REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation System for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
Date: 2022-06-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU control, European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, aquaculture, co-financing, common fisheries policy, data collection, financial control, shipping policy, sustainable fisheries

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.6.2022  COM(2022) 284 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL      on the implementation of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation System for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund   
 
 
Acronyms 

Annual implementation report 
Common fisheries policy 
Common monitoring and evaluation system 
Common Provisions Regulation 

AIR 
CFP 
CMES  
CPR 
DG MARE  Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
EMFF   
European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund 
EMFAF 
European Union 
EU 
Fisheries and aquaculture monitoring and evaluation 
FAME  
Integrated maritime policy 
IMP 
Managing authority 
MA 
Monitoring and evaluation framework 
MEF 
Operational programme 
OP 
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats 
SWOT  

Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 229-91111 
Office: J-99 01/028 - Office: J-99 01/028Tel. +32 229-84666 (direct line) 

 
 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................... 3 

2. 

Implementation of the CMES ...................................................................... 4 

2.1.  EMFF intervention logic ....................................................................... 6 

2.2.  Common indicators ............................................................................... 8 

2.3.  Cumulative data on operations (Infosys) ............................................... 9 

2.4.  AIRs ..................................................................................................... 10 

2.5.  Evaluations .......................................................................................... 11 

2.6.  Performance framework ...................................................................... 13 

3.  Monitoring and evaluation framework of the EMFAF ........................... 13 

4.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 15 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF)  supported  the  EU’s  maritime  and 
fisheries policies from 2014 to 2020. A total of EUR 6.4 billion is available under the fund, 
EUR 5.96 billion  of which  Member States  and the Commission jointly  manage (shared 
management).  This  report  pertains  to  the  budget  under  shared  management  only.  This 
budget is used to foster the sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture, to promote effective 
and  sustainable  marketing  and  processing  of  fishery  and  aquaculture  products,  and  to 
strengthen  fisheries  control  and  improve  the  collection  of  scientific  data  for  fisheries 
management. It helps coastal communities diversify their blue economy and helps make 
the  EU’s  coasts  more  attractive.  It  also  supports  environmental  protection  and  the 
enrichment of aquatic biodiversity.  

A common monitoring and evaluation system (CMES) was set up to monitor the EMFF 
operations financed under shared management1. It helps record and track these operations’ 
achievements.  By  doing  so,  it  provides  transparency  on  the  use  of  public  money  and 
enables  the  evaluation  of  EMFF  support.  A  framework  for  continuous  dialogue, 
maintenance,  support  and  the  sharing  of  experience  between  the  Commission  and  the 
Member States underpins the CMES. The aim of this framework is to provide common, 
comparable  data  that  can  be  aggregated  and  analysed  against  various  criteria  across 
Member States, 

This  is  the  second  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the 
implementation of the CMES. It focuses on developments since the previous report2, sets 
out lessons learned during implementation, and looks at how these have been taken into 
account  in  developing  the  framework  for  the  European  Maritime,  Fisheries  and 
Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) for 2021 to 20273. This report does not give details of the 
achievements  of  the  EMFF.  These  are  given  in  the  EMFF  implementation  reports, 
available on the DG MARE website4. 

As set out in Article 108 of the EMFF Regulation, the CMES’ objectives are:  

a)  to demonstrate the progress and achievements of the common fisheries policy (CFP) 
and the  integrated  maritime policy (IMP), and to consider the general  impact  and 
assess the effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of EMFF operations; 

b)  to contribute to better targeted support for the CFP and the IMP;  
c)  to support a common learning process for monitoring and evaluation; and 
d)  to provide well grounded, evidence-based evaluations of EMFF operations that feed 

into the decision-making process. 

To achieve these objectives, the CMES provides the following5:  

1  Article 107 of 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 (the ‘EMFF Regulation’). 

2  As required in accordance with Article 107(4) of the EMFF Regulation. The first report was published 

in 2018 (COM(2018) 48 final). 

3  Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing 
the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004. 

4 

https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/funding/fisheries-and-aquaculture-monitoring-and-
evaluation-fame_en 

5  Listed in Article 1 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1014/2014. 

3 

 
                                                 
1)  an  intervention  logic  explaining  how  priorities,  specific  objectives  and  measures 

affect each other6; 

2)  a set of common indicators7; 
3)  cumulative data on operations selected for funding8; 
4)  annual implementation reports (AIRs) on operational programmes (OPs)9; 
5)  evaluation plans10; 
6)  ex ante  and  ex post  evaluations  and  other  evaluation  activities  linked  to  EMFF 

programmes11; and 
7)  performance reviews12. 

These aspects are described in detail in the previous report on the implementation of the 
CMES of the EMFF13. This report focuses on new aspects that have emerged since the 
last report. 

2. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CMES 

Each of the aspects described in Section 1 were discussed with the Member States in EMFF 
expert group meetings14. The Commission used these meetings to develop the framework 
of  delegated  and  implementing  regulations  that  support  the  CMES.  This  participative 
approach  was  continued  throughout  the  programming  period,  involving  the  managing 
authorities  (MAs)  in  further  developing  and  strengthening  the  CMES  by  sharing  best 
practice and addressing common issues. This ensured collective ownership and acceptance 
of  the  system,  and  helped  train  and  equip  the  MAs  and  the  Commission  to  perform 
monitoring and evaluation.  

To  ensure  that  Member  States  apply  the  CMES  consistently,  the  Commission  set  up  a 
technical  support  unit,  known  as  FAME  (fisheries  and  aquaculture  monitoring  and 
evaluation)15. This support service was provided by an external contractor over the 7 years 
of the programming period. Feedback, experience and knowledge was collected from the 
MAs and developed with the FAME support unit. Working papers and reports produced 

6  Article 18(1)(a) and Article 116 of the EMFF Regulation. 
7  Article 109 of the EMFF Regulation. The list of common indicators is set out in the Annex to Regulation 

(EU) No 1014/2014. 

8  Article 97(1)(a) of the EMFF Regulation (Infosys Report). 
9  Article 114 of the EMFF Regulation, complementing Article 50 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on 
the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying 
down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the 
Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1083/2006 (the ‘Common Provisions Regulation’ (CPR)). 

10  Article 115 of the EMFF Regulation read together with Article 56 of the CPR. 
11  Articles 115, 116 and 117 of the EMFF Regulation read together with Articles 55, 56 and 57 of the CPR. 
12  Article 21(1) of the CPR. 
13  COM(2018) 48 final. 

14  Documents 

reports 
https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff_en. 

from 

and 

of 

these 

meetings 

are 

available 

at 

15  Further information on FAME is available at https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/fame_en. 

4 

 
                                                 
by FAME are available on the Europa webpage16. FAME helped the Commission and the 
Member States develop, implement and analyse each of the aspects set out in this chapter. 

16   https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/fame_en 

5 

 
 
 
                                                 
What can the CMES tell us about the EMFF? 

The  CMES  combines  monitoring  and  evaluation  information  from  several  sources. 
Information on each operation financed can be combined with contextual information 
on the situation in the Member States, and external databases such as the common fleet 
register.  

  Common result  indicators  convey the highest-level  information.  For  example, 
thanks to EMFF support, 31 594 jobs were maintained in coastal communities 
across the fisheries, aquaculture and processing sectors.  

  Expenditure can be assessed against the EMFF Regulation’s measures for which 
it  was  committed.  For  example,  around  33%  of  total  EMFF  funding  was 
committed to measures supporting biodiversity (EUR 1 637 million). 

  More  detailed  analysis  by  sector  can  also  be  provided.  For  example,  13 123 
individual  vessels  received  EMFF  support.  Around  25%  of  EMFF  spending 
dedicated to vessels was provided for vessels in the small-scale coastal fisheries 
sector (EUR 124 million). 

Each  of  the  examples  provided  can  further  be  broken  down  by  Member  State.  The 
figures relate to the state of EMFF implementation on 31 December 2020. Further details 
and  examples  can  be  found  in  the  EMFF  implementation  reports  on  the  DG  MARE 
website174. 

2.1.  EMFF intervention logic 

The  intervention  logic  describes  how  policy  decisions,  measures  taken  and  the  desired 
outcome  affect  each  other.  It  is  the  backbone  of  monitoring  and  evaluation,  starting  at 
policy level and continuing at the levels of individual programmes and operations.  

Article 5 of the EMFF Regulation sets out the its EU objectives. At policy level, these are 
broken down into EU priorities and specific objectives, as set out in Article 6 of the EMFF 
Regulation.  Each  Member  State  implementing  the  EMFF18  designs  an  OP.  The  OP 
addresses the support needs of the Member State in question by selecting from the available 
set of 51 measures. Member States analyse their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and 
threats (SWOT) to identify their needs. This analysis enables them to decide on appropriate 
measures  and  their  intensity.  Member  States  also  select  appropriate  result  and  output 
indicators, and set target values and milestones for financial, output and result indicators. 
They are used to monitor progress and facilitate evaluation. The OP is approved by the 
Commission.  Throughout  the  implementation  period,  Member  States  may  amend  their 
programmes to reflect changing needs, following Commission approval of the programme. 

The intervention logic was proposed as a predefined structure to address the needs of all 
Member States. However, during implementation, it became apparent that a more flexible 
approach  would  work  better.  Some  aspects  worked  well,  such  as  EU  priorities.  These 
facilitated the aggregation of data at the level of European Structural and Investment (ESI) 

17  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/funding/fisheries-and-aquaculture-monitoring-and-

evaluation-fame_en 

18  All Member States except Luxembourg. 

6 

 
 
                                                 
Funds19.  Other  aspects,  such  as  thematic  objectives20  (i.e.  higher-level  aggregation 
representing the 11 investment priorities of the ESI Funds), proved to be of little relevance 
to the EMFF because it has a comparatively small budget for such high-level analysis.  

In some cases, the rigid links between aspects of the EMFF intervention logic were difficult 
to  work  with.  Links  between  EU  priorities  and  measures  were  created  by  the  EMFF 
Regulation. The Regulation framed some measures very narrowly. For example, it split 
productive  investments  in  aquaculture  into  11 categories.  In  practice,  it  was  found  that 
Member States did not use such narrowly defined measures well. They preferred to provide 
funding under the more broadly framed measures covering the same objectives.  

Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  1014/201421  created  the  link  between  EU 
priorities and common result indicators. Member States’ implementation of measures feeds 
into  the  result  indicators.  Section 2.2  details  the  observations  on  the  common  result 
indicators made over the course of programme implementation. 

During implementation, it was necessary to analyse how EMFF measures, and the nature 
of the operations supported under each measure, helped achieve the CFP’s objectives. For 
this,  ad hoc  methods  were  developed  in  workshops  and  using  technical  expertise.  The 
availability of detailed operation-level data facilitated this analysis. For example, it was 
found  that  operations  implemented  under  11  EMFF  measures  (e.g.  innovation  under 
Article 47, productive investment in aquaculture under points (a) to (d) and (f) to (h) of 
Article 48(1), and aquaculture providing environmental services under Article 54) helped 
achieve  the  CFP  objective  of  promoting  the  development  of  sustainable  aquaculture 
activities. This type of analysis showed the clear value of having detailed information about 
each operation. 

Example:  link  between  EU  priorities,  specific  objectives,  measures  and  result 
indicators  

EU  priority  1  (promoting  environmentally  sustainable,  resource-efficient,  innovative, 
competitive and knowledge-based fisheries) has six specific objectives. 

Each  specific  objective  has  a  corresponding  series  of  measures.  For  example,  the 
permanent cessation of fishing activities and support for systems of allocation of fishing 
opportunities are measures (Articles 34 and 36 of the EMFF Regulation respectively) 
that contribute to the achievement of specific objective 3 (ensuring a balance between 
fishing capacity and available fishing opportunities), under EU priority 1. 

19  https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes/overview-

funding-programmes/european-structural-and-investment-funds_en 

20  https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/what/glossary/t/thematic-objectives 

21   Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1014/2014 of 22 July 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) 
No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 with regards to the content and construction of a common monitoring and evaluation system for 
the operations funded under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (OJ L 283, 27.9.2014, p. 11). 

7 

 
 
                                                 
The  following  common  result  indicators  apply  to  specific  objective 3:  result 
indicator 1.3 (change in net profits) and result indicator 1.6 (change in the percentage of 
unbalanced fleets). 

The  way  monitoring  and  evaluation  data  are  provided  follows  the  structure  of  the 
intervention logic described. Data are provided in three principal formats: 

  cumulative data on operations (Infosys) submitted at the end of March each year;  
  annual implementation reports (AIRs), submitted at the end of May each year; and  
  evaluations conducted before, during and after the programming period. 

These data feed into the set of common result indicators that serve as key illustrators of the 
EMFF’s achievements.   

2.2.  Common indicators 

Overall, the EMFF’s common indicators provided a good basis for monitoring progress in 
implementing it. Their values are reported on the publicly accessible Open Data Portal22. 
Below are the observations made on the indicators. 

  Context  indicators  are  essential  for  the  SWOT  analysis  and  for  determining 
Member  States’  needs.  However,  their  inclusion  in  reporting  had  no  value  for 
monitoring progress. 

  The  most  reliable  output  indicator  was  the  number  of  operations.  It  provided 
simplicity  for  programming  and  reporting,  and  can  be  greatly  improved  by 
combining it with other operation-level data. 

  Some indicators were complex and difficult to use in the field due to a lack of data, 
or differences in data capture between Member States (for example both positive 
and negative changes to the indicators – ‘change in unwanted catches’ or ‘change 
in fuel efficiency of fish capture’ – being considered positive changes).  

  Some indicators were not fully suitable for capturing the direct medium-term effect 
of the EMFF. Instead, they were geared more towards capturing the effects of the 
CFP, independently of the EMFF  (for example ‘change in unwanted catches’ or 
‘change in the coverage of marine protected areas’).   

  MAs avoided more complex indicators. Such indicators were often declared non-
applicable at programme level, or were simply not reported at the level of single 
operations. 

  Various  reporting  errors  occurred  frequently.  Most  of  them  were  due  to  the 
misinterpretation  of indicators’ definitions and varying data  collection practices. 
Definitions were clarified and improved throughout the implementation period by 
regularly  updating  the  working  paper  on  indicator  definitions23.  Other  errors 
occurred due to imprecision in measurement units, for example ‘thousand EUR’ 
instead of simply EUR. These errors were detected and rectified in reporting and 
in programming and by providing revised definitions to improve definition use. 

22  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/  

23  FAME, 

Working 

paper 

on 

definitions 

of 

EMFF 

common 

indicators: 

https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/fame_en. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
  Member States had the option of reporting programme-specific result indicators. 
Their value outside of reporting for the Member State concerned was limited, as 
they could not be aggregated at EU level. 
In practice, it was found that common result indicators only defined and intended 
for use under certain measures may have been equally well suited to use under other 
measures. Experience during implementation showed that a more flexible structure 
would have worked better. 

 

Example: three EMFF common result indicators, representing achievements of 
the fund from 2014 to 2020 

1.  Number  of  operations  financed  by  the  EMFF  which  implement  the  EU's 

control, inspections and enforcement system:   

planned, according to Member State programmes: 954 operations 

implemented, according to Member State AIRs: 615 operations. 

2.  Number  of  new  businesses  created  by  community-led  local  development 

initiatives financed under the EMFF: 

planned, according to Member State programmes: 750 businesses 

implemented, according to Member State AIRs: 486 businesses. 

3.  Employment  maintained  in  the  fisheries  sector  thanks  to  EMFF  support, 

measured in full-time equivalent (FTE) units: 

planned, according to Member State programmes: 22 473 FTEs 

implemented, according to Member State AIRs: 17 985 FTEs 

2.3.  Cumulative data on operations (Infosys) 

In the 2014-2020 period, reporting was introduced pursuant to Article 97(1) of the EMFF 
Regulation. This led to the production of data greatly superior to the data available for the 
European Fisheries Fund (EFF) in the previous period (2007-2014). However, it took some 
time to set up systems in each Member State that were compatible and sufficiently reliable 
to aggregate data, for example by detecting and eliminating unit errors such as reporting 
‘EUR’ instead of  ‘thousand  EUR’. The  FAME support  unit developed several  working 
papers  and  supporting  IT  tools  to  help  set  up  the  systems.  The  tools  were  designed  to 
reduce reporting errors and shorten the time needed to curate and finalise the data before 
they could be used for analysis. 

Infosys provides a well structured,  common and  consistent way of recording data. This 
makes it possible to use Infosys for progress monitoring, evaluation and benchmarking at 
Member  State  level.  At  the  aggregated  EU  level,  it  has  become  an  invaluable  tool  for 
providing reliable data for reporting and decision-making. 

9 

 
 
 
 
What can Infosys tell us about a project? 

Data recorded at the level of an operation helps the Commission understand the story 
behind it. For example, a fisher from Almería (Spain) operating as a micro-enterprise 
implements an EMFF operation related to diversification and new forms of income by 
developing blue-water angling tourism on her vessel. The vessel can be identified by the 
fishing fleet register number, linking to information on the vessel’s size, engine power, 
class and main fishing gears.  

The operation start and end dates are provided. The total cost of operation and funding 
details are provided. For example, half of the funding comes from the EMFF budget and 
the rest is a combination of government and private funding. 

The Nomenclature of  Territorial  Units  for  Statistics (NUTS) code  for the  business  is 
provided,  indicating  the  local  area  the  operation  covers.  The  data  can  also  show  the 
operation’s relevance to the promotion of gender equality in the fisheries sector.  

The  operation  is  implemented  under  Article 30  (‘Diversification  and  new  forms  of 
income’)  of  the  EMFF  Regulation.  The  result  is  measured  by  the  common  indicator 
‘change in net profits’.  

Article 97  of  the  EMFF  Regulation  requires  MAs  to  provide  the  Commission  with 
cumulative data on operations selected for funding. The data, provided at the end of March 
each year, cover implementation until the end of the previous calendar year. Just like the 
reporting systems  of  earlier funding instruments  (the Financial  Instrument for  Fisheries 
Guidance and the EFF), this reporting system is commonly known as Infosys. 

The level of detail provided at operation level through Infosys reporting is unique to the 
EMFF. Two Implementing Regulations24 provide details on the required data and database 
structure.  The  data  describe  progress  and  achievements  at  operation  level  by  capturing 
what is happening on the ground. The data include key information about the beneficiary 
(e.g.  business  size  or  gender)  and  the  operation  (type  of  activities,  budget,  number  of 
fishers concerned, total area concerned, etc.). To limit the administrative burden on MAs 
and  beneficiaries,  most  of  the  Infosys  data  comes  from  information  already  stored  in 
national databases set up to comply with the data recording and storage requirements for 
individual operations. 

2.4.  AIRs 

Under  Article 114  of  the  EMFF  Regulation  and  Article 50  of  the  Common  Provisions 
Regulation (CPR), an AIR for each programme must be transmitted to the Commission by 
31 May  each  year.  AIRs  summarise  the  main  achievements  of  and  challenges  in 
implementing  OPs.  Just  like  Infosys,  AIRs  cover  implementation  until  the  end  of  the 
previous  calendar  year.  The  Commission  and  the  Member  States  use  the  overview  of 
implementation  the  AIRs provide  to  review achievements and make adjustments  where 
necessary. 

24  Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1242/2014 and (EU) No 1243/2014. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
AIRs  provide  two  types  of  information:  qualitative  information  describing  the  main 
achievements and challenges, and quantitative information containing aggregated data in 
tabular form. They also contain an indicative financial allocation at measure level. 

AIRs  are  valuable  sources  of  information,  particularly  on  the  narrative  of  how  the 
implementation of the programme has developed over the programming period, what has 
been successful, and where there are difficulties and challenges.  

The information in an AIR pertains to implementation at the end of the previous December. 
Factoring in the time it takes for the report to be prepared, submitted and accepted and for 
any necessary revisions to be made, the data in the report are usually about 9 months old 
at the time of publication.  

AIR  data  are  also  used  to  aggregate  data  at  the  level  of  the  ESI  Funds,  and  are  made 
publicly available on the Open Data Portal25. Infosys, on the other hand, is used for more 
technical and detailed analysis. Having two separate reporting streams for quantitative data 
has  made  analysis  more  complex.  This  is  because  the  resulting  data  sets  need  to  be 
compared to detect differences and errors. 

What does an AIR tell us about implementation? 

AIRs provide information on issues affecting the implementation and performance of 
the  programme  by  describing  the  national  economic  and  legal  environment.  This  is 
important information for the Commission to be able to formulate observations and work 
with  the Member States  on their specific challenges to  improve implementation. The 
reports  provide  details  of  support  for  small-scale  coastal  fisheries,  for  example  the 
replacement or modernisation of main or ancillary engines.   

AIRs  also  describe  activities  that  are  part  of  the  programme’s  evaluation  plan,  and 
summarise  the  evaluations  conducted.  The  2017  and  2019  reports  included  special 
sections providing additional information on support for climate change objectives and 
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 

2.5.  Evaluations 

Member States conducted ex ante evaluations26 as a basis for programme design. These 
evaluations were submitted to the Commission together with the OPs. The Commission 
drew  up  a  synthesis  of  the  ex ante  evaluations27.  This  synthesis  showed  that  the  main 
benefit of ex ante evaluation was the support it provided in performing SWOT analyses, 
identifying programmes’ specific intervention needs, and quantifying indicator targets.  

Each  programme  also  includes  an  evaluation  plan  to  ensure  regular  evaluations  and 
appropriate follow-up. Evaluations should assess the effectiveness, efficiency and impact 

25  https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/  

26  Article 55 of the CPR. 

27  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a47f1ad1-055d-11e7-8a35-01aa75ed71a1   

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
of the EMFF28. At least once during the programming period, an evaluation should assess 
how  EMFF  support  has  helped  achieve  the  objectives  for  each  EU  priority.  These 
evaluations will feed into the ex post evaluation of the EMFF, due by the end of 202429. 

The most frequent type of evaluation conducted by the Member States are evaluations of 
processes and procedures. Most of these were structured to evaluate the effectiveness and 
efficiency of processes at the level of the OP, by specific objective and measure. Examples 
of specific evaluations conducted include: 

  an evaluation of the implementation of community-led local development;  

  a cost-benefit analysis of a decommissioning scheme; 

  an evaluation of a lobster V-notching scheme; 

  an evaluation of a sustainable fisheries scheme; 

  an evaluation of recirculating aquaculture systems; 

  an impact assessment of the blue economy sectors; and 

  an ex ante assessment of the use of financial instruments. 

According to information on evaluations provided in the AIRs, three main outcomes were 
identified: 

  OP amendments in line with observations made in evaluations, mostly to reallocate 
funding from measures that attracted less interest to measures in greater demand; 

 

 

the simplification, streamlining and adjustment of national rules and procedures; 
and 

the  development  of  ideas  and  draft  programme  structures  for  the  European 
Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF).     

The  evaluation  synthesis  of  the  AIRs  and  the  evaluation  support  and  capacity  building 
workshops30  of  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture  monitoring  and  evaluation  (FAME)  unit 
showed  that  the  quality  and  extent  of  evaluations  varied  significantly  across  Member 
States. The quality and extent of evaluations depended a lot on: 

 

 

 

the  organisation  of  the  MAs  and  their  effectiveness  in  overseeing  the  national 
programme; 

the contracted experts’ level of expertise; and 

the degree of preparation and expertise applied to: 

o  defining the terms of reference for an evaluation; 

o  drafting suitable evaluation questions; and 

o  specifying the selection criteria for tenders for evaluations. 

28  Article 115 of the EMFF Regulation and Article 56 of the CPR. 

29  Article 57 of the CPR. 

30  Workshops to help managing authorities improve the quality and depth of their activities. For example 
helping  to  design  specific,  targeted  evaluation  questions  suitable  to  the  resources  and  information 
available for the work.  

12 

 
                                                 
Member States reported difficulties in deciding on the number and scope of the evaluation 
questions, resulting in an evaluation that could be either too general or too focused on a 
specific topic, depending on the available time and budget. 

Examples of evaluations assessing performance and implementation 

In 2020 a Member State carried out an evaluation of performance and an evaluation of 
the  implementation  process.  The  performance  evaluation  focused  on  how  effective 
EMFF  measures  had  been  in  achieving  the  OP’s  specific  objectives  and  targets.  The 
evaluation of the implementation process  assessed the effectiveness and efficiency of 
the  delivery  mechanism  of  EMFF  support,  by  assessing  management  structures  and 
implementation methods.  

Based on the evaluations, the Member State decided to keep the targets for programme 
implementation under review, and to reallocate funds from measures unlikely to spend 
their  full  allocation  to  measures  in  greater  demand.  The  ensuing  recommendations 
suggested  streamlining  the  number  of  interventions  to  make  administration  more 
efficient and provide more clarity for applicants. They also suggested improving the IT 
system and simplifying programme management procedures, especially enabling online 
grant processing.  

2.6.  Performance framework 

Articles 21 and 22 of the CPR provide the basis for the performance framework and its 
application  to  the  review  of  programmes.  The  performance  review  examined  the 
achievement of the milestones of the programmes at the level of EU priorities, using the 
information presented in the AIRs submitted by the Member States in 2019.  

For each EMFF programme, the Commission adopted decisions on the EU priorities that 
had achieved their milestones (financial and output indicators). The performance reserve 
(i.e. 5%-7% of the allocation to each priority, as decided by the Member State in question) 
was  allocated  to  these  priorities.  The  performance  reserve  for  priorities  that  had  not 
achieved their milestones was reallocated to priorities that had done so. 

The performance  framework, in  particular the review  of programmes, required analysis 
and  the  adoption  of  decisions.  The  review  did  provide  an  incentive  to  improve 
implementation,  but 
incentive  was  not  very  strong.  The  consequence  of 
underperformance was the mandatory transfer of funds from one EU priority to another. 
This tallies with the logical action of the MA to  improve implementation under normal 
circumstances, even without the review. 

the 

3.  MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK OF THE EMFAF 

The monitoring and evaluation framework (MEF) of the EMFAF was set up as part of the 
performance  framework  of  the  EU  budget31.  This  performance  framework  includes 
concepts  such  as  core  performance  indicators,  harmonised  reporting  and  tracking  of 
expenditure  for  horizontal  aspects  such  as  climate  and  the  environment.  Each  fund 

31  Described in COM(2021) 366 final. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                 
therefore has a tailor-made framework. The MEF of the EMFAF is based on the experience 
gained  during  the  implementation  of  the  EMFF,  as  described  in  Section 2.  The  current 
section briefly describes the novelties of the MEF. The full details will be published in a 
working paper that will be made available on the EMFAF page of DG MARE’s website32. 

The EMFAF intervention logic is more flexible than that of the EMFF. There are fewer 
priorities  and  fewer  specific  objectives  and  the  well  defined,  detailed  measures  of  the 
EMFF are no longer used as a programming and monitoring tool. Instead, Member States 
have the freedom to choose and define tailor-made measures for their specific needs.  

Member States also have the freedom to choose the most suitable common result indicators 
to measure the effects of their action. The indicators are set out in the EMFAF Regulation33 
and the number of indicators was reduced from 35 under the EMFF to 22 (25 including 
sub-indicators). They were simplified and described in a way that should eliminate many 
of the uncertainties and errors related to the EMFF’s indicators. 

Under  the  EMFAF,  Member  States  do  not  submit  AIRs.  Instead,  they  report  more 
structured and more regular quantitative data, as specified in the 2021-2027 CPR34. Twice 
a year, these quantitative data are complemented by operation-level implementation data 
(Infosys).  Annual  performance  review  meetings  between  the  MA  and  the  Commission 
provide the opportunity to address qualitative aspects of the programme. 

Evaluations  remain  a  key  aspect  of  the  framework.  Member  States  must  evaluate  their 
programmes  based  on  one  or  more  of  the  following  criteria:  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance, coherence and Union added value35. The aim is to improve the quality of the 
design  and  implementation  of  programmes.  Evaluations  may  also  cover  other  relevant 
criteria  such  as  inclusiveness,  non-discrimination  and  visibility.  The  framework  also 
provides for an interim and final evaluation of the EMFAF’s implementation. 

Article 16 of the 2021-2027 CPR sets up the performance framework. The framework sets 
milestones  and  targets  for  output  and  result  indicators,  and  links  them  to  specific 
objectives. This facilitates monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the Fund’s performance 
during  the  implementation  period.  The  EMFAF  Regulation  does  not  provide  for  a 
performance review and subsequent allocation of a performance reserve. 

Table 1 provides an overview of the most significant differences between the 2014-2020 
period and the 2021-2027 period. Overall, monitoring and evaluation as part of the EMFAF 
framework  has  been  simplified  and  offers  greater  consistency  and  flexibility  than  the 
EMFF framework. 

Table 1: Comparison of the EMFF and EMFAF MEFs 

32  https://ec.europa.eu/oceans-and-fisheries/funding/emfaf_en  

33  Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing 
the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004.  

34  Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down 
common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the 
Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund 
and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security 
Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy.  

35  Article 44 of the 2021-2027 CPR. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
Aspect 

2014-2020 CMES (EMFF) 

2021-2027 MEF (EMFAF) 

Intervention logic 
Priorities 

Specific objectives 
Measures 

Predefined 
6 

17 
Predefined in the EMFF Regulation 

Context indicators 
Result indicators 
Output indicators 
Types of operation 
Reporting annually  Once 

53 
35 including sub-indicators 
28 
160 

Yes, part of the OP 
Ex ante evaluation in 2015 (Member 
States), evaluations during the 
implementation period (Member 
States), ex post evaluation in 2024 
(Commission) 
Included, but no guidance provided 

Evaluation plan 
Evaluation 

Performance 
framework 

Source: FAME, 2021 

4.  CONCLUSION 

More flexible with fewer constraints  
4 

10 
No measures; Member States specify their 
types of action at specific objective level 
(ineligible action is excluded) 
None 
25 including sub-indicators 
1 
66 

Operation-level data: twice; financial data: 
three times 
Yes, internal document 
Evaluations during the implementation period 
(Member States), interim evaluation in 2024 
(Commission), impact evaluation in 2029 
(Member States), ex post evaluation in 2031 
(Commission) 
Included; Member States received a 
performance framework methodology paper36 

When the CMES of the EMFF was set up in 2014, it delivered comparable reporting at 
operation  level  across  Member  States  for  the  first  time.  The  system  was  based  on  a 
predefined intervention logic and a set of common indicators.  Its rigid structure created 
some difficulties, for example issues related to the level of detail describing the measures 
to implement the funding, various interpretations of requirements and definitions across 
Member States, and different scales of intervention compared to the other ESI Funds. The 
Commission, with the assistance of the FAME support unit, has worked continuously to 
address these issues. FAME has also provided the necessary support, analysis and training 
for both Member States and the Commission. The workshops, working papers and ad hoc 
support  drew  on  collective  experience  and  greatly  harmonised  and  improved  MAs’ 
capacity  to  collect  data  on,  report  on  and  evaluate  the  EMFF’s  performance.  The 
experience  gained  in  implementing  the  EMFF  has  been  central  in  developing  a  leaner, 
simplified framework with greater reporting frequency for the 2021-2027 period. 

36  The working paper on the performance framework methodology was distributed and presented in June 
2021. Its purpose is to facilitate programme approval, to provide a template for the intervention logic of 
the  Member  States’  programmes,  and  to  provide  a  basis  for  selecting  indicators  and  specifying  (and 
subsequently revising) milestones, targets and financial estimates. These aspects can provide a basis for 
the  monitoring  and  evaluation  plan  to  be  drafted  at  a  later  stage  and  to  give  programmers  and 
stakeholders guidance on storing knowledge in their organisations. 

15