committed (€) 

38,392,692  6,528,076  6,537,917  8,309,630  7,862,068  9,155,000 

voluntary 
contributions 

contracts 

paid (€) 

78 

14 

13 

16 

15 

20 

27,692,502  6,056,915  5,784,164  7,105,519  4,726,016  4,019,888 

programmed (€)  41,834,000  6,990,000  8,680,000  8,590,000  8,300,000  9,274,000 

committed (€) 

52,985,041  6,053,998  7,691,350  14,415,960  12,530,471  12,293,262 

contracts 

paid (€) 

141 

18 

31 

34 

24 

34 

44,107,671  5,375,639  7,189,557  12,543,632  10,344,585  8,654,257 

programmed (€)  49,752,088  6,137,369  7,977,720  10,675,000  12,670,000  12,291,999 

maritime policy  blue growth 

committed (€) 

55,268,376  1,956,530  1,283,837  5,351,852  21,723,572  24,952,585 

contracts 

paid (€) 

94 

5 

7 

14 

36 

32 

25,405,173  1,941,489  1,226,423  4,783,813  9,485,564  7,967,884 

programmed (€)  55,596,000  2,050,000  1,517,000  5,779,000  21,410,000  24,840,000 

careers 

committed (€) 

3,763,646 

contracts 

paid (€) 

7 

2,895,494 

programmed (€) 

3,452,000 

evaluation and IT 

committed (€) 

925,738 

contracts 

paid (€) 

5 

925,738 

programmed (€) 

610,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

.  3,763,646 

. 

7 

.  2,895,494 

.  3,452,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

25,100 

1 

25,100 

30,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

900,638 

4 

900,638 

580,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

integrated 
governance 

committed (€) 

15,201,491  1,521,333  3,125,164  2,446,005  4,453,969  3,655,021 

contracts 

paid (€) 

202 

55 

45 

45 

32 

25 

11,438,128  1,422,085  2,943,491  2,158,581  3,359,050  1,554,922 

programmed (€)  17,970,220  1,850,000  3,575,000  2,528,240  5,296,980  4,720,000 

marine data 

committed (€) 

46,730,890  5,368,630  13,481,708  13,691,626  8,517,925  5,671,000 

15 

 
  
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 16 

All 

2014 

2015 

Year 

2016 

2017 

2018 

contracts 

paid (€) 

26 

5 

4 

8 

4 

32,851,992  5,368,630  13,081,736  13,691,626 

710,000 

5 

. 

programmed (€)  47,440,000  5,680,000  13,800,000  13,830,000  8,600,000  5,530,000 

marine 
environment 

committed (€) 

20,443,560  3,663,470  3,637,598  4,269,799  4,269,790  4,602,903 

contracts 

paid (€) 

45 

8 

7 

8 

12 

10 

14,524,544  3,355,206  3,163,514  4,060,708  2,663,574  1,281,543 

programmed (€)  19,837,262  3,260,000  3,637,598  4,269,664  4,270,000  4,400,000 

spatial planning 

committed (€) 

26,703,262  7,179,266  6,774,774  7,548,607  1,986,173  3,214,441 

contracts 

paid (€) 

22 

5 

4 

5 

3 

5 

18,683,484  6,153,887  5,071,707  5,068,346  1,206,567  1,182,977 

programmed (€)  27,822,760  8,230,000  7,130,000  7,077,760  2,115,000  3,270,000 

surveillance 

committed (€) 

15,647,694  6,485,515  1,393,519  2,000,958 

697,722  5,069,980 

contracts 

paid (€) 

35 

13 

6 

7 

3 

6 

11,828,416  5,573,340  1,138,523  1,658,159 

523,801  2,934,594 

programmed (€)  19,748,000  8,250,000  3,048,000  2,190,000  1,190,000  5,070,000 

technical assistance  committed (€) 

18,618,805  2,431,360  4,210,548  4,128,794  3,825,095  4,023,009 

contracts 

paid (€) 

83 

15 

17 

18 

15 

18 

17,284,796  2,108,105  4,194,733  4,004,169  3,303,824  3,673,966 

programmed (€)  18,591,500  2,416,500  4,300,000  4,160,000  3,735,000  3,980,000 

technical 
assistance 

Annex 5 gives a breakdown of the measures by type (projects, events, capacity building etc.) for each 
specific objective.  

16 

 
  
 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 17 

5.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

RELEVANCE  

To what extent is the measure still relevant? 

Figure 4. Stakeholders’ response to questions on the relevance of EMFF measures on (1) creation of digital sea bed maps; (2) 

events to share knowledge between stakeholders; (3) projects to facilitate cross-border spatial planning; (4) projects to 
improve information flow between maritime authorities; (5) studies to help authorities meet the requirements of Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive; (6) studies to improve knowledge of blue growth. 

The aim of the Common Fisheries Policy is to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities be 
environmentally sustainable over the long-term and managed in a way that is consistent with the 
objectives  of  achieving  economic,  social  and  employment  benefits,  and  of  contributing  to  the 
availability of food supplies30. The primary objective of the Union's Integrated Maritime Policy 
(‘IMP’)  is  to  develop  and  implement  integrated,  coordinated,  coherent,  transparent  and 
sustainable decision-making in relation to the oceans, seas, coastal, insular and outermost regions 
and in the maritime sectors.  

30  

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the 
Common Fisheries Policy. 

17 

 
 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 18 

Council and Parliament adopted the EMFF regulation on the basis that it was relevant to the 
objectives  of  these  policies.  Stakeholders  from  public  authorities,  private  companies,  civil 
society  and  the  research  community  overwhelmingly  agreed  that  meeting  the  objectives  of  the 
EMFF measures contributes to meeting the objectives of integrated maritime policy (Figure 3.) 
or the Common Fisheries Policy (Figure 4) and were thus relevant. 

Figure 5. Stakeholders’ response to questions on the relevance of EMFF measures on (1) contributions to international 
organisations; (2) observatory for fishery and aquaculture products; (3) scientific advice for fisheries; (4) support to Advisory 
Councils; (5) support to information technology and chartering vessels; (6) support to regional fisheries management 
organisations. 

The measures continue to be relevant. Specifically, progress has been made in ocean governance 
– more Member States have coordinating mechanisms between ministries although some do not. 
Seabed maps have been produced but they need to be maintained and enhanced. Member States 
still  need  support  for  spatial  planning.  The  Common  Information  Sharing  Environment  for 
maritime  surveillance  is  not  yet  operational  and  investment  gaps  remain  in  the  blue  economy. 
The  EU  has  exclusive  competence  for  managing  European  fish  stocks  and  will  continue  to 
require  fisheries  advice.  Fisheries  enforcement  needs  more  effective  tools  for  monitoring  and 
communication. Strengthening regional fisheries management organisation will continue to be a 
priority  for  ocean  governance.  Bottom-up  advice  from  Advisory  Councils  will  provide  the 
needed check on how the Common Fisheries Policy is working and the much-appreciated market 
intelligence tool, EUMOFA, will continue to be needed. 

18 

 
 
 
 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 19 

EFFICIENCY  

To  what  extent  has  the  measure  been  cost-effective?  Could  results  have  been  achieved  with  fewer 
resources? 

Figure 6.   How efficient were the  measures that you participated in? Could results have been achieved with fewer resources? 
Results  are  expressed  as  proportion  of  those  of  total  number  of  that  category  (public  authority  etc.).  Only  those 
receiving EMFF funding were asked this question. 

Stakeholders  concurred  that  the  results  could  not  have  been  obtained  with  fewer  resources 
(Figure 5) but considered that the administrative burden was excessive (Figure 6). 

This  was  not  the  case  for  some  time-critical  measures.  For  instance,  the  Coffey  evaluation 
study  considered  that  the  annual  work  programme  for  the  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic 
Committee for Fisheries (STECF) ensured that essential scientific advice was delivered in time 
to meet policy needs. 

A high proportion of the calls for proposals and calls for tender are handled by the Executive 
Agency for Small and Medium Enterprises (EASME). According to EASME annual reports, the 
average  time  to  grant  fell  from  221  days  in  2017  to  188  in  2018.  For  procurement,  the  time 
between  the  “time  limit  for  receipt  of  tenders”  and  “signature  by  the  last  party”  was  135 
calendar  days  for  2017  and  160  calendar  days  for  2018.  These  figures  are  better  than  those 
achieved by other programmes managed by the Agency (e.g. Horizon 2020). The EU Financial 
Regulations31  sets  a  maximum  of  nine  months  (243  calendar  days)  for  time  to  grant  except  in 
exceptional circumstances. There is, however, still room for improvement in terms of efficiency.  
Much of the work involved entails routine checking for compliance with regulations. Due to its 
novelty, EMFF was implemented in relative isolation with paper-based procedures. It also lacked 

31  

Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018. 

19 

 
 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 20 

a common support service in the Commission for legal matters, business processes and IT tools. 
Dedicated  IT  systems  and  the  move  to  fully  electronic  grant  management  procedures  (eGrant) 
were  implemented  in  time  for  the  2018  calls  for  proposals.  These  measures  will  aid  project 
management  and  will  facilitate  policy  feedback,  communication  and  dissemination  of  the 
activities. Further simplification, a more risk-based approach to compliance and better alignment 
with other programmes could considerably reduce the workload and speed up the process. 

Figure 7.  How  efficient  were  the  measures  that  you  participated  in?  Was  the  administrative  burden  in  participating  in  the 
measures  proportionate?  Results  are  expressed  as  proportion  of  the  total  number  in  that  category  (public  authority 
etc.). Only those receiving EMFF funding were asked this question. 

Although  some  long-term  planning  helps  applicants  and  EASME  plan  their  resources,  the 
process could be  more flexible to adjust to changes in policy priorities. Proposals to allocate a 
proportion of the EMFF for spending in a particular year are for all intents and purposes fixed in 
June32 each year for implementation the following year. If the need for a new study is identified 
in July, but not included in the June proposal, it takes 18 months before a project contract can be 
signed. 

Is the indicative distribution of funding reasonable (are the funds being used, if not why not, are more 
funds needed, why)? 

The funds are all being used as planned, with the exception of the amount programmed for joint 
chartering of patrol vessels. The reasons are explained under “EU added value”. 

The Coffey evaluation study reported that Advisory Councils would have liked to fund their 
own  scientific  research.  The  Commission  position  is  that  they  are  entitled  to  reply  to  calls  for 
proposals  for  research  or  studies.  Stakeholders  asked  for  an  increased  base  resolution  of  the 

32  

The proposal goes into inter-service consultation before summer and to the comitology process afterwards. 

20 

 
 
 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 21 

seabed maps and  better interoperability between surveys  of  marine life which was  not  feasible 
within  the  budget  allocation.  This  will  need  to  wait  till  the  next  programming  period.  It  is  not 
clear  whether  more  funding  would  have  led  to  a  faster  implementation  of  tools  for  connecting 
authorities responsible for enforcing fisheries rules. The Commission will undertake a thorough 
review of the state of play of the Integrated Fisheries Data Management programme. 

EFFECTIVENESS  

To what extent have the objectives been achieved? What were the quantitative and qualitative effects 
of the measure? 

Figure  8.  Answers  to  the  question  “How  much  have  these  actions  contributed  to  the  stronger  maritime  economy,  better 

protection of marine resources or a more joined-up approach to maritime policies?” 

Overall,  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  considered  that  the  measures  had  been 
effective but there were differences in terms of the extent of impact. The scientific community 
believed that the main impact had been  to  protect marine resources;  public authorities  a more-

21 

 
 
 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 22 

joined-up  approach  to  maritime  policies.  The  private  sector  agreed  that  the  impact  of  the 
measures had mostly been to protect the marine environment and join up maritime policies but 
that the blue growth studies had been an effective support to the blue economy. Civil society, by 
contrast, felt that the blue growth studies had been the least effective measure. They considered 
that the stakeholder events had been effective in building a more joined-up approach. (Figure 7) 

The measures on scientific advice were considered to be the most effective in protecting the 
environment, blue growth studies the most effective in improving knowledge on stimulating the 
maritime  economy  and  events  the  most  effective  in  improving  information  flow  between 
maritime authorities. 

A  number  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  thought  that  effectiveness  could  be 
improved by making the results more widely available and by bringing new insights from studies 
to those that could benefit from them. 

Effectiveness  is  the  key  criterion  for  the  success  of  the  programme  and  yet  the  hardest  to 

measure. The effectiveness of each aspect of the measure is assessed separately below.  

Integrated governance 

Have the measures contributed to a more integrated governance of maritime and coastal affairs? 

Table 3.   Contribution of EMFF to integrated governance 2014-2018 

committed (€)  contracts  paid (€)  programmed (€) 

evaluation 

events 

149,965 

1 

149,965 

150,000 

5,902,241 

154  4,856,396 

8,011,220 

international governance 

1,249,831 

4 

469,118 

2,000,000 

online presence 

2,417,842 

22  2,417,842 

2,760,000 

sea-basin assistance 

3,701,051 

18  1,950,176 

3,929,000 

Many  government  ministries  and  departments  have  an  influence  on  what  happens  on  our  seas 
and coasts. Since measures implemented by one affect all the others, it has always been a priority 
in  maritime  policy  to  improve  communication  and  coordination  between  them.  Indeed  the 
Commission’s 2007 Blue Book which launched the maritime policy33 indicate that it would  

invite Member States to draw up national integrated maritime policies, 
working closely with stakeholders, in particular the coastal regions; (2) 
propose in 2008 a set of guidelines for these national integrated maritime 
policies and report annually on EU and Member States' actions in this regard 
and (3) from 2009; organise a stakeholder consultation structure, feeding into 
further development of the maritime policy and allowing exchange of best 
practices 

In  fact,  on  reflection,  it  proved  impossible  to  come  up  with  guidelines,  other  than  those  too 
general  to  be  of  practical  use,  that  could  cater  for  the  very  diverse  administrative  structures  in 

33  

COM(2007) 575 final. 

22 

 
  
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 23 

Member  States.  So the  focus  has  been  on  the  third  aspect;  bringing  stakeholders  together.  The 
most successful measure on this front has been European Maritime Day, an event of workshops 
and  exhibits,  which  rotates  between  different  European  maritime  cities.  Stakeholders  from  the 
public  and  private  sector  gain  an  overview  of  different  areas  of  maritime  policy  and  have  an 
opportunity to discuss new ideas. Success depends on the city being easily accessible and having 
a venue that can meet the demand for workshop and exhibition space. The 2019 event was the 
most  successful  yet,  with  1,500  participants.  Respondents  to  the  open  stakeholder  survey  find 
that the events help different stakeholders assess how to achieve common objectives. 

Considerable  effort  has  also  gone  into  increasing  conversation  between  stakeholders  round 
the same sea-basin. The EMFF has supported “assistance mechanisms”, such as the ones for the 
Atlantic and the Western Mediterranean, as well as  many events. These have been particularly 
useful for the Mediterranean and Black Sea because they provide a forum for involving non-EU 
countries  who  are  excluded  from  many  fora,  such  as  those  set  up  to  implement  the  Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive and the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive.  

A maritime forum provides a web-platform that can be managed by stakeholders and that can 
avoid the issue, pointed out by the Coffey evaluation study, of web-sites being discontinued once 
projects end. It complies with a new Commission policy insisting that all web-sites shift to the 
Europa  domain.  The  forum  is  increasingly  used  for  events,  assistance  mechanisms  and  fora 
including  the  Ocean  Energy  Forum,  the  Bioeconomy  Forum,  the  Blue-Invest  Platform,  the 
Ocean Literacy Platform and the Ocean Governance Platform. The web page for the 2017 Black 
Sea Stakeholder conference on blue economy has been viewed by 3,348 people. 

Marine knowledge 

Are  the  marine  knowledge  activities  contributing  to  reducing  costs  of  offshore  or  coastal  activities, 
promoting innovation and reducing uncertainty in knowledge of the sea? 

Table 4.   EMFF contribution to marine knowledge 2014-2018  

committed (€)  contracts  paid (€)  programmed (€) 

assembly and dissemination 

30,891,174 

13  20,772,748 

37,010,000 

observation 

secretariat 

stress tests 

studies 

3,999,726 

1  3,253,890 

4,000,000 

1,940,000 

2  1,230,000 

2,020,000 

4,174,990 

4  4,174,990 

4,350,000 

54,000 

1 

54,000 

60,000 

The  EMFF  has  supported  over  one  hundred  organisations  that  make  up  the  European  Marine 
Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) to build a shared data platform. Ten years ago, their 
marine data holdings, made up of observations costing over €1 billion annually from the public 
purse,  were  hidden.  Finding  them,  accessing  them  and  obtaining  permission  to  use  them  took 
months or years. Measurements were repeated because previous observations were unavailable.  

23 

 
  
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 24 

There  is  still  some  way  to  go  but  substantial  progress  has  been  made.  The  objective  set  in 
201234 has been achieved. A complete multi-resolution digital map of European waters has been 
constructed. 

EMODnet  now  allows  users  to  access  reliable  data  through  a  single  gateway  without 
restrictions of access. Annual reports show that the volume of data held and number of users are 
growing. Specifically:  

 

 

 

It has reduced the cost of offshore or coastal activities. Numerous small businesses engaged 
in planning or assessing the impact of  new structures such as wind farms or pipelines have 
reported that  it  has  increased  their efficiency35.  It  was  used by  WindEurope  to  estimate  the 
space requirements for the planned deployment of offshore wind turbines in 205036. 
It  has  supported  innovation.  It  was  used  by  the  Blue  Time  Machine  (BTM)37  (from  Spain) 
who won second prize in the 2019 EU datathon with their simulation of the impact of climate 
change on marine activities. 
It  has  reduced  uncertainty.  The  UK  meteorological  office  have  reported  that  the  seabed 
topography map  from EMODnet has massively improved their storm surge forecasts in the 
North  Sea.  A  €4  million  grant  to  the  Euro-Argo  ERIC  (European  Research  Infrastructure 
Consortium)  co-financed  the  procurement  and  deployment  of  150  floats  measuring  salinity 
and temperature as a contribution towards the European effort under the international Argo 
programme.  The  2019  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  (IPCC)  Special  Report 
on  the  Ocean  and  Cryosphere  in  a  Changing  Climate  (SROCC)  concluded  that  Argo  had 
greatly  improved  understanding  of  large-scale  ocean  circulation,  including  the  Meridional 
Overturning Circulation in the Atlantic. 

34  
35  
36  

37  

Green Paper Marine Knowledge 2020 from seabed mapping to ocean forecasting COM(2012) 473.  
Some examples of use are provided on the EMODnet web page http://www.emodnet.eu/use-cases 
Our energy, our future; How offshore wind will help Europe go carbon-neutral, WindEurope, November 
2019. 
http://msp.ihcantabria.com/ 

24 

 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 25 

Figure 9. Increase in data downloads for different categories of data held by EMODnet 2015-2018 

An external evaluation of EMODnet completed in 201838 concluded that the net annual benefits 
of  EMODnet  are  “between  €288  million  to  €407  million  from  a  combined  effect  of  increased 
productivity, fostered innovation and reduced uncertainty”. Further improvements could increase 
these benefits. The external evaluation, stress tests undergone for each sea basin and the cross-
border spatial planning projects supported by the EMFF determined that benefits would increase 
if the resolution of the digital seabed maps increased. Abundance maps have been prepared for a 
number  of  species  but  biodiversity  remains  a  challenge.  Combining  different  surveys  is  a 
laborious  task  because  the  same  species  may  be  labelled  differently  and  because  absence  of  a 
particular species may be because it was not present, because it was misidentified or because it 
was not included in the analysis.  

An Agile39 approach to project management has enabled continual year by year improvement. 
Continual  support  from  EMFF  has  overcome  the  sustainability  challenge  faced  by  other  data 
management programmes financed though limited-term project. 

The increasing use of EMODnet services is shown in Figure 8. 

38  

39  

Evaluation of the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) Sent to Publications Office 
2019. 
An iterative approach to planning and guiding project processes. 

25 

 
 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 26 

Spatial planning 

Have the marine spatial planning activities helped Member States set up spatial plans? 

Table 5.   EMFF contribution to spatial planning 2014-2018 

committed (€)  contracts  paid (€)  programmed (€) 

assistance 

5,101,546 

7  4,337,618 

6,397,760 

projects 

17,649,656 

10  12,000,352 

20,800,000 

studies 

1,085,884 

3 

651,236 

1,745,000 

Directive  2014/89/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23 July 2014  obliged 
EU  Member  States  to  draw  up  maritime  spatial  plans  by  March  2021.  The  Coffey  evaluation 
study  pointed  out  that,  without  proper  indicators,  it  had  not  been  possible  to  monitor  Member 
States’ progress in drawing up plans or to assess the contribution of the EMFF in helping them 
do so.  

However,  there  has  been  considerable  interest  in  the  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Platform, 
which has a website providing information on ongoing activities in spatial planning. In its first 
year, June 2016-June 2017, it logged 19,082 visits and 3,665 document downloads. In the second 
year, this increased to 50,096 visits and 12,500 downloads. 

The  EMFF  also  financed  a  number  of  projects  aimed  at  sharing  information  between 
neighbouring countries. For many planners, arranging informal meetings was the most essential 
part of the Baltic SCOPE process. They noted that “physical meetings” and the “possibility for 
face-to-face  discussions”  were  paramount,  as  learning  “can  only  be  guaranteed  by  personal 
involvement and direct communication, but not by browsing national Maritime Spatial Planning 
home  pages”.  Some  built  up  data  repositories  and  strengthened  working  relationships  between 
teams  across  borders.  The  Coffey  evaluation  study  looked  at  the  SimCelt  project.40  In  their 
judgement,  this  was  more  useful  to  the  UK  and  Irish  authorities  because  authority  for  French 
plans is devolved to prefectures. Nevertheless, some national authorities reported to the Coffey 
evaluation  study  that  the  knowledge  from  these  projects  was  not  feeding  into  their  planning 
process and they would have preferred direct support themselves. Calls for proposals now insist 
on the participation of the responsible authorities. 

One  of  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  felt  that  the  two  years  duration  for  the 

projects was not enough. 

40  

Supporting Implementation of Maritime Spatial Planning in the Celtic Seas”; see website 
http://www.simcelt.eu/. 

26 

 
  
 
 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 27 

Maritime surveillance 

Will  the  maritime  surveillance  activities  lead  to  an  operational  system  for  exchanging  information 
between maritime authorities? 

Table 6.   EMFF  contribution  to  maritime  surveillance  2014-2018.  Two  main  activities  were  financed:  (1)  CISE  –  efforts  to 
develop  an  information  technology  solution  for  facilitating  and  automating  information  sharing  between  maritime 
authorities and (2) improvement of communication between coastguards through events and studies 

committed (€)  contracts  paid (€)  programmed (€) 

CISE 

13,040,292 

22  7,871,819 

16,968,000 

coastguard support 

2,607,401 

13  2,160,893 

2,780,000 

The Coffey evaluation study recognised the basic truth that cooperation in maritime surveillance 
between authorities with similar responsibilities from different countries – for instance fisheries 
authorities  –  is  often  better  than  that  between  different  authorities  in  the  same  country.  EMFF 
funding supported a bottom-up approach whereby representatives from each maritime sector and 
research organisations worked together (mainly in large-scale projects) to develop the concept, 
design  and  suitable  interoperability  solutions  to  facilitate  and  improve  information  exchange 
between  the  different  sectors.  It  followed  up  with  upgrades  and  improvements  to  existing 
national  systems  that  facilitates  this  exchange  through  a  Common  Information  Sharing 
Environment  (CISE).  The  process  was  long,  as  it  had  to  take  into  account  the  existing  legally 
established  and  operational  EU-wide  systems  and  services  and  accommodate  the  views  and 
participation of systems of around 300 maritime authorities across the EU. 

Cooperation  on  coastguard  functions  between  the  European  Maritime  Safety  Agency 
(EMSA),  the  European  Fisheries  Control  Agency  (EFCA)  and  the  European  Borders  and 
Coastguard Agency (FRONTEX), legally mandated in 2016, increased the participation of these 
EU agencies in the process. The EMFF support is now shifting towards an incremental approach, 
supporting  the  transition  of  CISE  pre-operationally  tested  solutions  to  operations.  This 
transitional phase is coordinated by EMSA which already host operational EU-wide systems and 
services, and involve representatives from all Member States. 

27 

 
  
 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 28 

Blue growth 

Have ‘Blue Growth’ initiatives funded by the EMFF facilitated the development of marine economic 
activities and the jobs they generate? 

Table 7. EMFF contribution to blue growth 

committed (€)  contracts  paid (€)  programmed (€) 

assistance 

107,758 

communication 

991,224 

1 

2 

537,764 

5,000,000 

184,929 

1,150,000 

cooperation 

2,974,403 

4  2,116,164 

3,377,000 

projects 

study 

24,007,536 

44  11,695,754 

42,110,000 

2,410,628 

13  2,195,765 

3,159,000 

Activities supported under the blue growth banner have focused on specific industries, including: 

(1) studies to improve knowledge of bottlenecks,  

(2) cooperation to identify joint projects and partnerships on a regional or sectoral basis,  

(3) assistance to help potential new entrants in the market to connect with partners, investors and 
target customers,  

(4) communication to raise awareness, and  

(5) projects.  

A  minority  of  projects,  such  as  the  one  supporting  an  environmental  plan  for  the  mid-Atlantic 
ridge,  one  on  environmental  monitoring  for  ocean  energy  and  one  on  the  impact  of  bottom 
trawling  on  vulnerable  marine  ecosystems  were  top-down  and  designed  to  answer  specific 
questions. But most were bottom-up projects with particular emphasis on innovation – to bring 
ideas  from  research  laboratories  to  the  market.  The  proportion  of  EMFF  funding  allocated  to 
these innovation projects increased dramatically from 2017 onwards. 

It is hard to capture the blue economy through official statistics. About 70% of sectors such 
as  shipbuilding  are  made  up  of  small  and  medium  enterprises  that  also  deliver  services  and 
products to other parts of the blue economy such as fishing or renewable energy.  

The studies, and projects to bring stakeholders from industry, academia and public authorities 
together  on  ocean  energy  and  the  blue  bio-economy,  have  resulted  in  a  better  knowledge  of 
bottlenecks.  For  instance  the  cooperation  project  on  the  blue  bio-economy  identified 
discrepancies  in  the  interpretations  of  rules  on  novel  foods  as  a  major  concern  for  companies 
developing products from microalgae. A study on investment needs evaluated a pipeline of over 
500  projects  and  produced  a  file  on  the  most  promising  needs.  This  demonstrated  to  investors 
that there are real market opportunities. 

The  Coffey  evaluation  study  found  that  cooperation  at  a  sea-basin  level  is  a  useful  way  to 
make stakeholders aware of opportunities in other EU-funded programmes such as the Horizon 
2020 research and innovation programmes or the European Structural and Investment Funds.  

28 

 
  
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 29 

A  number  of  the  bottom-up  projects  –  for  instance  on  aquaculture  feed,  low-emission 
shipping and the prevention of corrosion in the offshore renewable energy industry41 – have the 
potential to help meet the EU’s climate and sustainability goals but it is too early to tell whether 
they will make it to the market. 

Marine environment 

Will  the  action  taken  help  Member  States  report  on  the  state  of  the  marine  environment  as  part  of 
their obligations under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive? 

Table 8.   EMFF contribution to the marine environment 2014-2018 

committed (€)  contracts  paid (€)  programmed (€) 

MSFD analysis 

6,264,653 

10  5,109,973 

5,047,598 

MSFD support 

11,678,177 

26  4,826,233 

11,389,664 

emerging pressures 

1,217,940 

5  1,217,940 

1,600,000 

regional coordination 

1,282,790 

4  1,282,790 

1,800,000 

The  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD)42  defines  11  descriptors  of  good 
environmental  status  (GES).  An  updated  (2017)  Commission  decision  lays  down  criteria  and 
methodological standards for a measurable and harmonised GES determination and requires the 
setting  of  threshold  values.  EMFF  funding  supported  the  work  to  implement  the  decision  at 
national, regional and EU level.  

Initially EMFF funding supported studies to understand better how these descriptors could be 
defined  and  how  measurements  from  different  authorities  could  be  brought  together  into  a 
common  framework.  This  was  particularly  the  case  for  descriptors  of  marine  litter  and  noise. 
Awareness of the damage that these could cause to marine species was increasing but, although 
regional  sea  conventions  has  developed  standards  for  measuring  chemical  contaminants  for 
decades, little had been done about these “emerging pressures”. The studies were successful in 
that digital maps of marine litter now provide a baseline for monitoring progress. 

It  is  in  everybody’s  interest  to  align  the  work  on  the  MSFD  with  longstanding  monitoring 
and  reporting  obligations  under  regional  sea  conventions.  The  BALTIC  BOOST  project 
strengthened the work of the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) on 
biodiversity and seabed habitats and pressures that damage them, such as hazardous substances 
and  underwater  noise.  This  work  is  contributing  to  the  development  of  joint  environmental 
targets for such pressures. Although the Coffey evaluation found that not all tools were taken up, 
several of the project deliverables were directly used in the HELCOM HOLAS II project, which 
provides an assessment of the environmental state of the Baltic. Some authorities reported to the 
Coffey evaluation study that they would have preferred more time to consolidate their work. 

41  

42  

A list of projects, complete implemented by EASME complete with abstracts and links to websites is here  
https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/emff-projects 
Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a 
framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive). 

29 

 
  
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 30 

Another project, INDICIT, completed in January 2019, investigated indicators for assessing 
the impact of litter on marine fauna. It developed tools to assess how litter affected the health of 
individual organisms through ingestion or entanglement. The approaches were accepted not only 
for the MSFD but also by regional sea conventions for the Atlantic, Baltic and Mediterranean. 
INDICIT also trained new networks of stakeholders, particularly in the Atlantic area, where the 
status of the “litter ingested by sea turtles” indicator changed from “candidate” to “common”. 

An  important  objective  is  to  contribute  to  regional  or  sub-regional  cooperation  needs  of 
Member  States'  competent  authorities  in  implementing  the  Directive.  In  the  latter  part  of  the 
period covered by this evaluation, the focus switched to more direct support and involvement by 
insisting that MSFD competent authorities (Article 7 of MSFD) of at least two Member States be 
directly  included  amongst  the  beneficiaries.  Proposals  brought  together  up  to  four  competent 
authorities in consortia, thereby strengthening the regional buy-in of the project outcomes.  

Scientific advice 

To  what  extent  have  the  studies,  pilots  and  scientific  advice  funded  under  direct  management 
contributed to improving the overall effectiveness and relevance of scientific advice to policy-making? 

Table 9.   EMFF contribution to scientific advice  

committed (€)  contracts  paid (€)  programmed (€) 

ICES 

JRC 

STECF 

9,000,000 

5  7,849,611 

8,900,000 

5,065,000 

4  4,205,458 

5,330,000 

3,686,500 

12  3,049,136 

4,264,000 

cooperation on data 

2,771,333 

6  1,252,983 

2,800,000 

Studies 

14,206,790 

44  8,085,748 

20,540,000 

The  Common  Fisheries  Policy  would  not  work  without  scientific  advice  as  management 
measures  need  to  be  drawn  up  in  line  with  “best  available  scientific  advice”.  In  line  with  this 
principle, all proposals and decisions on major management tools, such as total allowable catch, 
quotas, gear restrictions and suchlike, rely on reliable and independent scientific advice. For EU 
waters, this advice is provided mostly by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 
(ICES)  for  northern  waters  and  by  the  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for 
Fisheries (STECF). The Commission’s Joint Research Centre provides the secretariat for STECF 
and  manages  certain  data  –  both  concerning  biological  data  and  socioeconomic  data  such  as 
employment, costs and income. The Coffey evaluation study report found that:  

“Overall the scientific advice and data collection funded through EMFF direct 
management is delivered through well-established processes to ensure that 
advice and data are effective in informing CFP objectives.  There is now 
improved coordination of the work commissioned to see that it responds to key 
needs and to prioritise work streams, along with some flexibility in the funding 
for ad hoc projects to respond to emerging needs.” 

30 

 
  
 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 31 

STECF has responded to Commission requests for advice 30 times in 2015 and 45 times in 2016. 
The  advice  it  provided  was  assessed  as  “effective  in  influencing  many  areas  of  management 
decision-making under the CFP” in the Coffey evaluation study, such as for the preparation of 
Article 15 (landing obligation) of the CFP basic regulation. 

Although the respective roles of ICES and STECF in the scientific advice process are well 
defined,  the  Coffey  evaluation  study  found  that  better  coordination  between  STECF  and  the 
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) on Mediterranean and Black Sea 
stocks could help avoid overlaps and duplication in assessments and ensure greater acceptance of 
the  resulting  advice.  This  is  recognised  by  the  2017  MedFish4Ever  ministerial  declaration 
agenda, which calls for a forum to ensure effective unity of action of scientific activities through 
effective coordination of stock assessment. GFCM receives support under the “voluntary support 
to international organisations” part of the EMFF. 

Data collected by Member States under the EU Data Collection Framework (DCF) feeds into 
the scientific advice delivered by ICES, STECF and other scientific bodies, including scientific 
committees of the RFMOs. EMFF direct management has supported the ongoing strengthening 
of  regional  cooperation  in  data  collection,  including  Regional  Coordination  Groups  (RCG)  to 
ensure  consistency  and  harmonisation  on  formats,  categorisations  and  stratification.  It  also 
supported two specific EMFF calls for proposals “Strengthening regional cooperation in the area 
of fisheries data collection”. 

Regional cooperation on data collection provides the data necessary to meet fisheries advice 

requirements, and the Coffey evaluation study concludes that:  

 “The EMFF direct management component has made a significant 
contribution to regional cooperation within and beyond EU waters.”  

Control and enforcement 

Which measures are the most /least frequently implemented and why?  

Table 10.  

EMFF contribution to control and enforcement  

committed (€)  Contracts  paid (€)  programmed (€) 

Commission inspection 

3,662,966 

10  2,792,236 

3,826,934 

IT services 

18,529,221 

277  16,879,437 

19,200,000 

chartering patrol boats 

2,112,000 

expert group 

study 

training 

833,000 

645,895 

540,000 

2 

9 

5 

4 

. 

21,320,000 

509,435 

925,000 

631,780 

3,235,000 

346,601 

779,690 

Table  10  clearly  shows  that  work  on  information  technology  absorbed  most  of  the  money 
through a large number of individual contracts. The peak year was 2018 with 77 contracts. An 
evaluation of the preceding work from 2007-2013 had concluded that there was underspending 
of funding, failure to implement projects or projects abandoned once started. Initiated in 2010, an 

31 

 
  
 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 32 

Integrated Fisheries Data Management (IFDM) programme was set up to respond to these issues. 
It  was  set  up  as  the  umbrella  for  several  projects  related  to  fisheries  data  exchange  and 
introduced  a  universal  data  exchange  format.  The  standard  is  being  rolled  out  by  the 
Commission,  Member  States  and  the  European  Fisheries  Control  Agency  (EFCA)  for 
exchanging fisheries data within and beyond the EU. The complexity of the IFDM programme, 
the  multitude  of  stakeholders  both  within  as  outside  the  EU  as  well  as  sub-optimal  IT 
implementation resulted in significant delays to the programme. National authorities also flagged 
that there was no out-of-hours support for systems that should be operational 24/7. According to 
the Coffey evaluation study: 

In view of the problems encountered by the Commission to finalise and 
implement the IT tools envisaged in the EU legislation, an increase of the 
relevant financial envelope should be considered. However, budget availability 
may not be the only factor hindering progresses (sic) and the Commission 
should make a detailed assessment of the problems in relation to IT 
development 

In  2020,  with  the  Integrated  Fisheries  Data  Management  programme  coming  to  a  close,  the 
Commission  will  undertake  a  thorough  review  of  the  state  of  play  of  the  IFDM  programme, 
collect the future needs for further data exchange and investigate the best way forward.    

Voluntary agreements 

Are  the  voluntary  agreements  in  line  with  the  objective  of  the  CFP?  Do  the  contributions  help 
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of international organisations? 

Table 11.  

EMFF contribution to voluntary agreements  

committed (€) 

contracts 

paid (€) 

programmed 
(€) 

enhance enforcement 

improve functioning 

4,552,768 

33,346,472 

participation of developing countries 

1,701,538 

19 

75 

9 

4,176,965 

4,910,000 

27,600,096 

29,827,453 

1,386,678 

2,037,000 

research 

13,384,262 

38 

10,333,666 

12,977,635 

The EU is committed to participating in the work of international organisations where it has an 
interest  as  a  flag  state,  coastal  state  or  market  state.  Article  28  and  Article  29  of  the  Common 
Fisheries Policy Regulation adopted at the end of 2013 stipulate that the EU should aim to lead 
the process of strengthening the performance of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations 
to  better  enable  them  to  conserve  and  manage  marine  living  resources.  This  was  achieved  by 
awarding  grants  to  (1)  improve  knowledge  through  research,  (2)  improve  the  functioning  (3) 
enhance enforcement and (4) improve the participation of developing countries. 

The  Coffey  evaluation  study  found  that  all  these  measures  did  indeed  improve  the 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  these  organisations.  Over  this  period,  the  EMFF  supported  an 
independent  external  review  of  the  performances  of  a  number  of  RFMOs  (i.e.  CCAMLR, 

32 

 
  
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 33 

IATTC, ICCAT) and followed up earlier evaluations. As an example, the EMFF supported the 
strengthening  of  GFCM  mandate  along  the  lines  proposed  by  the  2011  performance  review, 
including  a  clearer  overall  objective  of  biological,  social,  economic  and  environmental 
sustainability  of  living  marine  resources,  provisions  to  lay  down  measures/penalties  to  address 
non-compliance by members and non-members and to establish a dispute settlement mechanism 
between contracting parties. The Commission’s grant enabled the GFCM to hire staff, expand its 
scope  of  work  and  improve  the  scientific  basis  for  stock  management.  Compared  to  previous 
years,  this  resulted  in  the  doubling  of  recommendations  (decisions  whose  implementation  is 
mandatory) adopted. 

The  EU  is  certainly  the  largest  donor  to  these  organisations.  Although  it  helps  these 
organisations to work better, stakeholders reported that it does not increase the EU’s influence on 
subsequent decisions on fisheries management. 

Advisory Councils 

Have the Advisory Councils been able to provide recommendations on fisheries management matters, 
including advice on conservation and socioeconomic aspects of fisheries, and simplification of rules? 

Table 12.  

EMFF contribution to Advisory Councils  

committed (€)  contracts  paid (€)  programmed (€) 

Advisory Council 

11,837,732 

43  10,240,673 

14,400,000 

Advisory  Councils  should  provide  the  Commission  with  the  local  knowledge  necessary  to 
develop  sound  fisheries  management  advice.  60%  of  their  membership  is  made  up  of 
representatives from the fishing industry. The rest comes from environmental or labour-related 
NGOs, recreational fishers and ‘women in fishing’ groups. They provide recommendations and 
advice  to  the  Commission  and  Member  States  and  may  also  comment  on  proposals  from  the 
Commission  or  a  Member  State  on  which  they  are  consulted.  Member  States  are  obliged  to 
consult  them  on  joint  recommendations  submitted  to  the  Commission  in  the  context  of 
regionalisation. The Commission  appreciated this  advice  – for instance advice  on management 
proposals  for  sole  in  ICES  area  VIId  by  the  Northwestern  Waters  Advisory  Council.  Many 
opinions concerned the landing obligation43. 

The  EMFF  provides  90%  of  the  funding  for  the  Councils.  The  other  10%  comes  from 
membership fees. Each Advisory Council receives the same amount, irrespective of membership 
size, translation needs or travel requirements. Some of the Councils expressed a desire for more 
funding  to  support  scientific  studies.  The  Commission  replied  that  they  are  entitled to  reply  to 
calls for proposals under the direct or shared management parts of the EMFF. 

The  Coffey  evaluation  study  found  that  the  Councils  took  some  time  to  become  fully 
responsive to requests for advice. Those that had been established for 10 years reacted faster than 
the newer Councils. The Council secretariats reported that the meetings often split into two, with 
the fishing industry in one corner and other interested parties in the other. This meant that it was 
sometimes not possible to reach a consensus. This was reflected in a reply from the private sector 

43  

The landing obligation, phased in between 2015 and 2019, requires all catches of regulated commercial 
species on-board to be landed and counted against quota rather than discarded at sea. 

33 

 
  
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 34 

to the public consultation. After reading the minutes of meetings, they felt that few decisions had 
been made.  

So  far  the  Councils  have  not  managed  to  propose  any  simplification  of  measures  but  they 
have  identified  current  measures  that  are  not  working  optimally,  such  as  those  on  technical 
measures  or  control.  Without  EMFF  support,  it  is  very  unlikely  the  Advisory  Councils  could 
continue operations and this advice would not have been available. 

The  government  of  the  Azores  requested  that  the  EMFF  could  support  better  coordination 
between  the  different  outermost  regions.  Their  request  was  granted.  On  1 July 2019,  the 
Commission  communicated  the  “start  of  functioning  of  the  Advisory  Council  for  Outermost 
Regions”44.  

Market intelligence 

To  what  extent  has  EUMOFA  delivered  on  the  Commission  commitments on  market  intelligence  as 
defined in Article 42 of the CMO regulation (1379/2013)? 

Table 13. EMFF contribution to market intelligence  

committed (€)  contracts  paid (€)  programmed (€) 

EUMOFA 

19,452,107 

5  16,843,637 

21,794,726 

IT and observatories 

870,282 

studies 

701,645 

5 

2 

697,782 

1,305,000 

701,645 

1,100,000 

The  European  Market  Observatory  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products  (EUMOFA)  is  a 
market intelligence tool on the EU’s fisheries and aquaculture sector, developed by the European 
Commission.  It  aims  to  increase  market  transparency  and  efficiency,  analyses  EU  market 
dynamics,  and  supports  business  decisions  and  policy-making.  EUMOFA  enables  direct 
monitoring of the volume, value and price of fisheries and aquaculture products, from the first 
sale  to  retail  stage,  including  imports  and  exports.  Data  are  collected  from  EU  countries, 
Norway, Iceland, from EU institutions and from private data providers. They are updated every 
day.  Table  14  shows  how  it  meets  the  objectives  set  in  Article  42  of  the  Common  Market 
Organisation of the Common Fisheries Policy, Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013.  

Table 14. 

CMO Article 42 commitments 

Status (as of early 2018) 

Gathering and disseminating economic 
knowledge and understanding of the EU 
market for fisheries and aquaculture 
products along the supply chain 

Delivered  

  EUMOFA  publications  disseminate  knowledge 
and  understanding  of  the  EU  market  through 
monthly  highlights  and  the  yearly  publication  on 
the EU market (The EU Fish Market). 

44  

Official Journal 2019/C 219/03. 

34 

 
  
 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 35 

CMO Article 42 commitments 

Status (as of early 2018) 

Providing practical support to producer 
organisations and inter-branch 
organisations to better coordinate 
information between operators and 
processors 

Regularly surveying prices along the 
supply chain and conduct analysis on 
market trends 

Conducting ad hoc market studies and 
provide a methodology for price 
formation surveys 

Facilitating access to available data on 
fishery and aquaculture products 
collected pursuant to EU law 

Partially delivered 

  Price  information  and  market  analysis  published 
by  EUMOFA  can  be  considered  as  of  interest  to 
producer organisations (POs). 

  EUMOFA is not a sufficient information system to 
deliver  targeted  support  to  be  provided  to  POs  as 
per  CMO  Article  42.1(b)  as  it  is  designed  to 
address the needs of a wide range of stakeholders 
with a single tool. 

Delivered  

  EUMOFA  database  provides  price  information 
regularly  updated.  Analysis  of  market  trends  is 
provided 
in  monthly  highlights  and  yearly 
publication. 

  EUMOFA  cannot  encompass  all  the  supply  chain 
due  to  the  sensitive  nature  of  information  at  the 
processing  stage.  This  is  compensated  for  by 
regular  publication  of  case  studies  on  price 
transmission. 

Delivered 

  Ad  hoc  market  studies  are  published  in  Monthly 
for  price 
Highlights  series.  A  methodology 
formation surveys has been defined and published 
on the EUMOFA website. 

Delivered 

  Through  EUMOFA, 

the  Commission  could 
fisheries  and 
concentrate  available  data  on 
aquaculture  and  add  value  to  the  process  through 
harmonisation  and  standardisation  of  information. 
(prices  at 
Sensitive  commercial 
processing stage) is protected. 

information 

35 

 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 36 

CMO Article 42 commitments 

Status (as of early 2018) 

Making market information, such as 
price surveys, market analyses and 
studies, available to all the stakeholders 
and to the general public in an accessible 
and understandable manner 

Delivered  

  All  EUMOFA  information  is  published  on  a 
dedicated  website  open  to  the  general  public. 
Accessibility  is  improved  by  publication  of  the 
database  in  all  EU  languages  and  by  translating  
publications into several EU languages. 

The  Coffey  evaluation study  reported  that  EUMOFA  worked  better  than  its  agriculture  market 
alternatives in terms of data timeliness and standardisation. 

Technical assistance 

Table 15. EMFF contribution to technical assistance  

committed (€)  contracts  paid (€)  programmed (€) 

FAME 

4,049,100 

4  3,719,410 

4,000,000 

FARNET 

9,247,057 

5  8,623,688 

9,226,500 

IT 

3,527,513 

61  3,362,576 

3,790,000 

evaluation 

1,002,000 

3  1,002,000 

1,000,000 

fi-compass 

280,000 

study 

training 

488,335 

24,800 

2 

6 

2 

112,000 

440,322 

24,800 

360,000 

190,000 

25,000 

Are the tasks that FARNET implements meeting a need of the local community? If so, what structures 
are in place to hand over these tasks after 14 years of implementation? 

The Commission established the FARNET support unit in 2009 to connect fisheries local action 
groups  (FLAGs).  These  partnerships  of  private  sector,  local  authorities  and  civil  society 
organisations  fund  local  projects  within  the  framework  of  a  strategy  under  the  shared 
management  part  of  the  EMFF.  Tasks  include  capacity  building,  disseminating  information, 
exchanging  good  practices,  and  cooperation  amongst  328  FLAGs  and  30  other  stakeholder 
groups. As of December 2018, 950 projects have been approved. 

The Coffey evaluation study reported that the administration of FLAGs, as all the other parts 
of  the  shared  management  component,  is  administratively  burdensome  but  that  the  managing 
authorities  appreciate  the  readiness  of  the  support  unit  to  help  them  set  them  up.  The  FLAGs 
themselves  are  also  satisfied  with  the  unit.  This  has  been helped  by  continuity:  the  unit’s  staff 
has  remained  unchanged  for  many  years,  which  allows  them  to  develop  knowledge  and 
expertise. The Coffey evaluation study report suggested that increasing the number of issues of 

36 

 
 
  
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 37 

the FARNET magazine from one a year to two or three a year would bring the EU closer to local 
communities. 

The Commission’s proposal for EMFF after 2021 includes provisions for continuing support 

to community-led local development through local action groups. 

What  has  FAME's  contribution  (EU  value  added)  been  to  a  more  efficient  and  effective 
implementation of the monitoring and evaluation system of the shared management of the EMFF, both 
at Member State and EU level? 

The Commission set up the FAME Support Unit (FAME SU) in 2015. Its purpose was first to 
help monitor  and evaluate the implementation  of the shared management  component of EMFF 
and second to build capacity across the Member States and in the Commission on evaluation and 
monitoring methodologies, indicators and good practices.  

The  Coffey  evaluation  study  considered  that  progress  has  been  made  on  both  objectives. 
FAME provided several training sessions to Member State managing authorities. A community 
of  management  authorities  from  the  Member  States  meets  annually  for  a  two-day  workshop. 
Dedicated  monitoring  and  evaluation  training  sessions  individually  tailored  to  Member  States’ 
particular  needs  are  held  at  least  one  other  time  per  year.  A  suite  of  working  documents, 
including  statistics  and  reports  on  the  use  of  EMFF  funding,  support  the  Member  States  in 
monitoring  and  evaluation.  One  such  report  was  on  EMFF  financing  of  fishing  for  litter 
operations, which was used for the impact assessment of the Single Use Plastics Directive45. The 
work has improved the comparability between action taken by different Member States. 

Are  the  deliverables  of  contracts  of  over  €1  million  per  year  being  used  by  DG  MARE  or  the 
stakeholders? 

Action taken 

Projects 
 > €1M 

cross-sectoral projects 

scientific advice 

voluntary contributions 

market intelligence 

blue growth 

fisheries enforcement 

Integrated governance 

TOTAL 

31 

10 

10 

5 

4 

3 

2 

65 

Figure  10.  Number  of  projects  for  each  size  category  (commitments  up  to 

March 2018)  

65 contracts with a combined value of over €142 million were concluded up to March 2018.  

About  half  were  for  cross-sectoral  projects:  marine  knowledge,  maritime  surveillance  and 
spatial  planning.  The  digital  maps  and  other  products  from  the  marine  knowledge  projects  are 
now the main trusted data source for both public and private stakeholders. Other cross-sectoral 

45  

Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of 
the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. 

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 38 

projects (on spatial planning and maritime surveillance) mainly involved laying the foundations 
and  building  capacity  for  future  work  in  areas  where  progress  is  essential  to  meet  maritime 
policy goals.  

Ten contracts were awarded to support the organisation and delivery of scientific advice from 
the  International  Council  for  Exploration  of  the  Sea  (ICES)  and  organisation  of  the  Scientific, 
Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF).  This  advice  was  crucial  for  the 
management of EU fisheries. 

Another  10  supported  voluntary  contributions  to  international  organisations.  Five  of  these 
concerned research into Bluefin tuna. The deeper understanding achieved through this work has 
helped a stock that  10 years ago was threatened with collapse to becoming a stock that can be 
fished  sustainably.  Three  other  contributions  built  up  the  capacity  of  the  General  Fisheries 
Commission for the Mediterranean. Other projects covered Indian Ocean tuna, and implementing 
port state measures to tackle illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  

The results of the projects are indeed in use. 

38 

 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 39 

COHERENCE  

To what extent is the measure coherent internally (with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy 
and integrated maritime policy) and externally (with wider EU policy objectives)? 

Figure 11. Response from stakeholders asked about coherence with wider EU policy objectives 

39 

 
 
 
 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 40 

The  measure  is  completely  coherent  with  the  aims  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  and  the 
integrated maritime policy, as explained in the section of this evaluation report on “relevance”. 

There is coherence between measures managed under the EMFF and other policies. Specifically: 

  10%  of  the  budget  is  specifically  allocated  to  implementation  of  the  Marine  Strategy 

Framework Directive and is managed by DG ENV.  

  Cooperation  between  the  EU  space  programme’s  Copernicus  marine  service  and  the 
European  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Network  (EMODnet)  was  cemented  by  an 
exchange  of  letters  between  the  Commission  Directorates-General  DG MARE  and 
DG GROW.  EMODnet  data  on  marine  litter  and  nutrients  are  being  used  in  Member 
States’ submissions to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 

  Projects funded under the INTERREG territorial cooperation programme helped Member 
States implement maritime policy on issues such as renewable energy, protected areas or 
spatial planning. 

Nevertheless,  there  is  a  perception  amongst  the  stakeholders  that  complementarity  could  be 
better coordinated. More effort needs to be spent on showing links between different measures. 
When presenting a measure, the Commission departments should take more time to explain how 
it fits into the broader picture.  

A particular issue is how to embed fisheries policy within the broader maritime policy. The 
legal bases are at opposite poles – fisheries being an area where the EU has greatest competence 
and maritime policy where it has the least. There is scope for better integration, particularly on 
the three cross-cutting areas - data, planning and surveillance  – and some progress has already 
been  made.  The  European  Fisheries  Control  Agency  is  involved  in  preparing  the  maritime 
policy’s Common Information Sharing Environment (CISE). 

To  what  extent  have  the  studies,  pilots  and  scientific  advice  funded  under  direct  management  been 
coherent with research funded Horizon 2020? 

According  to  the  Coffey  evaluation  study,  EMFF-funded  science  and  the  EU  research 
programme Horizon2020:  

“are complementary as both are necessary for the improved management of 
fisheries under the CFP.” 

Scientific advice rests on a wide body of research. As requests for scientific advice often have to 
be answered quickly and require more than simply gathering already-published knowledge, the 
EMFF  has  financed  specific  studies  on  scientific  questions  such  as  “improvements  for  the 
analysis and exploitation of observers' reports in EU fisheries from northwest African waters”. 
Usually, the study results are available between one and two years after publication of the work 
programme. 

Longer term, and more far-reaching research issues such as “smart fisheries technologies for 
an efficient, compliant and environmentally friendly fishing sector” are tackled under the EU’s 
Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. As Horizon 2020 work programmes usually 
cover two years and are published a year in advance, it typically takes three to six years from the 
publication of the work programme to the delivery of results. The Commission ensures that the 
results of the projects are made publicly available. Scientific advisory work can draw on results 
of completed EU research projects. 

40 

 
 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 41 

The EMFF budget for studies is an average of €4.3 million a year. By contrast, the budget for 
fisheries and aquaculture part of Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge “Food Security, Sustainable 
Agriculture and Forestry, Marine, Maritime and Inland Water Research and the Bioeconomy” is 
of  the  order  of  €20 million  a  year.  Fisheries  issues  are  also  covered  in  other  parts  of  the 
programme such as Marie Skłodowska-Curie studentships and the European Research Council, 
bringing the total to nearly €40 million a year. 

This  division  of  responsibilities  between  specific  questions  requiring  fast  answers  and 

longer-term, more loosely-specified topics ensures coherence. 

EU ADDED-VALUE 

What is the additional value resulting from the EU action taken compared to what could be achieved 
by Members States at national and/or regional levels? 

Fewer  than  10%  of  stakeholders  considered  that  any  measure  implemented  under  the  EMFF 
could have been  carried out by Member States alone (Figure 11). The Coffey evaluation study 
concluded that:  

“the interventions supported by the direct management component of EMFF 
achieve benefits beyond what could have been achieved by national and/or 
regional spending. EUMOFA, STECF, Advisory Councils and FARNET, as 
well as maritime policy interventions such as EMODnet and mechanisms and 
projects for fostering cross-border maritime spatial planning would have not 
existed had it not been for EMFF support.” 

The EU provides the institutional framework for countries can come together to tackle common 
issues.  No  other  body  could  have  done  this.  And  it  could  not  have  been  achieved  without 
contractual arrangements. 

The  criteria  to  provide  EU  added  value  and  ensure  the  transferability  of  project  results  to 
other  EU  regions  were  included  in  the  eligibility  and  award  criteria  for  grants  to  develop 
innovative solutions, products and services and to promote blue careers. 

A number of existing organisations, notably the regional fisheries management organisations, 
would have operated without EMFF support. But without this support for scientific knowledge or 
organisational  support,  their  operations  would  not  have  been  so  effective  or  efficient.  The  EU 
was the only donor prepared to put substantial resources to achieving these goals and therefore 
added value. 

41 

 
 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 42 

 Figure 12. Public consultation of added value of EMFF measures. 

The only measure where there was some doubt about EU added-value was a proposed measure 
for the joint chartering of patrol vessels. 

42 

 
 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 43 

Why is there a reluctance from Member States to apply for joint chartering and/or purchase of control 
means?  Should  this  measure  be  abandoned?  If  not,  under  which  conditions  that  measure  would  be 
relevant in the next programming period? 

According to the Coffey evaluation study, there were several contributory factors. 

Control means are sufficient and adequately adapted to the maritime 
environment Member States are required to control. 

There is a general lack of human resources for manning own patrol vessels. 
Manning additional chartered vessels adequately without impacts on manning 
own vessels would not be possible. 

Joint charter involving two or more Member States may underpin specific 
administrative rules that prevent flexible deployment. In the case of joint 
purchase, there would be a legal uncertainty. 

There is uncertainty over availability over time of national budgets to cover 
expenses not covered by EC for joint chartering/purchasing. Covering 
additional costs or MS co-financed parts from national budgets could be an 
issue due to national contract procedures. Spain explains its withdrawal from 
the joint chartering operation approved in 2015 on these grounds. 

They considered it highly unlikely that these issues would change. The Commission withdrew the 
measure from its work programme in 2017. One public authority, in its reply to the public consultation, 
suggested that the measure could be reintroduced if managed by the European Fisheries Control 
Agency. This possibility is not covered in the current EMFF Regulation but it is included in the 
Commission’s proposal for the next period beginning in 2021. 

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

Implementation of the EMFF has a strong EU added-value and has been relevant, effective and 
efficient. It is broadly coherent with other EU initiatives. But demonstrating it has been difficult: 
(1) because information about the implementation and results are dispersed and difficult to find; 
(2) because, for some measures, it will take some time before the impact can be assessed and (3) 
because of the very diverse nature of the measures. 

The  Commission’s  financial  database  includes  information  on  commitments  and  payments 
but  the  original  purpose  of  the  measure  and  the  programmed  budget  are  not  available  in 
electronic format and  can  only  be linked to  the financial data manually. Reports of studies  are 
available but there is no catalogue covering all of them. Few categories of measures have targets 
or indicators. Fixing these issues could begin immediately. 

RELEVANCE 

The aim of the Common Fisheries Policy is to ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities be 
environmentally sustainable over the long-term and managed in a way that is consistent with the 

43 

 
 
 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 44 

objectives  of  achieving  economic,  social  and  employment  benefits,  and  of  contributing  to  the 
availability of food supplies46. The primary objective of the EU's Integrated Maritime Policy is to 
develop  and  implement  integrated,  coordinated,  coherent,  transparent  and  sustainable  decision-
making in relation to the oceans, seas, coastal, insular and outermost regions and in the maritime 
sectors.  

The objectives of each measure correspond to either those of the Common Fisheries Policy or 

the integrated maritime policy and, as confirmed by stakeholders, are therefore relevant.  

EFFECTIVENESS 

Effectiveness measures whether or not these objectives were achieved. Stakeholders believe that 
they were.  

The maritime day and sea-basin events helped to bring stakeholders together from different 
communities  who  otherwise  would  have  had  little  opportunity  to  meet.  This  enabled  the  more 
joined-up approach to policies related to the sea, which is an objective of EU maritime policy. 

The cross-cutting measures have been effective and need to be continued. Joining up marine 
data  has  already  produced  economic  benefits  worth  many  times  the  investment.  Efforts  should 
continue with higher resolution seabed maps, increased action on biodiversity and more intuitive 
user interfaces. Spatial planning is going to be critical for Europe’s decarbonisation strategy with 
offshore wind capacity set to increase by a factor of 20 by 2050. Cross-border planning projects 
have  increased  capacity  in  Member  States  but  need  to  move  beyond  collecting  data,  which  is 
already done within EMODnet, to thinking how we want seas to develop over the longer term. 
The  expected  benefits  of  better  coordination  of  maritime  authorities  on  surveillance  are  also 
potentially  huge.  Future  efforts  should  build  on  the  work  done  to  develop  CISE  and  the 
cooperation between the three EU agencies responsible: the European Maritime Safety Agency 
(EMSA),  the  European  Fisheries  Control  Agency  (EFCA)  and  the  European  Borders  and 
Coastguard Agency (FRONTEX). 

The studies and the fora organised on blue growth have increased knowledge of areas of the 
blue economy that have either changed significantly in the past years or did not exist at all, such 
as deep-sea mining, ocean energy and algae cultivation. It is too early to say whether the work to 
shift  particular  ideas  from  the  laboratory  to  the  market  have  been  successful  but  they  have 
provided  the  Commission  and  investors  with  a  much  better  knowledge  of  the  landscape  and 
helped prepare a “Blue-invest Platform” to bring in equity from public and private sources. 

Projects  to  support  implementation  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD) 
have  been  particularly  useful  in  understanding  emerging  pressure  on  the  marine  environment, 
such  as  noise  or  litter.  Participants  in  earlier  projects  reported  that  projects  need  to  be  better 
aligned with the official processes of regional sea basins and MSFD. Projects run later therefore 
aimed at providing more direct support. A number of standards and protocols developed in the 
projects are being adopted as guidelines for the directive.  

The package of measures to support fisheries advice have been very effective. Without them 
the Common Fisheries Policy would not have worked. ICES and STECF work together well on 
advice for northern waters but the Commission should resolve overlaps between the work of the 
STECF and GFCM in the Mediterranean. 

Then lion’s share of EMFF spending on enforcement went  on information  technology  and, 
although the exchange of information between authorities is better than it was, progress has been 

46  

REGULATION (EU) No 1380/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 
11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy. 

44 

 
                                                            
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 45 

slower  than  originally  envisaged.  A  thorough  review  of  the  Integrated  Fisheries  Data 
Management programme should not exclude looking at future needs, including technology. 

The support provided to regional fisheries management organisations has produced tangible 
benefits  and  improved  their  effectiveness.  Because  these  organisations  govern  the  most  direct 
human impact on biodiversity in the planet’s oceans, the support makes a tangible contribution to 
the EU’s international ocean governance policy. 

The  Advisory  Councils  for  fisheries  would  not  work  without  EMFF  support.  Their 
composition does not always allow a consensus to emerge but it creates a conversation bringing 
in  different  points  of  view,  which  would  not  otherwise  happen.  The  support  is  therefore 
effective. 

The  EMFF  has  enabled  the  setting  up,  operation  and  progressive  improvement  of  the 
European  Market  Observatory  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  (EUMOFA).  This  has  increased 
market transparency and efficiency through direct monitoring of the volume, value and price of 
fisheries  and  aquaculture  products,  from  first  sale  to  the  retail  stage,  including  imports  and 
exports. 

EFFICIENCY 

Stakeholders considered that the EMFF results could not have been achieved at a lower cost but 
some  of  the  administration  is  unnecessarily  burdensome.  Future  work  must  focus  on 
implementing  IT  tools  to  automate  and  replace  some  paper-based  workflows  and  on  taking  a 
more risk-based approach to compliance. 

COHERENCE 

EMFF  measures  are  generally  coherent,  though  greater  coordination  between  maritime  policy 
and  fisheries  policy  –  particularly  on  data,  spatial  planning  and  maritime  surveillance  –  would 
improve efficiency and effectiveness. External stakeholders believe that more could be done to 
integrate  maritime  policy  with  instruments  from  other  policy  areas  such  as  the  environment, 
research and innovation, energy and transport. No specific  issues  were identified  and the issue 
may  partly  be  one  of  perception.  Communication  to  stakeholders  should  aim  not  to  look  at 
measures in isolation but show how they fit into broader EU action. 

EU ADDED VALUE 

Without  EU  action  under  the  EMFF,  many  activities  would  not  have  taken  place.  They  would 
not  have  been  supported  by  individual  countries.  The  EU  provides  the  institutional  framework 
for these  countries  to  come together to  tackle common issues.  No other body could have  done 
this, and it could not have been achieved without contractual arrangements.  

Regional  fisheries  management  organisations  would  not  have  been  as  effective  or  efficient 
without  support  for  scientific  knowledge  and  organisational  support,  as  evidenced  in  this 
evaluation. The EU was the only donor prepared to put substantial resources to achieving these 
goals. 

45 

 
 
 
Interim evaluation of direct management component of EMFF (annexes) Page 46 

Contents 

ANNEXES 

Annex 1: Procedural information .............................................................................................. 47 

Annex 2 Stakeholder Consultation ............................................................................................ 47 

Participation ........................................................................................................................... 47 

Relevance ............................................................................................................................... 51 

Efficiency ............................................................................................................................... 53 

Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................... 54 

Coherence ............................................................................................................................... 56 

EU added-value ...................................................................................................................... 57 

Annex 3. Methods and Analytical models used in preparing the evaluation/Fitness Check ..... 58 

Annex 4 Financial details .......................................................................................................... 60 

Integrated governance ............................................................................................................ 60 

Marine knowledge .................................................................................................................. 61 

Spatial planning ...................................................................................................................... 62 

Surveillance ............................................................................................................................ 62 

Blue growth ............................................................................................................................ 63 

Marine Environment .............................................................................................................. 64 

Scientific Advice .................................................................................................................... 65 

Control and enforcement ........................................................................................................ 66 

Voluntary agreements ............................................................................................................ 67 

Advisory Councils .................................................................................................................. 67 

Market intelligence ................................................................................................................. 68 

Technical assistance ............................................................................................................... 69 

46 

 
 
ANNEX 1. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

The work was led by DG MARE. The Agenda planning reference is 2017/MARE/018. 

The  steering  group  included  representatives  of  eleven  units  from  DG  MARE,  six  other 
Directorates  General  (ENV,  MOVE,  REGIO,  RTD,  TRADE,  SG)  as  well  as  the  Executive 
Agency  for  Small  and  Medium  Enterprises  (EASME).  The  group  met  on  16 August  2016, 
16 September  2016  and  11 November  2016  to  define  the  terms  of  reference  for  the  external 
contractors’ study. Preparatory meetings with the contractor were held on 12 December 2017 and 
8 January 2018, an inception meeting on 24 January 2018, progress meetings on 26 March 2018 
and 15 May 2018 and a discussion of the second draft of the final report on 20 June 2018. A final 
meeting was held on 29 September 2019 to review the draft of this staff working document. A 
wiki, available to the steering group, includes background information and records of meetings.  
The contractors, a consortium led by Coffey International, were selected following an open 
call  for tender. The  contract was signed in  December 2017 and completed in  September 2018. 
The report is published on the EU publications website.47 

The public stakeholder consultation was prepared by DG MARE and checked by the steering 

group. It ran from 28 May 2018 to 7 September 2018 and elicited 200 responses. 

This  report  was  prepared  by  DG  MARE,  based  on  the  external  study,  the  outcome  of  the 
public consultation, an analysis of financial data and insights from Commission departments and 
EASME. 

ANNEX 2. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

Participation 

The public consultation ran from 29 May 2018 until 7 September 2018. The three main issues – 
fisheries,  marine  environment  and blue  economy  –  were  covered  by representatives  of  all  four 
stakeholder categories (public authorities, academia and research, private-sector bodies and civil 
society.  About  one  third  had  received  EMFF  funding.  There  were  200  respondents  overall. 
Figure 1 and Table 1 show the main interests of the respondents. Figure 2 gives a breakdown by 
country and Figure 3 shows the proportion (about 30%) who had received EMFF funding. These 
show that the views of all the main stakeholder groups and interests were represented.  

The  multiple  choice  questions  were  compulsory  though,  given  that  few  respondents  had 
knowledge  of  the  whole  range  of  interventions,  ‘no  opinion’  was  also  an  option.  Respondents 
could then clarify their answer with text.  

The external consultants then ran a more targeted consultation. They targeted those managing 
the  EMFF,  DG  MARE,  DG  ENV  and  EASME,  recipients  of  the  fund  and,  to  a  lesser  extent, 
those who could be affected by the fund’s measures. They had drawn up a list of interviewees in 
their  tender,  which  they  modified  during  preparatory  meetings  with  the  steering  group  at  the 
outset of the project. In all, they received input from 77 people. Their sample was less balanced 
than the open consultation, being mainly targeted to public authorities and DG MARE. 

47  

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1f424d68-d670-11e8-9424-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

47 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 1. Interests of respondents to public consultation 

Table 1 Participation in public consultation 

All 

fisheries  

marine resources and 
environment  

N 
95 
29 
47 
36 
36 
76 
74 

fishing  
other  
processing  
retail  
wholesale  
coastal protection  
conservation of 
commercial species  
environmental reporting   67 
73 
impact assessments  
90 
management of 
protected areas  
other  
spatial planning  

15 
85 
10 
62 

a public 
authority  
N 

academia and 
research  
N 

civil 
society  
N 

the private 
sector  
N 

23 
9 
13 
10 
10 
22 
20 

19 
21 
26 

2 
22 
4 
17 

19 
6 
5 
4 
7 
23 
15 

14 
19 
24 

7 
22 
. 
17 

26 
7 
14 
11 
10 
17 
19 

20 
17 
20 

4 
22 
2 
13 

27 
7 
15 
11 
9 
14 
20 

14 
16 
20 

2 
19 
4 
15 

48 

none of these  
other blue economy 
sectors  

bio-economy (living 
resources)  

 
 
  
  
All 

N 
34 
31 
34 
20 
53 
36 
48 
52 

a public 
authority  
N 

academia and 
research  
N 

civil 
society  
N 

the private 
sector  
N 

10 
7 
7 
5 
15 
13 
16 
16 

6 
4 
9 
3 
10 
7 
8 
12 

8 
9 
9 
5 
10 
6 
11 
11 

10 
11 
9 
7 
18 
10 
13 
13 

coastal engineering  
generic technology  
non-living resources  
other  
renewable energy  
shipbuilding  
tourism  
transport  

Figure 2. Participation in public consultation; breakdown by country where respondent is based 

49 

 
  
 
 
Figure 3. Proportion of respondents who had received EMFF funding 

Table 2. Participation in targeted consultation 

All  DG 

EASME 

All 

advisory council  

blue growth  

control  

77 

13 

9 

9 

cross-cutting tools  

15 

environment  

governance  

market intelligence  

scientific advice  

technical assistance 

5 

7 

6 

6 

7 

MARE 

18 

1 

4 

4 

. 

1 

1 

4 

3 

. 

1 

. 

. 

. 

1 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

civil 
society 

contractor  private 
body 

public 
authority 

researcher 

14 

4 

4 

. 

1 

2 

2 

. 

1 

. 

1 

. 

. 

. 

1 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

2 

. 

. 

. 

1 

. 

1 

. 

. 

. 

39 

7 

1 

5 

10 

2 

3 

2 

2 

7 

2 

1 

. 

. 

1 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Relevance 

Figure 4. Stakeholders’ response to questions on the relevance of EMFF measures on maritime policy (1) creation of digital sea 
bed maps; (2) events to share knowledge between stakeholders; (3) projects to facilitate cross-border spatial planning; 
(4)  projects  to  improve  information  flow  between  maritime  authorities;  (5)  studies  to  help  authorities  meet  the 
requirements of Marine Strategy Framework Directive; (6) studies to improve knowledge of blue growth. 

51 

 
 
 
Figure  5.  Stakeholders’  response  to  questions  on  the  relevance  of  EMFF  measures  on  fisheries  issues:  (1)  contributions  to 
international organisations; (2) observatory for fishery and aquaculture products; (3) scientific advice for fisheries; (4) 
support  to  Advisory  Councils;  (5)  support  to  information  technology  and  chartering  vessels;  (6)  support  to  regional 
fisheries management organisations. 

Meeting  the  objectives  of  the  EMFF  measures  contributes  to  meeting  the  objectives  of  the 
integrated  maritime  policy  (Figure  4)  and  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (Figure  5).  No 
stakeholders from public authorities or research and fewer than 10% from the  private sector or 
civil authorities found the measures to be unnecessary.  

There was some suggestion from civil society that the results from science were not feeding 

into industry, although research as such is not financed by the EMFF. 

Some  considered  that  more  emphasis  could  have  been  given  to  certain  parts  of  the 
programme, for instance to the collection of marine data from bodies outside the fisheries cross-
organisational  coordination  process.  These  remarks  concerned  the  fisheries  part  of  the 
programme  and  the  respondent  may  have  been  unaware  that  data  collection  is  largely  in  the 
include 
shared  management  part  of 
representatives from outside the fisheries industry. 

that  Advisory  Councils  do 

the  programme  and 

The targeted consultation primarily targeted public authorities and Commission departments. 
None of the respondents questioned the relevance of the measures, confirming the conclusion of 
the public consultation although there were concerns about the lack of feedback on advice from 
the Northwest Waters Advisory Council. 

52 

 
 
 
Efficiency 

Figure 7.  How efficient were the actions that you participated in? Could results have been achieved with fewer resources? 

Results are expressed as a proportion of the total number of that category (public authority etc.). Only those receiving 
EMFF funding were asked this question.  

Figure 8. How efficient were the actions that you participated in? Was the administrative burden in participating in the measures 
proportionate?  Results are expressed as a proportion of the total number of that category (public authority etc.). Only 
those receiving EMFF funding were asked this question. 

53 

 
 
 
Stakeholders  concurred  that  the  results  could  not  have  been  obtained  with  fewer  resources  but 
that  the  administrative  burden  was  excessive.  The  Scottish  Coastal  Forum  felt  that  extending 
spatial planning projects from two to three years would give more time to fully develop the end-
of-project conclusions. 

Some Advisory  Council  members  felt that the process for  delivering  advice could be  more 

efficient if a subgroup could prepare a draft report before the main meeting. 

The Executive Agency for Small  and Medium  Enterprises explained that at the start of the 
programme,  all  procedures  were  paper-based.  Towards  the  end  of  the  evaluation  period  they 
began to make use of procedures used for other EU programmes, particularly the e-grant process 
used under the Horizon 2020 research programme. 

Some considered that the question should have been ‘are the resources enough?’, rather than 

‘could the job be done with fewer resources?’.  

  The  Environment  and  Sustainable  Development  Advisory  Councils48  (EEAC)  and  the 
European  Academies’  Science  Advisory  Council  replied  that  ‘neither  scientists  nor 
managers  of  so-called  Marine  Protected  Areas  have  sufficient  means  at  their  disposal  for 
GES49  measurements  or  reporting.  While  European  politicians  have  often  underlined  the 
importance of sustainable seas and oceans and are currently proposing the GES approach to 
the global community, it seems that the follow-up is insufficient’. 

  The  FARNET  support  unit  reported  that  they  would  need  more  resources  if  a  more 

multilingual facility were required. 

Effectiveness 

Overall, the respondents to the public consultation considered that the measures taken had been 
effective  but  differed  in  terms  of  the  extent  of  impact  (Figure  7).  The  scientific  community 
believed  that  the  main  impact  had  been  to  protect  marine  resources;  public  authorities  cited 
instead a more joined-up approach to maritime policy. The private sector agreed that the impact 
of measures was mostly to protect the marine environment and joining up maritime policies but 
the blue growth studies had also been an effective support to the blue economy. Civil society, by 
contrast,  felt  that  the  blue  growth  studies  had  been  the  least  effective  of  the  measures.  They 
considered that the stakeholder events had been effective in building a more joined-up approach.  
Overall,  the  measures  on  scientific  advice  were  considered  to  be  the  most  effective  in 
protecting  the  environment,  blue  growth  studies  for  improving  knowledge  on  stimulating  the 
maritime  economy,  and  events  the  most  effective  in  improving  information  flow  between 
maritime authorities. 

A  number  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  reported  that  effectiveness  could  be 
improved by making the results more widely available and by bringing new insights from studies 
to  those  that  could  benefit  from  them.  National  authorities  responsible  for  marine  or  coastal 
administration are often unaware of the new insights.  

Bloom,  a  non-profit-making  association  founded 

lack  of 
documentation  and  the  fact  that  scientific  advice  had  been  ignored,  though  some  of  their 
comments  were  more  relevant  to  the  indirectly  managed  part  of  the  EMFF.  Two  respondents 
emphasised the need to engage local communities. One public authority felt that joint chartering 

in  1901, 

lamented 

the 

48  
49  

A network of advisory bodies established by national or regional governments or parliaments. 
Good Environmental Status. 

54 

 
                                                            
of patrol vessels might have worked if the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) had been 
more involved. 

A survey of EUMOFA users considered it effective in providing data and analysis on the EU 
market  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products.  The  targeted  consultation  also  found  that  the 
Northwest  Waters  Advisory  Council  had  provided  fisheries  management  advice  (though  not 
always consensual) and that the Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries had 
influenced  decisions  in  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy.  The  BalticBoost  project  had  achieved 
most of its expected results, including identifying shortcomings in the indicators. The SIMCELT 
project  had  succeeded  in  building  relationships  between  those  responsible  for  spatial  plans  in 
neighbouring countries. 

55 

 
 
 
Figure 6. Stakeholders’ response to questions on relevance of EMFF measures  

Coherence 

Figure 9. Response from stakeholders asked about coherence with wider EU policy objectives 

There  was  general  agreement  that  the  measures  were  coherent  with  other  EU  policies  but  that 
coordination  could  be  improved.  The  stakeholders  consulted  in  the  open  consultation  were 
unable to suggest specific instances or how it could be improved. 

56 

 
 
The government of the Azores would have wanted the EMFF to support implementation of 

the Water Framework Directive and directives on nature protection. 

No issues with coherence were identified in four of the five projects assessed in the targeted 
consultation. The North West Waters Advisory Councils for fisheries reported that they did take 
into  account  implementation  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive.  Participants  in  the 
Baltic Boost project on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive believed that their work was 
coherent with the work of the HELCOM convention. The SIMCELT project on spatial planning 
was considered to be consistent with nature directives, the INSPIRE Directive and the Common 
Fisheries  Policy.  The  European  Market  Observatory  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  (EUMOFA) 
was considered coherent with other Commission initiatives to improve market transparency, such 
as the market observatories for agriculture products or market observatories for energy prices. 

The only issue identified was some overlap between the work of the Scientific, Technical and 
Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  and  the  General  Fisheries  Commission  for  the 
Mediterranean (GFCM). 

EU added-value 

Over 70% of most stakeholder categories considered the work to be either best done at EU level 
or  to  add  what  is  done  at  national  level  (Figure  10).  Nevertheless,  there  were  some  notable 
differences.  Public  authorities  felt  that  EU  added  less  value  to  seabed  mapping  than  it  did  in 
other  EMFF  activities,  whereas  the  academic  community  considered  this  to  add  the  most  EU 
value.  The private sector  considered that  events provided the  most  value. The Scottish  Coastal 
Forum considered that ‘projects to facilitate cross-border spatial planning would not go ahead 
without EU funding but the work itself (and the implementation of the findings of EU-sponsored 
projects) is probably better facilitated through bilateral or multilateral arrangements’. 

Stakeholders in  the targeted consultation reported that  without  EU action under the EMFF, 
national plans would have given less consideration to plans in neighbouring countries, and there 
would be no detailed analysis at EU and global level of the market for fisheries and aquaculture 
products.  Without  EU  action  there  would  be  no  Northwest  Waters  Advisory  Council  in  its 
present  form,  no  expert  participation  in  the  deliberations  of  the  Scientific,  Technical  and 
Economic Committee and the indicators tracking the environmental status of the Baltic would be 
less-developed.  

57 

 
Figure 10. Open stakeholder consultation of added-value of EMFF measures. 

ANNEX 3. METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED TO PREPARE THE EVALUATION/FITNESS 
CHECK 

The main inputs to the evaluation were: 

58 

 
 
 
financial information from the Commission’s ABAC system 
  a study by a contractor selected following an open call for tender 
 
 
  completed or ongoing evaluations of individual measures. 

the public consultation 
insights from DG MARE and EASME 

A steering group of Commission departments helped frame the evaluation questions, define the 
terms of reference of the study and monitor progress of the study. 

For measures that were continuations of previous measures under a different instrument, the 
baseline  was  mainly  taken  from  evaluations  of  these  previous  measures.  The  main  limitations 
were: 

 

 

the number and variety of measures financed by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. 
Between  200  and  300  contracts  through  grants  and  procurement  were  signed  each  year  on 
topics  ranging  from  tuna-tagging  in  the  Indian  Ocean  to  coastguard  fora  in  the 
Mediterranean.  
the novelty of many of the actions. Other than the short 2011-2013 preliminary programme, 
this was the first financial programme dedicated to the maritime policy.  

  The  EMFF  Regulation  was  adopted  in  May  2014  and  the  financial  decision  for  the  2014 
work  programme  in  July  2014.  Only  a  small  proportion  of  projects  were  completed  by  the 
time of the external study, which only covered activity programmed from 2014 to 2016. 
the lack of performance indicators or a catalogue of project reports meant that too much time 
was spent finding the output of activities rather than assessing their impact. 

 

Nevertheless,  the  evaluation  was  able  to  capture  how  well  the  money  was  spent  by  linking 
information from the Commission’s ABAC system with the annual financial decisions and then 
classifying  each  activity  into  a  set  of  sub-activities.  The  consultation  elicited  opinions  from  a 
representative  cross-section  of  stakeholders:  private-sector  companies,  public  authorities, 
researchers and civil society.  

The  conclusions  of  the  external  study  were  largely  based  on  interviews  with  stakeholders. 
The study did not uncover any surprises, and being independent, it is the Commission’s view that 
it increased confidence. 

Over the period of the evaluation, indicators tracking the broad objectives of the measure – 
growth in the blue economy, better environmental status of the marine environment, sustainable 
fish stocks – were generally positive. The evaluation showed that the EMFF had contributed to 
meeting those objectives. 

59 

 
ANNEX 4. FINANCIAL DETAILS 

Integrated governance 

All 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

evaluation 

committed 

149,965 

149,965 

contracts 

1 

1 

paid 

149,965 

149,965 

programmed 

150,000 

150,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

events 

committed 

5,902,241 

963,768  1,016,305  1,656,064  1,059,540  1,206,564 

contracts 

154 

44 

37 

35 

23 

15 

paid 

4,856,396 

902,780 

900,809  1,440,640 

923,591 

688,576 

programmed  8,011,220  1,290,000  1,126,000  1,708,240  1,836,980  2,050,000 

international governance  committed 

1,249,831 

contracts 

4 

paid 

469,118 

programmed  2,000,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

.  1,000,000 

249,831 

. 

. 

1 

3 

400,000 

69,118 

.  1,000,000  1,000,000 

on-line presence 

committed 

2,417,842 

259,760  1,579,302 

209,997 

149,576 

219,207 

contracts 

22 

3 

5 

7 

4 

3 

paid 

2,417,842 

259,760  1,579,302 

209,997 

149,576 

219,207 

programmed  2,760,000 

260,000  1,880,000 

210,000 

210,000 

200,000 

sea-basin assistance 

committed 

3,701,051 

147,840 

529,557 

579,945  2,244,852 

198,858 

contracts 

18 

7 

3 

3 

4 

1 

paid 

1,950,176 

109,580 

463,379 

507,945 

742,980 

126,292 

programmed  3,929,000 

150,000 

569,000 

610,000  2,250,000 

350,000 

60 

 
  
Marine knowledge 

assembly and dissemination  committed 

30,891,174  1,193,640  8,961,982  13,637,626  7,097,925 

All 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

contracts 

13 

1 

2 

7 

paid 

20,772,748  1,193,640  7,343,982  12,235,126 

3 

. 

. 

0 

. 

programmed  37,010,000  1,330,000  9,280,000  13,770,000  7,100,000  5,530,000 

observation 

committed 

3,999,726 

.  3,999,726 

contracts 

1 

. 

1 

paid 

3,253,890 

.  3,253,890 

programmed  4,000,000 

.  4,000,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

secretariat 

committed 

1,940,000 

contracts 

2 

paid 

1,230,000 

programmed  2,020,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

520,000 

.  1,420,000 

1 

520,000 

520,000 

. 

. 

1 

710,000 

.  1,500,000 

stress tests 

committed 

4,174,990  4,174,990 

contracts 

4 

4 

paid 

4,174,990  4,174,990 

programmed  4,350,000  4,350,000 

studies 

committed 

54,000 

contracts 

paid 

1 

54,000 

programmed 

60,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

54,000 

1 

54,000 

60,000 

. 

0 

. 

0 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

61 

 
  
Spatial planning 

assistance  committed 

5,101,546  1,117,760  1,117,760  1,117,760  1,400,000 

348,266 

All 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

contracts 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

paid 

4,337,618  1,117,760  1,117,760  1,117,760 

840,000 

144,338 

programmed  6,397,760  1,330,000  1,130,000  1,117,760  1,400,000  1,420,000 

projects 

committed 

17,649,656  5,561,795  5,657,014  6,430,847 

contracts 

10 

3 

3 

4 

paid 

12,000,352  4,525,673  3,859,793  3,614,887 

. 

0 

. 

. 

0 

. 

programmed  20,800,000  6,370,000  6,000,000  5,960,000 

0  2,470,000 

studies 

committed 

1,085,884 

499,711 

contracts 

3 

1 

paid 

651,236 

499,711 

programmed  1,745,000 

530,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

586,173 

2 

151,525 

. 

0 

. 

715,000 

500,000 

Surveillance 

CISE 

committed 

13,040,292  5,646,093  1,125,519  1,240,958 

617,722  4,410,000 

All 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

contracts 

22 

10 

4 

3 

2 

3 

paid 

7,871,819  4,892,272 

754,689 

592,540 

355,096  1,277,221 

programmed  16,968,000  7,330,000  2,688,000  1,430,000  1,110,000  4,410,000 

coastguard support  committed 

2,607,401 

839,421 

268,000 

760,000 

80,000 

659,980 

contracts 

13 

3 

2 

4 

1 

3 

paid 

2,160,893 

681,068 

268,000 

652,452 

56,000 

503,372 

programmed  2,780,000 

920,000 

360,000 

760,000 

80,000 

660,000 

62 

 
  
  
Blue growth 

All 

2014  2015  2016  2017 

2018 

assistance 

committed 

108 

contracts 

paid 

1 

538 

programmed  5,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

communication  committed 

991 

200 

contracts 

2 

1 

paid 

185 

185 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

0 

. 

programmed  1,150 

200  150 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

108 

1 

538 

.  5,000 

791 

1 

. 

800 

cooperation 

committed 

2,974 

692  384 

.  1,898 

contracts 

4 

1 

1 

. 

2 

paid 

2,116 

692  384 

.  1,040 

programmed  3,377 

750  427 

.  2,200 

projects 

committed 

24,008 

.  618  5,295  18,094 

contracts 

44 

. 

5 

13 

26 

paid 

11,696 

.  561  4,338  6,797 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

0 

. 

programmed  42,110 

.  490  5,720  17,460  18,440 

study 

committed 

2,411  1,065  281 

57 

940 

contracts 

13 

3 

1 

paid 

2,196  1,065  281 

programmed  3,159  1,100  450 

1 

57 

59 

7 

725 

950 

68 

1 

68 

600 

63 

 
  
Marine Environment 

All 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

MSFD analysis 

committed 

6,264,653  3,164,995  3,099,658 

contracts 

10 

6 

4 

paid 

5,109,973  2,856,731  2,253,241 

programmed  5,047,598  2,760,000  2,287,598 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

.  2,805,484  4,269,790  4,602,903 

. 

4 

12 

10 

.  1,710,696  2,166,875 

948,661 

.  2,719,664  4,270,000  4,400,000 

MSFD support 

committed 

11,678,177 

contracts 

26 

paid 

4,826,233 

programmed  11,389,664 

emerging pressures 

committed 

1,217,940 

contracts 

5 

paid 

1,217,940 

programmed  1,600,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

regional coordination  committed 

1,282,790 

498,475 

contracts 

4 

2 

paid 

1,282,790 

498,475 

537,940 

680,000 

3 

2 

537,940 

680,000 

750,000 

850,000 

. 

0 

. 

784,315 

2 

784,315 

programmed  1,800,000 

500,000 

600,000 

700,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

64 

 
  
Scientific Advice 

ICES 

committed 

9,000,000  1,600,000  1,600,000  1,600,000  2,400,000  1,800,000 

All 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

contracts 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

paid 

7,849,611  1,400,000  1,535,118  1,409,892  1,854,111  1,650,489 

programmed  8,900,000  1,600,000  1,600,000  1,600,000  2,400,000  1,700,000 

JRC 

committed 

5,065,000  1,130,000  1,130,000  1,665,000 

.  1,140,000 

contracts 

4 

1 

1 

1 

paid 

4,205,458  1,130,000  1,130,000  1,603,458 

. 

. 

1 

342,000 

programmed  5,330,000  1,130,000  1,460,000  1,600,000 

.  1,140,000 

STECF 

committed 

3,686,500 

410,000 

820,000 

820,000 

821,500 

815,000 

contracts 

12 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

paid 

3,049,136 

353,125 

505,800 

733,838 

721,439 

734,935 

programmed  4,264,000 

410,000 

820,000  1,000,000  1,000,000  1,034,000 

cooperation on data  committed 

2,771,333 

795,226 

.  1,976,106 

contracts 

6 

2 

paid 

1,252,983 

660,151 

. 

. 

4 

592,832 

programmed  2,800,000 

800,000 

.  2,000,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

studies 

committed 

14,206,790  2,592,850  2,987,917  2,248,524  4,640,568  1,736,931 

contracts 

44 

8 

9 

8 

11 

8 

paid 

8,085,748  2,513,639  2,193,566  1,419,328  1,734,119 

225,095 

programmed  20,540,000  3,050,000  4,800,000  2,390,000  4,900,000  5,400,000 

65 

 
  
Control and enforcement 

Commission inspection  committed 

3,662,966 

560,827  1,067,139 

705,000 

700,000 

630,000 

All 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

contracts 

10 

3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

paid 

2,792,236 

433,962 

874,851 

506,569 

429,642 

547,213 

programmed  3,826,934 

515,000  1,080,967 

800,967 

800,000 

630,000 

IT services 

committed 

18,529,221  2,923,525  2,896,977  3,562,962  4,541,747  4,604,011 

contracts 

277 

23 

50 

53 

73 

78 

paid 

16,879,437  2,722,532  2,878,008  3,308,637  4,237,466  3,732,795 

programmed  19,200,000  3,100,000  3,200,000  3,700,000  4,800,000  4,400,000 

chartering patrol boats  committed 

2,112,000 

.  2,112,000 

contracts 

paid 

2 

. 

0 

. 

2 

. 

programmed  21,320,000  10,800,000  10,520,000 

expert group 

committed 

833,000 

250,000 

60,000 

contracts 

9 

1 

2 

paid 

509,435 

159,689 

12,917 

programmed 

925,000 

310,000 

65,000 

. 

0 

. 

0 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

0 

. 

0 

. 

. 

. 

. 

288,000 

235,000 

3 

3 

164,990 

171,840 

350,000 

200,000 

study 

committed 

645,895 

250,000 

contracts 

5 

1 

paid 

631,780 

250,000 

. 

0 

. 

325,000 

70,895 

2 

2 

311,621 

70,160 

. 

0 

. 

programmed  3,235,000 

550,000 

900,000  1,285,000 

250,000 

250,000 

training 

committed 

540,000 

contracts 

4 

paid 

346,601 

. 

0 

. 

330,000 

210,000 

2 

2 

251,324 

95,277 

. 

0 

. 

. 

0 

. 

programmed 

779,690 

164,690 

345,000 

225,000 

25,000 

20,000 

66 

 
  
Voluntary agreements 

enhance enforcement 

committed 

4,552,768 

279,282  1,569,757 

339,914  1,670,000 

693,815 

All 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

contracts 

19 

2 

5 

3 

4 

5 

paid 

4,176,965 

195,498  1,555,634 

283,222  1,571,364 

571,248 

programmed  4,910,000 

280,000  1,615,000 

370,000  1,670,000 

975,000 

improve functioning 

committed 

33,346,472  2,387,427  4,705,625  11,575,952  6,199,761  8,477,707 

contracts 

75 

10 

15 

20 

9 

21 

paid 

27,600,096  2,230,634  4,339,957  10,258,627  4,922,492  5,848,385 

programmed  29,827,453  2,417,369  4,675,720  7,740,000  6,660,000  8,334,364 

participation of developing countries  committed 

1,701,538 

137,288 

207,000 

285,300  1,071,950 

contracts 

9 

2 

2 

3 

2 

paid 

1,386,678 

108,062 

190,867 

230,937 

856,813 

programmed  2,037,000 

140,000 

357,000 

290,000  1,250,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

research 

committed 

13,384,262  3,250,000  1,208,968  2,214,794  3,588,760  3,121,741 

contracts 

38 

4 

9 

8 

9 

8 

paid 

10,333,666  2,841,446  1,059,201  1,662,344  2,536,051  2,234,625 

programmed  12,977,635  3,300,000  1,330,000  2,275,000  3,090,000  2,982,635 

Advisory Councils 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

programmed 

1,750,000 

2,750,000 

3,300,000 

3,300,000 

3,300,000 

All 

Baltic Sea 

Black Sea 

committed 

paid 

committed 

paid 

committed 

paid 

paid 

committed 

paid 

committed 

1,750,000 1,647,554  1,750,000 1,658,956  2,700,000 2,137,498 2,908,861  2,532,340 2,728,871  2,264,326 

250,000  229,945 

250,000  200,000 

300,000  240,000  300,000 

240,000  300,000 

240,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

.  208,861 

167,089  203,871 

163,097 

long distance 

250,000  213,271 

250,000  235,758 

300,000  268,303  300,000 

258,780  300,000 

240,000 

Mediterranean 

250,000  242,401 

250,000  241,180 

300,000  299,978  300,000 

299,443  300,000 

298,221 

North Sea 

aquaculture 

market 

250,000  249,225 

250,000  250,000 

300,000  250,597  300,000 

284,412  125,000 

123,008 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

300,000  146,984  300,000 

240,000  300,000 

240,000 

300,000  136,644  300,000 

240,244  300,000 

240,000 

north-western waters 

250,000  249,756 

250,000  249,561 

300,000  245,631  300,000 

268,253  300,000 

240,000 

pelagic stocks 

250,000  240,941 

250,000  247,994 

300,000  272,843  300,000 

294,119  300,000 

240,000 

south-western waters 

250,000  222,015 

250,000  234,463 

300,000  276,518  300,000 

240,000  300,000 

240,000 

67 

 
  
  
 
Market intelligence 

EUMOFA 

committed 

19,452,107  4,047,880  4,047,880  4,047,880  4,047,880  3,260,587 

All 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

contracts 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

paid 

16,843,637  4,047,880  4,047,880  4,047,880  4,047,880 

652,117 

programmed  21,794,726  4,944,000  4,944,966  4,107,880  4,047,880  3,750,000 

IT and observatories  committed 

870,282 

contracts 

5 

paid 

697,782 

programmed  1,305,000 

studies 

committed 

701,645 

contracts 

2 

paid 

701,645 

programmed  1,100,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

115,000 

115,000 

640,282 

1 

1 

3 

115,000 

57,500 

525,282 

320,000 

320,000 

665,000 

402,150 

299,495 

1 

1 

402,150 

299,495 

. 

0 

. 

400,000 

300,000 

400,000 

68 

 
  
Technical assistance 

FAME 

committed 

4,049,100 

.  1,000,000  1,000,000  1,000,000  1,049,100 

All 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

contracts 

4 

. 

1 

1 

1 

1 

paid 

3,719,410 

.  1,000,000 

983,375 

737,925 

998,110 

programmed  4,000,000 

.  1,000,000  1,000,000  1,000,000  1,000,000 

FARNET 

committed 

9,247,057  1,126,527  2,000,000  2,000,000  2,000,000  2,120,530 

contracts 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

paid 

8,623,688 

897,975  1,989,500  2,000,000  1,741,850  1,994,363 

programmed  9,226,500  1,126,500  2,100,000  2,000,000  2,000,000  2,000,000 

IT 

committed 

3,527,513 

570,080 

694,747 

758,974 

750,333 

753,379 

contracts 

61 

12 

11 

13 

10 

15 

paid 

3,362,576 

523,390 

689,433 

758,974 

749,287 

641,493 

programmed  3,790,000 

710,000 

800,000 

770,000 

710,000 

800,000 

evaluation  committed 

1,002,000 

377,752 

444,828 

179,420 

contracts 

3 

1 

1 

1 

paid 

1,002,000 

377,752 

444,828 

179,420 

programmed  1,000,000 

400,000 

400,000 

200,000 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

other 

committed 

793,135 

357,000 

70,973 

190,400 

74,763 

100,000 

contracts 

10 

1 

3 

2 

3 

1 

paid 

577,122 

308,987 

70,973 

82,400 

74,763 

40,000 

programmed 

575,000 

180,000 

. 

190,000 

25,000 

180,000 

69