COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 222 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Interim Evaluation of the direct management component     of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) {SWD(2020) 221 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1  The Fund .................................................................................................................................. 3 

2  EU action taken ....................................................................................................................... 3 

3  The evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 4 

3.1  Relevance ......................................................................................................................... 4 

3.2  Efficiency ......................................................................................................................... 4 

3.3  Effectiveness .................................................................................................................... 5 

3.4  EU added value ................................................................................................................ 6 

3.5  Coherence ......................................................................................................................... 6 

4  Lessons learned........................................................................................................................ 7 

 
 
 
1  THE FUND 

The  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  aims  to  ensure  that  fishing  and  aquaculture  activities  is 
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 supplies1. The Integrated Maritime Policy is based on the recognition that all 
matters relating to oceans and seas are interlinked, and that sea-related policies must develop in a 
joined-up way if they are to achieve the desired results2. 

The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)3 supports both these policies. National 
authorities implement 90% of the Fund. 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,  including  the  Executive  Agency  for  Small  and  Medium 
Enterprises. The split between maritime policy and fisheries is roughly 50:50, with slightly more 
on  fisheries  in  the  first  three  years  of  the  programme  and  slightly  more  on  maritime  policy 
afterwards. Between 200 and 300 contracts under this direct management part of the programme 
are signed each year. This evaluation covers those contracts programmed between 2014-2018. 

2  EU ACTION TAKEN 

The long-term future of fisheries relies on protecting the stocks from over-exploitation through 
measures imposing how the fish can be caught, how many can be caught, by whom they can be 
caught and how they are marketed. Given the complex and connected way that ecosystems and 
markets  work,  framing  the  rules  requires  considerable  data,  sound  science  and  expert  advice. 
Monitoring and enforcing the rules requires timely information built up from multiple sources in 
national administrations and from the supply chain. This is not only for European waters. Vessels 
from  EU  countries  fish  in  nearly  all  oceans  and  the  EU  is  committed  to  international  ocean 
governance.  The  direct  management  component  of  EMFF  finances  measures  and  structures  to 
deliver the data, advice, organisational structures, information systems and intelligence needed to 
implement the EU’s fisheries policy effectively. 

Maritime  policy  is  constructed  on  the  understanding  that  the  viability  of  the  blue  economy 
and the health of the marine environment require coherence between different policy areas and 
different  countries,  including  those  without  a  coastline  and  those  not  in  the  EU;  particularly 
neighbours sharing the same sea basin. The direct management component of the EMFF supports 
measures to bring these stakeholders together, to unify and disseminate their holdings of marine 
data, to agree on common ways of measuring the status of the marine environment, to improve 
communication between authorities responsible for preventing illegal  or dangerous activities at 

1  

2  

3  

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the 
Common Fisheries Policy. 
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). 
Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 
861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council. 

3 

 
 
                                                           
sea,  to  take  into  account  neighbours  when  planning  what  is  allowed  and  what  is  forbidden  in 
their waters and to stimulate the blue economy. 

3  THE EVALUATION 

The conclusions presented here are drawn from several sources: 

  an  external  study  into  measures  taken  from  2014  to  2016,  (largely  through  interviews 

conducted with those involved in the measures),  

  a public consultation in 2018, which elicited 200 replies from a sample of public authorities, 

businesses, civil society and researchers,  
  separate analyses of specific measures, and  
 

insights  from  Commission  departments  and  the  Executive  Agency  for  Small  and  Medium 
Enterprises.  

3.1  Relevance 

The study found almost universal agreement from stakeholders that action under the EMFF did 
contribute to meeting the objectives of both maritime and fisheries policies. EMFF action aided 
maritime  policy  through  a  more  integrated  governance,  joined-up  data,  spatial  plans  that  take 
into  account  neighbours’  needs,  communication  between  maritime  authorities  with  different 
responsibilities,  business  support  for  emerging  industries  and  sound  criteria  for  assessing  the 
state  of  the  marine  environment.  Fisheries  policy  was  supported  through  scientific  advice, 
improved  enforcement,  structured  stakeholder  involvement,  enhanced  ocean  governance  and 
market intelligence. 

3.2  Efficiency 

Nearly  all  the  budget  was  consumed  as  planned  with  the  exception  of  a  contribution  to  joint 
chartering of patrol vessels.  Member States did not take up this option due to uncertainty as to 
how to combine it with national resources.  

Respondents to the survey considered that the measures could not have been carried out at a 
lower  cost.  Time-critical  deliverables,  especially  scientific  advice,  reached  the  recipients  on 
schedule. 

 Nevertheless,  beneficiaries  of  grants  and  contracts  did  report  that  some  of  the  procedures 
were administratively heavy. The time to grant or contract signature are similar to those in other 
Commission programmes and the use of e-grants as of 2017 did reduce the paperwork. But there 
is  considerable  scope  for  improvement.  Further  simplification,  a  more  risk-based  approach  to 
compliance  and  a  better  alignment  with  other  programmes  could  considerably  reduce  the 
workload for beneficiaries and the contracting authority  alike and speed up the process without 
compromising sound budgetary management.  

4 

 
 
3.3  Effectiveness 

There  is  consensus  that  all  actions  were  effective  in  building  a  stronger  maritime  economy, 
improving  the  protection  of  marine  resources  or  in  developing  a  more  joined-up  approach  to 
maritime policies.  

  The many events organised, whether at European or sea-basin level, encouraged interactions 
that  enabled  participants  to  see  how  others  in  different  industries,  different  countries  or 
different government departments tackle similar challenges. 

  Business  and  public  authorities  are  already  using  the  digital  maps  developed  under  the 
European  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Network  (EMODnet)  initiatives  to  improve 
productivity  and  reduce  risk.  For  instance,  they  have  greatly  reduced  uncertainty  in  storm 
surge forecasts in the North Sea. A separate evaluation of EMODnet is underway. 

  Practitioners of spatial planning reported that participating in cross-border planning projects 
had  improved  their  awareness  of  what  is  being  done  in  other  countries  and  how  it  might 
affect their own waters in a way that could not have been achieved by browsing plans online.  
  The  scope  for  more  effective  awareness  of  what  is  happening  in  European  waters  through 
better communication between authorities responsible for monitoring different activities such 
as navigational safety, fisheries inspection, border control or customs checks has been amply 
demonstrated  in  pilot  projects  for  the  Common  Information  Sharing  Environment  (CISE). 
This  is  now  moving  to  an  operational  phase  under  the  auspices  of  the  European  Maritime 
Safety  Agency  (EMSA),  which  already  works  closely  with  the  European  Fisheries  Control 
Agency (EFCA) and the European Borders and Coastguard Agency (FRONTEX). 

  Studies and targeted fora have shown the promise of emerging technologies in areas such as 
ocean energy, algae processing, electric propulsion or waste recycling to transform the blue 
economy  and  at  the  same  time  contribute  to  EU  goals  on  greenhouse  gas  emissions  or  the 
circular economy. Having a full pipeline of projects was instrumental in attracting guarantees 
from the European Fund for Structural Investment for an equity fund for the blue economy. 
  The provision of scientific advice, financed under the EMFF, is fundamental for all proposals 
and  decisions  on  major  fisheries  management  tools,  such  as  total  allowable  catch,  quotas, 
gear  restrictions  and  landing  obligations.  The  advice  provided  over  the  period  of  the 
evaluation  was delivered on time and  formed the main basis for Commission  proposals  for 
fisheries  management.  Well-established  arrangements  for  the  delivery  of  scientific  advice, 
and the collection of the data on which it is based, ensure that advice and data are effective 
and relevant in informing CFP objectives. There is scope for clarifying the division of roles 
between  the  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  and  the  General 
Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, on scientific advice in the Mediterranean.  
  After the plan for purchasing joint patrol vessels was scrapped, most of the budget allocated 
for fisheries control was spent on information technology to enable data exchange within the 
EU (from national authorities to each other, the Commission, the European Fisheries Control 
Agency  (EFCA),  to  third  countries  under  bilateral  arrangements  or  with  regional  fisheries 
management organisations (RFMOs). Progress has been slower than planned, partially due to 
sub-optimal implementation, the inherent complexity of the programme and the multitude of 
stakeholders. The development is due to be completed in 2020, when MARE will carry out a 
thorough review and investigate the best way to move forward. 

5 

 
 
  Subscriptions  from  members of regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) are, 
in many cases, not sufficient for them to implement the rules they set. Top-up grants from the 
EMFF strengthened their organisational capacity and paid for underpinning research. These 
regional management organisations are crucial partners and helping them do their job has had 
significant benefits for the EU’s ocean governance strategy. 

  The Advisory Councils are the EU’s mechanism for fishers and other stakeholders to talk to 
each  other  on  a  regional  or  thematic  basis  and  deliver  their  opinions  and  advice  to  the 
Commission.  40%  of  the  councils’  membership  is  made  up  of  representatives  of  groups 
outside  the  fishing  industry  so  it  is  not  always  possible  to  reach  consensus.  So  far,  the 
councils  have  not  managed  to  propose  simplifying  any  measures  but  they  have  identified 
current  measures  that  are  not  working  optimally,  such  as  technical  measures,  control  and 
implementing the landing obligation. The Commission has noted these issues. 

  The project to develop an EU market intelligence tool, EUMOFA, began in 2010 following a 
request from the European Parliament. It has now developed into an operational tool that has 
supported business decisions and policy-making through increased market transparency and 
analysis of EU market dynamics. An independent evaluator reported that EUMOFA worked 
better than agriculture market counterparts in terms of timeliness and standardisation of data 
provided. 

  328 Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs) - partnerships of private sector, local authorities 
and  civil  society  organisations  who  fund  local  projects  -  appreciate  the  support  that  the 
FARNET  support  unit  provides  in  capacity  building,  dissemination  of  information  and  in 
exchanging good practices. Some asked for more frequent newsletters. 

  Workshops  and  dedicated  monitoring  and  evaluation  training  sessions  organised  by  the 
FAME support  unit for managing authorities for the shared management part of the EMFF 
have improved comparability between interventions from different Member States.  

3.4  EU added value 

Stakeholders agreed that none of the  measures would  have happened without  financial support 
from  the  EMFF.  In  many  cases,  continuity  makes  the  difference.  Very  few  partnerships, 
information systems or stakeholder platforms developed in research or structural projects survive 
beyond the end of funding. There was consensus that the EMFF measures were needed and need 
to be sustained, but without EU support they would not have happened. 

3.5  Coherence 

The extent to which maritime and fisheries policy goals are achieved depends strongly on how 
measures  in  other  policy  areas  –  energy,  transport,  environment  etc.  –  are  implemented. 
Accordingly,  there  is  close  cooperation  between  the  Commission  departments  for  maritime 
affairs and fisheries and  the departments  responsible for these other policy  areas.  For instance, 
communication  with  the  departments  responsible  for  environment  policy  happens  on  a  daily 
basis.  Work  on  maritime  surveillance  under  both  maritime  policies  and  fisheries  policies  is 
increasingly integrated with the work of the European Maritime and Safety Agency the European 
Borders and Coastguard Agency (FRONTEX), the Fisheries Control Agency and the Copernicus 
security  service.  A  memorandum  of  understanding  has  been  signed  between  the  Commission 

6 

 
 
department  responsible  for  maritime  policy  and  the  department  responsible  for  the  Copernicus 
space programme on collaboration between EMODnet and the Copernicus marine service. The 
EU’s research programme covers projects on fundamental long-term scientific questions whereas 
the EMFF covers studies into issues where answers are needed faster. 

Nevertheless, whilst most stakeholders agreed that the fisheries and maritime policy actions 
were coherent with those implemented under other EU policy areas, they felt that coordination 
could be improved. This may be a matter of perception but in the future more work is needed to 
show how maritime and fisheries policy action fit into  the broader EU policy framework. This 
includes connecting maritime and fisheries policies more closely. 

4  LESSONS LEARNED 

Overall, the direct management part of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund is relevant to 
meeting the objectives of the EU’s maritime and fisheries policies. It is effective. It is efficient in 
that  the  results  could  not  have  been  achieved  at  a  lower  cost  and  would  not  have  happened 
without EU financial support. The actions are coherent with other EU initiatives. Nevertheless, 
demonstrating this would have been easier if the results and impacts had been made available in 
a  more  structured  way.  Based  on  lessons  learned  with  this  evaluation,  the  Commission  is 
considering  taking  remedial  action  as  part  of  the  EMFF  follow-up  in  2021.  This  will  include 
analysing the longer-term impact, which was not possible here due to the short time that the fund 
has been operational. 

7