COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION to the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Guinea-Bissau Accompanying the document Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of the negotiations on behalf of the European Union for the conclusion of an Implementing Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau
Date: 2024-01-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Guinea-Bissau, catch area, catch quota, fishing agreement, fishing rights, negotiation of an agreement (EU), protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement, sea fishing, sustainable fisheries

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.1.2024  SWD(2024) 5 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  to the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Guinea-Bissau Accompanying the document Recommendation for a Council Decision  authorising the opening of the negotiations on behalf of the European Union for the conclusion of an Implementing Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau         {COM(2024) 10 final} - {SWD(2024) 6 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 

Purpose of the evaluation ............................................................................................................ 1 

Scope of the evaluation ............................................................................................................... 1 

Methodology of the evaluation.................................................................................................... 2 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ......................... 4 

2.1 

Description of the intervention and its objectives ........................................................... 4 

2.1.1 

2.1.2 

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs) ............................................. 4 

Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau  6 

2.2 

Points of comparison ....................................................................................................... 9 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ......... 12 

Current state of play .................................................................................................................. 12 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

Joint Committee and Joint Scientific Committee meetings........................................... 12 

Access component ......................................................................................................... 13 

Technical conditions...................................................................................................... 23 

Sectoral support component .......................................................................................... 25 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS.................................................................................................. 29 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ............................................ 29 

How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? ................................... 38 

Is the intervention still relevant? ................................................................................... 40 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................... 40 

6.  EX-ANTE EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 42 

6.1 

6.2 

6.3 

6.4 

6.4.1 

6.4.2 

Problem analysis and needs assessment ........................................................................ 42 

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

Policy and management objectives ............................................................................... 45 

Policy options, including associated risks ..................................................................... 45 

Option A .................................................................................................................... 45 

Option B .................................................................................................................... 45 

6.5 

Results and impacts ....................................................................................................... 48 

6.5.1 

6.5.2 

6.5.3 

Option A .................................................................................................................... 48 

Option B .................................................................................................................... 49 

Preferred option ......................................................................................................... 50 

6.6  Monitoring of a future implementing Protocol ............................................................. 50 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................ 52 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED .................................... 53 

ANNEX  III.  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  DETAILS  ON 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ........................... 56 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ............................................................. 66 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................... 68 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Definition 

ACP 

CECAF 

CFP 

EEZ 

ERS 

EU 

FAO 

FMC 

GNB 

ICCAT  

Africa, Caribbean and Pacific 

Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic  

Common Fisheries Policy 

Exclusive Economic  Zone  

Electronic Reporting System  

European Union 

Food and Agriculture Organisation 

Fisheries Monitoring Centre 

Gross National Benefit 

International Commission for the Conservation of 
Atlantic Tunas 

IUU fishing 

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing. 

JSC 

JSM 

MCS 

RFMOs 

SFPAs 

VMS 

WB 

Joint Scientific Committees  

Joint Scientific Meetings  

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance  

Regional Fisheries Management Organisations 

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements 

Vessel Monitoring System 

World Bank 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose of the evaluation  

In the framework of the external dimension of the EU's Common Fishery Policy (CFP)1, 
implements  Sustainable  Fisheries  Partnership 
the  Commission  negotiates  and 
Agreements  (SFPAs)  with  third  countries.  The  SFPAs  create  a  legal,  environmental 
economic  and  social  governance  framework  for  fishing  activities  carried  out  by  Union 
fishing  vessels  in  third country waters.  In exchange,  the EU provides  a partner country 
with financial compensation for access to its waters and financial assistance to implement 
a national strategy for fisheries and blue economy. The EU contribution is complemented 
by fees payable by EU vessel owners. 

According  to  Article  3(1)(d)  and  (e)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European 
Union, the EU has exclusive powers on the conservation of marine biological resources 
under  the  CFP  and  the  common  commercial  policy.  The  European  Commission  is 
therefore responsible for the negotiation and implementation of the SFPAs.  

According  to  Article  31(10)  of  the  CFP  Basic  Regulation1,  the  European  Commission 
shall  arrange  for  independent  ex-ante  and  ex-post  evaluations  for  each  implementing 
protocol  to  a  SFPA,  before  it  submits  to  the  Council  of  the  EU  a  recommendation  to 
authorise the opening of negotiations for a successor protocol.  

This obligation is complemented by Article 34 of the Financial Regulation2, according to 
which Commission Services have to undertake both ex-ante and ex-post evaluations, in 
the form of SWD, for all programmes and activities which entail significant spending. 

Importantly, under Article 31(5) of the CFP Basic Regulation1, Union vessels cannot fish 
if  there  is  no  protocol  implementing  an  SFPA  between  the  EU  and  a  third  country.  In 
order  for  Union  vessels  to  continue  fishing  under  an  SFPA  after  an  implementing 
protocol expires, a successor protocol must be negotiated.  

Scope of the evaluation  

This  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)  makes  an  ex-ante  and  an  ex-post  evaluation 
covering  the  application  of  the  current  implementing  Protocol  (hereinafter,  the 
implementing Protocol) of the Fisheries Partnership  concluded between the EU and the 

1  Regulation  (EU)  1380/2013  of  11  December  2013  on  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (OJ  L354, 

28.12.2013, p. 22) 

2 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on 
the  financial  rules  applicable  to  the  general  budget  of  the  Union,  amending  Regulations  (EU) 
No 1296/2013,  (EU)  No 1301/2013,  (EU)  No 1303/2013,  (EU)  No 1304/2013,  (EU)  No 1309/2013, 
(EU)  No 1316/2013,  (EU)  No 223/2014,  (EU)  No 283/2014,  and  Decision  No 541/2014/EU  and 
repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1). 

1 

 
 
 
Republic  of  Guinea-Bissau  Agreement  (hereinafter,  the  Agreement).  These  evaluations 
are primarily informed by an evaluation study conducted by an independent consultant3. 

The  ex-post  evaluation  covers  most  of  the  period  of  application  of  the  current 
implementing  Protocol  of  the  Agreement,  starting  from  the  June  2019  to  June  2023.  It 
provides  an  overall  assessment  of  the  implementing  Protocol,  drawing  conclusions  in 
terms of its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, acceptance,  EU added value 
of the intervention. The detailed evaluation questions corresponding to  these evaluation 
criteria can be found in Annex III and further addressed in section 4.  

The  ex-ante  evaluation  analyses  the  relevant  objectives  for  the  Agreement  and  its 
implementing protocol, considering the current and future needs for this intervention.  It 
considers the lessons learned from previous implementing protocols and the results of the 
ex-post evaluation of the current implementing Protocol.  

Finally, the ex-ante evaluation considers and draws conclusions on the possible impacts 
of the following three policy scenarios: 

•  A renegotiation of the current implementing Protocol for the Agreement;  

•  A negotiation of an improved implementing protocol for the Agreement;  

•  No negotiation of a successor implementing protocol for the Agreement.  

Methodology of the evaluation  

The  results  of  this  SWD  are  mainly  informed  by  an  evaluation  study  conducted  by  an 
independent  consultant.  This  evaluation  study  took  place  from  January  to  June  2023 
under  the  guidance  of  an  interservice  group  established  by  different  services  of  the 
European  Commission  and  within  the  framework  of  the  terms  of  reference  of  specific 
contract  number  4  under 
the  framework  contract  MARE/2021/OP/0001.  The 
methodology  of  this  evaluation  study  consisted  of  three  main  components:  analysis  of 
available information, consultations, and preparation of an evaluation report. 

On  the  analysis  of  available  information,  DG  MARE  provided  all  relevant  internal 
documents  and  databases  to  the  independent  consultant.  Other  external  documentation 
was  also  used,  such  as  regulatory  texts  and  reports  from  relevant  scientific  working 
groups.  

On  the  consultation,  the  independent  consultant  consulted  stakeholders  in  the  EU  and 
Guinea-Bissau. EU stakeholders were consulted between March and May 2023. Guinea-
Bissau stakeholders were consulted during the consultant’s field mission to Bissau from 
17 to 24 April 2023. Moreover, a ‘call for evidence’ document was also published in the 
Commission’s  Have  Your  Say  Portal  for  feedback  for  the  period  of  13  June  -  11  July 

3 Étude d'évaluation rétrospective et prospective du protocole à l'accord de partenariat dans le secteur de la 

pêche entre l'Union européenne et la Guinée-Bissau (2023) 

2 

 
 
20234.  Nevertheless,  the  document  attracted  only  one  feedback5.  See  more  detailed 
information about the stakeholder consultations in Annex V ‘Synopsis Report’. 

The evaluation study was submitted to the European Commission in June 2023 and  the 
overall  level  and  quality  of  findings  gathered  is  robust.  Nevertheless,  the  following 
general elements should be highlighted:  

•  This SWD, and the evaluation study on which it is based, considers all information 
available as of June 2023. It does not consider information beyond this date because 
the  evaluation  must  be  finalized  at  least  a  year  before  the  expiry  date  of  the 
implementing  Protocol  to  obtain  a  mandate  for  negotiation  and  subsequently 
negotiate a successor protocol.  

•  Previously,  the assessments  of the state and potential  of the stocks of demersal  and 
small  pelagic  species  were  affected  by  the  unavailability  of  updated  analysis  and 
recommendations  from  the  Fisheries  Committee  for  the  Eastern  Central  Atlantic 
(CECAF),  and  the  limited  fisheries  statistics  available  in  Guinea-Bissau.  This 
limitation has been addressed by the work of the Joint Scientific Committee, which 
included the reconstruction of statistical series on industrial fishing catches and effort 
by  all  fleets  from  2000-2020.  This  database  has  been  valuable  in  conducting  stock 
assessment analyses and providing information to be shared with CECAF. 

Detailed information on the methodology, including how the supporting evaluation study 
was conducted can be found in Annex II.  

4 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13735-EU-Guinea-Bissau-
fisheries-agreement-negotiation-mandate-for-a-new-protocol_en  
5 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13735-EU-Guinea-Bissau-
fisheries-agreement-negotiation-mandate-for-a-new-protocol/feedback_en?p_id=32185481 

3 

 
 
 
 
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1   Description of the intervention and its objectives 

2.1.1  Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs) 

The  CFP  Basic  Regulation  covers  the  conservation  of  marine  biological  resources  and 
the  management  of  fisheries  and  fleets  exploiting  such  resources  within  Union  waters 
and  by  Union  fishing  vessels  outside  Union  waters.  The  first  fisheries  agreements 
between the EU and third countries date back to the late 1980s and are enshrined in the 
CFP.  In  accordance  with  UN  Sustainable  Development  Goal  14  (life  below  water),  the 
SFPAs should contribute towards resource conservation and environmental sustainability 
of  the  exploitation  of  living  marine  resources  of  a  coastal  partner  State.  The  SFPAs 
should  also  contribute  to  efficient  data  collection;  monitoring,  control  and  surveillance 
measures; and the respect for democratic principles and human rights.  

The SFPAs establish a legal, environmental economic and social governance framework 
for fishing activities carried out by Union fishing vessels in third country waters. Under 
the  framework  of  the  SFPAs,  Union  vessels  shall  only  catch  surplus  of  the  allowable 
catch,  as  referred  to  in  Article  62(2)  and  (3)  of  the  United  Nations  Convention  on  the 
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)6. This surplus must be identified, in a clear and transparent 
manner, on the basis of the best available scientific advice. In addition, in order to ensure 
the  sustainable  exploitation  of  surpluses  of  marine  biological  resources,  the  EU  must 
endeavour to ensure that the SFPAs are mutually beneficial to the Union and to the third 
country concerned, including its local population and fishing industry. 

In  terms  of  financial  compensation,  the  EU  provides  a  partner  country  with  financial 
compensation  for  access  to  its  waters  and  financial  assistance  to  implement  a  national 
strategy  for  fisheries  and  the  blue  economy.  The  EU  contribution  is  complemented  by 
fees payable by EU vessel owners. 

Importantly,  SFPAs  are  exclusive  and  rendered  operational  only  through  their 
implementing  Protocols.  In  order  for  Union  vessels  to  continue  fishing  under  an  SFPA 
after an implementing protocol expires, a successor protocol must be negotiated.  

The implementation of an SFPA and its implementing protocol is monitored by a Joint 
Committee  composed  of  representatives  from  both  parties,  as  well  as  a  Joint  Scientific 
Committee composed of scientists from both parties.  

6 https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
In  July  2011,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on  the  external  dimension  of 
the  CFP7  and  proposed  several  actions  to  reform  SFPAs.  The  Council  adopted 
Conclusions  regarding  the  External  Dimension  of  the  CFP  on  19  March  20128  and  the 
European Parliament expressed its views in a report adopted in November 20129.  

General and specific objectives of Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements 

The  overarching  objective  of  the  external  dimension  of  the  CFP  is  to  promote  high 
standards  in  terms  of  fisheries  management  at  the  international  and  regional  levels  as 
well as under bilateral agreements, with the aim to ensure a level playing field. General 
and specific objectives of SFPAs are the following5: 

1)  To  contribute  towards  resource  conservation  and  environmental  sustainability 
through  rational  and  sustainable  exploitation of  living  marine  resources  of  the 
coastal state, in particular by: 

a.  directing fisheries exclusively at surplus resources and preventing the overfishing of 
stocks, on the basis of the best  scientific advice and  reinforced transparency on the 
global fishing efforts in third countries' waters;  

b.  following  the  same  principle  and  promoting  the  same  standards  for  fisheries 

management as applied in EU waters; 

c.  improving the scientific and technical evaluation of the fisheries concerned (notably 

by improving data collection and transparency on fishing efforts); and 

d.  ensuring compliance and combating IUU fishing. 
2)  To contribute to continuing the activity of the Union fleets and the employment 

linked to the fleets operating within SFPAs by: 

a.  seeking appropriate share of the surplus resources, fully commensurate with the EU 

fleets interests; 

b.  ensuring  that  the  level  of  fees  payable  by  Union  ship-owners  for  their  fishing 
activities  is  fair,  non-discriminatory  and  commensurate  to  the  benefits  provided 
through  the  access  conditions  while  avoiding  any  discriminatory  treatment  towards 
EU vessels and promoting a level playing field among the different fleets; 
c.  ensuring supply for the EU and for the markets of certain developing countries; 
d.  encouraging  the  creation  of  a  secure  environment  that  is  favourable  to  private 

investment and economic activities; and 

e.  taking into account the specific interests of the Union's outermost regions located in 

the vicinity. 

3)  To support the development of a sustainable fisheries sector in partner countries 

by: 

a.  contributing  to  the  capacity  building  in  the  third  countries  (notably  by  improving 

fisheries legal framework, control and surveillance and science); 

b.  defining annual and multiannual objectives to be achieved with the aim of developing 

sustainable fishing activities; 

c.  assessment  of  the  results  obtained  in  terms  of  impacts,  and  also  on  budgetary  and 

financial requirements; and 

7 Communication from the Commission to the European parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the regions on the External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy, 
COM(2011)424 final, of 13.7.2011. 
8  Council 
(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/129052.pdf) 
9 European Parliament’s report on the External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy, of 22.11.2012. 

the  CFP,  19.03.2012,  7086/12 

external  dimension  of 

conclusions  on 

the 

5 

 
 
d.  promoting 

the  employment  of 

infrastructures  and 
local  seamen, 
encouraging landings, supporting the third country in developing local fisheries and 
processing industry. 

improving 

2.1.2  Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic 

of Guinea-Bissau 

The  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreement  between  the  EU  and  the  Republic  of  Guinea-
Bissau,  and  its  current  implementing  Protocol,  provide  fishing  opportunities  to  fish  for 
Union fishing vessels in Guinea-Bissau’s waters and provides significant sectoral support 
for the sustainable development of the national fisheries and blue economy sectors.  

It  establishes  the  principles  on  the  economic,  financial,  technical  and  scientific 
cooperation  in  the  fisheries  sector  with  a  view  to  promoting  responsible  fishing  in 
Guinea-Bissau’s  waters  to  ensure  the  conservation  and  sustainable  exploitation  of 
fisheries resources and develop the Guinea-Bissau fisheries sector.  

The Agreement entered into force on 16 June 2007 and has been tacitly renewed every 
four  years.  The  previous  implementing  protocol  with  Guinea-Bissau  expired  on  23 
November 2017. Negotiations were interrupted for more than a year and a half due to the 
political  situation 
implementing  Protocol  applies 
provisionally  from  15  June  2019  until  14  June  2024,  following  the  adoption  by  the 
Council  of  the  EU  on  6  June  2019  of  the  decision  on  its  signature  and  provisional 
application.  

the  country.  The  current 

in 

There  are two main types of SFPAs: bilateral  agreements for highly migratory species, 
(such as tunas and tuna-like species), and multi-species agreements. Unlike most SFPAs, 
the agreement with  Guinea-Bissau is  a multi-species agreement. Species  covered under 
the  current  Protocol  are  demersal  species  (crustaceans,  cephalopods  and  fish),  small 
pelagics and highly migratory species. On the basis of fishing capacity (based on gross 
register tonnage or GRT), the current Protocol provides fishing opportunities for shrimp 
freezer trawlers (3 700 GRT a year), fin-fish and cephalopod freezer trawlers (3 500 GRT 
a  year)  and  small  pelagic  trawlers  (15  000  GRT  a  year).  Tuna  freezer  seiner  and  long 
liners  (28  vessels)  and  pole-and-line  tuna  vessels  (13  vessels)  are  also  included.  The 
Protocol allows EU vessels from Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, France, Lithuania, Latvia 
and Poland to fish in Guinea-Bissau’s waters. 

The current Protocol includes an annual EU financial contribution for access  – EUR 11 
600  000  -  and  for  sectoral  support  –  EUR  4  000  000.    The  EU  contribution  is 
complemented by fees payable by EU vessel owners on licences and catches.  

The  following  table  sets  out  the  main  features  of  the  Protocol  implementing  the  EU-
Guinea-Bissau FPA for the period 2019-2024. 

Figure 1. Main elements of the current implementing Protocol of the Fisheries 
Partnership Agreement between the EU and Guinea-Bissau 

6 

 
 
Duration of the 
Agreement 
Date of entry into force 
of the Agreement 
Date of entry into force 
of the Protocol 
Duration of the 
Protocol 
EU fishing 
opportunities  

EU financial 
contribution  

Licence and catches 
fees paid by the EU 
operators 

Four years renewable 

16 June 2007 

15 June 2019 

5 years : 15 June 2019 – 14 June 2024 

Demersal and small pelagic species 

•  Freezer fin-fish and cephalopod trawlers: 3,500 GRT per year 
in  years  1  and  2,  then total  allowable  catch  (TAC) of  11,000 
tons per year from year 3 onwards. 

•  Freezer shrimp trawlers: 3,700 GRT per year in years 1 and 2, 
then  a  total  allowable  catch  (TAC)  of  2,500  tonnes  per  year 
from year 3 onwards. 

•  Small pelagic trawlers: 15,000 GRT per year in years 1 and 2, 
then a total allowable catch (TAC) of 18,000 tonnes per year 
from year 3 onwards. 

Highly migratory species  

• 28 freezer tuna seiners and surface longliners 
• 13 pole-and-line tuna vessels 

•  11 600 000 EUR per year for access 
•  4 000 000 EUR per year for sectoral support 

Demersal and small pelagic species 

•  Freezer  fin-fish and  cephalapod trawlers: 282 EUR / GRT  for 
years 1 et 2 and then 90 EUR / t of demersal catches and 270 
EUR / t of cephalopod catches from year 3) 

•  Freezer  shrimp  trawlers:  395  EUR  /  GRT  per  year  in  years  1 

and 2, then 280 EUR / t from year 3) 

•  Small pelagic trawlers: 250 EUR / GRT per year in years 1 and 
2,  then  100  EUR  /  t  (vessels  over  1  000  GT)  and  75  EUR  /  t 
(vessels under 1 000 GT) from year 3 onwards.) 

Highly migratory species 

•  Freezer tuna seiners: EUR 70/t with a non-recoverable lump-

sum advance of EUR 4,500 for 64.3 t 

•  Surface  tuna  longliners:  EUR  55/t  with  a  non-recoverable 

lump-sum advance of EUR 3,000 for 54.5 t 

•  Tuna  pole-and-line:  EUR  55/t  with  a  non-recoverable  fixed 

advance of EUR 2,500 for 45.5 t 
•  Support vessels: EUR 3,000 per year 

The sectoral support component is used for programmed activities in the following areas: 
(1) reinforcing the monitoring, inspection and surveillance of fisheries activities and the 
fight  against  illegal,  unregulated  and  unreported  fishing;  (2)  improved  scientific 
knowledge  on  fish  stocks;  (3)  improved  fisheries  statistics;  (4)  support  for  small-scale 
fisheries; and (5) strengthening international cooperation. 

7 

 
 
Figure  2  provides  a  visual  description  of  the  intervention  logic.  It  seeks  to  connect  the 
needs, objectives, actions and expected achievements. The latter is discussed in terms of 
the outputs, results and impacts of the implementing Protocol.  

Figure 2. Intervention logic of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and 
the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, and its current implementing Protocol  

Needs

Establish a legal, 
environmental, 
economic and social 
governance framework 
for fishing activities 
carried out by Union 
fishing vessels in 
Guinea-Bissau

Contribute to the 
objectives of the 
external dimension of 
the CFP

Objectives

To contribute towards 
resource conservation 
and environmental 
sustainability through 
rational and sustainable 
exploitation of living 
marine resources of 
Guinea-Bissau

To contribute to 
continuing the activity 
of the Union fleet and 
the employment linked 
to the fleet operating 
within Guinea-Bissau

To support the 
development of a 
sustainable fisheries 
sector in Guinea-Bissau

Inputs

EU public financial 
contribution on access 
(EUR 11.6 million) and 
sectoral support (EUR 4 
million) on an annual 
basis 

EU operators private 
contrbution for licence 
and captures

Administrative 
resources of the 
European Commission, 
Guinea-Bissau and 
Member States, and 
scientific institutes

Results

Union fleet exploits surplus fishing resources, in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) 
2019/1089

Consistent standards for fisheries management are promoted in the EU and  Guinea-
Bissau

Improved scientific scientific and technical knowledge and advice, and better 
understanding of fisheries resources for informed decision-making

Improved sustainable fisheries management, including measures that are in place and IUU 
fishing is actively combated

EU fleets receive a fair share of surplus  resources, in alignment with EU interests

Fees for Union ship-owners are non-discriminatory and commensurate with access 
benefits, promoting a level-playing field among fleets

Supply of fish resources is ensured for the EU and Guinea-Bissau

Support for the creation of a secure environment that is favourable to private investment 
and economic activities in the fisheries sector of Guinea-Bissau

Guinea-Bissau's capacity is strenghtened through improved legal frameworks, control, 
surveillance and scientific capabilities

Defined annual and multiannual objectives with the aim of developing sustainable fishing 
activities in Guinea-Bissau, in particular, through the implementation of the national 
fisheries strategy

Assement of the results obtained in terms of impacts, budgetary and financial 
requirements

Local seamen are employed and local fisheries and processing infrastructure is improved

Impacts

Improved 
resource 
conservation 
and 
environmental 
sustainability in 
Guinea-Bissau 

Continued 
activities of the 
Union fleet and 
the employment 
linked to its 
operations

Improved 
sustainable 
development of 
the national 
fisheries sector 
in Guinea-Bissau

Outputs

Exploitation of fishing opportunities by the Union fleet in Guinea-Bissau, in accordance with the Protocol
and the Agreement

Conclusions of the Joint Committee meetings and follow-up measures, as necessary

Scientific analysis and recommendations of the Joint Scientific Committee and follow-up measures, as
necessary

Economic interaction between Union fleet and the national fishing sector in Guinea-Bissau

Employment of EU nationals and ACP seamen on Union fishing vessels

Establishment and implementation of the sectoral support programmes, according to national strategy

Participation in regional and international meetings

Monitoring and implementation of the Protocol and the Agreement through the Joint Committee (access and
sectoral support components)

Scientific advice through monitoring and analysis of scientific data by the Joint Scientific Committee

Activities

Cooperation on monitoring, control and surveillance measures

Initiatives to foster cooperation between economic operators and civil society

International and regional cooperation, in particular through RFMOs

8 

 
2.2 Points of comparison  

The  EU  and  Guinea-Bissau  have  a  long  history  in  the  area  of  fisheries.  As  mentioned 
above,  the  Agreement  was  concluded  on  16  June  2007  and  has  been  repeatedly  and 
tacitly renewed for four year periods. Expressly: 16 June 2007 – 15 June 2011; 16 June 
2011 – 15 June 2015; 16 June 2015 – 15 June 2019; and 16 June 2019 – 15 June 2023.  

The previous protocol with Guinea-Bissau was applicable from 24 November 2014 and 
expired on 23 November 2017. Following more than a year and half of interruption of the 
negotiations,  due  to  the  political  situation  in  Guinea-Bissau,  the  current  implementing 
Protocol  was  negotiated  between  the  parties  on  15  November  2018. It  was  signed  and 
applied provisionally as of 16 June 2019. 

During the interruption of negotiations – the period where no implementing protocol was 
in force – the Union fleet was not allowed to operate in Guinea-Bissau and was obliged 
to secure fishing opportunities in other fishing zones. Due to the exclusivity clause of the 
Agreement,  EU  vessel-owners  were  not  allowed  to  enter  private  agreements  with 
Guinea-Bissau to access their waters and fisheries resources. In addition, Guinea-Bissau 
did not receive any EU financial compensation for access nor sectoral support.  

Based  on  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  of  the  former  implementing  protocol  to  the 
Agreement10  –  applicable  from  24  November  2014  to  23  November  2018  –  the 
negotiation of the current implementing Protocol was the preferred option for the EU and 
Guinea-Bissau. The evaluation provided an overall assessment of the first 18-months of 
the  former  implementing  protocol,  concluding  that  it  was  effective  in  achieving  its 
objectives  and  economically  relevant,  with  some  areas  for  improvement  regarding 
efficiency  and  coherence,  such  as  improved  monitoring  of  targeted  stocks,  as  well  as 
lacking  infrastructure  and  implementation  difficulties  related  to  the  administrative 
capacity  of  the  national  authorities  of  Guinea-Bissau.  The  protocol  was  considered  an 
added value for both Parties and largely accepted by stakeholders.  

Importantly,  the  conclusions  and  recommendations  contained  in  the  evaluation  of  the 
former  implementing  protocol,  formed  the  basis  for  the  negotiation  mandate  of  the 
negotiation for the current implementing Protocol.  

In  this  context,  the  points  of  comparison  considered  for  the  ex-post  and  ex-ante 
evaluation of the current implementing Protocol are the following: 

a)  The  prior  implementing  protocol  (24  November  2014  to  23  November  2017), 
including  the  conclusions  and  recommendations  of  its  ex-post  and  ex-ante 
evaluation and the negotiating mandate; and 

b)  The reference situation at the start of the current implementing Protocol (16 June 

2019). 

These points of comparison were used, alongside the general and specific objectives of 
SFPAs (see figure 2), to identify certain indicators when assessing the implementation of 
the current implementing Protocol. Importantly, given the nature of these objectives, it is 
not always possible to provide a quantitative indicator for this analysis.  

10  SWD  (2017)18  on  the  Evaluation  of  the  Protocol  to  the  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreement  concluded 

between the European Union and Guinea-Bissau  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In terms  of the  access  component, and based on  the relevant specific objectives under 
general objectives (1) and (2), the following success criteria and indicators will be used 
for evaluating the implementation of this Protocol, vis-à-vis the points of comparison: 

Figure  3.  Objectives  related  to  the  access  component  and  their  corresponding  success 
criteria and indicators 

Specific objectives 
1.a To what extent fisheries 
activities addressed 
exclusively at surplus 
resources and prevent the 
overfishing of stocks, on the 
basis of the best scientific 
advice and improved 
transparency on the global 
fishing efforts in the waters 
included in the current 
Protocol. 

1.b To what extent the 
implementation has followed 
the same principles and 
promoted the same standards 
for fisheries management as 
applied in EU waters. 

2.a To seek appropriate share 
of the surplus resources, fully 
commensurate with the EU 
fleets interests and their 
regional and sub-regional 
fishing strategy. 

2.b To ensure that the level of 
fees payable by Union ship-
owners for their fishing 
activities is fair and 
proportional considering the 
revenues and costs, non-
discriminatory and promotes a 
level playing field among the 
different fleets. 

Success criteria   
The EU fishing opportunities are 
within the limits established or 
recommended by the relevant 
RFMO/RFO and the Scientific Joint 
Committee. 

The implementation of the Protocol 
takes into account the management 
strategies and recommendations 
proposed by the relevant 
RFMO/RFO, the Scientific Joint 
Committee and Guinea-Bissau.  
The EU fleet operating under the 
implementing Protocol follow the 
same principles and standards as 
vessels operating in EU waters, 
according to the CFP, and any 
additional standards required by 
Guinea-Bissau.  
Fishing opportunities covered by the 
Protocol correspond to the needs of 
the EU fleet and  are acceptable 
considering the activities of fleets 
active in the same waters at national, 
sub regional and regional level.  

The Protocol offers similar conditions 
to other foreign fleets operating in 
the fishing zones and management 
areas of the Agreement. 

Indicators  
State of the stocks targeted under the 
Protocol and their 
monitoring/management (scientific 
advice analysis by the joint scientific 
committee meetings, RFMO/RFO and 
national scientific institutes).  

Utilisation rate of fishing opportunities, 
including the evolution of EU vessels, 
licences and catches under the Protocol. 

Compliance of fisheries management 
measures applicable in the 
framework of the Protocol, in the EU 
and in Guinea-Bissau.  

Utilisation rate of fishing 
opportunities, 
including the evolution of EU vessels, 
licences and catches under the Protocol. 

Level of contribution to the supply of 
the EU market (volume and value). 
Level of fees and technical 
conditions applied to third countries 
fleets in the fishing areas of Guinea-
Bissau.  

The cost benefit ratio is acceptable 
and reasonable for the EU ship 
owners and for Guinea-Bissau. 

Proportion between fees, costs and 
benefits for the EU ship owners and 
for Guinea-Bissau. 

In terms  of assessing  the  implementation  of the  technical conditions  established under 
the  current  Protocol,  and  based  on  the  relevant  specific  objectives  under  these  general 
objectives,  the  following  success  criteria  and  indicators  will  be  used  for  evaluating  the 
implementation of this Protocol, vis-à-vis the points of comparison: 

Figure 4. Objectives related to the technical conditions and their corresponding success 
criteria and indicators 

10 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Success criteria   
EU fishing activities follow a scientific 
data collection framework. This 
information is transmitted to the 
relevant RFMO/RFO and national 
research institutes.  

EU scientists and scientists from 
Guinea-Bissau actively participate in 
Joint Scientific Committee meetings 
and RFMO/RFO scientific committees.  
The activity of the EU fleet is 
properly monitored (VMS, AIS, 
etc.), in accordance with the Protocol.  

The Protocol offers a framework to 
foster landings to supply local 
markets. 

The Agreement fosters trade on 
fisheries cooperation between the 
EU and Guinea-Bissau and/or third 
countries.  
EU vessels recruit part of their staff 
locally: they benefit from good 
working conditions and appropriate 
training, equivalent to ILO standards.   

Indicators  
Compliance with scientific data 
collection obligations (e.g. logbook 
and scientific observers) under the 
Protocol.  

Regular collection and analysis of 
relevant data in Joint Scientific 
Committee and relevant RFMO/RFO, 
and implementation of their 
recommendations.   
Compliance with reporting obligations 
(e.g. logbook, VMS, observers) under 
the Protocol.  

Level of implementation of the 
monitoring, surveillance and control 
(MCS) provisions under the Protocol. 
Level of contribution to the supply of 
the EU market (volume and value), 
including for the processing sector. 

Compliance with landing obligation in 
local market, and level of landing in 
local market versus neighbouring 
countries markets. 

Compliance with obligation to employ 
a minimum number of local seamen. 
Employment created directly and 
indirectly in the EU and in Guinea-
Bissau or in the sub region/sub region. 

Specific objectives 
1.c To what extent the scientific 
and technical evaluation of the 
fisheries concerned have 
improved? 

1.d Ensuring compliance and 
combating IUU fishing 

2.c To ensure supply for the 
EU and for the markets of 
Guinea-Bissau and third 
countries. 

3.d promoting the employment 
of local seamen, improving 
infrastructures and encouraging 
landings, supporting the third 
country in developing local 
fisheries and processing industry. 

*Landings are treated under 2.c. 
and improvement of 
infrastructure is treated under 
the sectoral support component. 

In  terms  of  the  sectoral  support  component,  and  based  on  the  relevant  specific 
objectives under general objective (3), the following success criteria and indicators will 
be  used  for  evaluating  the  implementation  of  this  Protocol,  vis-à-vis  the  points  of 
comparison: 

Figure 5. Objectives related to the sectoral support component and their corresponding 
success criteria and indicators 

Specific objectives 
3.a To contribute to capacity 
building and social, 
environmental and economic 
development in Guinea-
Bissau. 

Success criteria   
The sectoral support contributes to capacity 
building and social, environmental and economic 
development in Guinea-Bissau. 

In particular, the sectoral support contributes to 
adequate training, equipment and 
infrastructures namely in the areas of science 
and control, monitoring and surveillance.  

Indicators  
Improvement of level of 
capacity (social, 
environmental, and economic) 
through sectoral support of 
the implementing Protocol 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.b defining annual and 
multiannual objectives to be 
achieved with the aim of 
developing sustainable fishing 
activities 

Utilisation of the sectoral support has been duly 
reported in accordance with the Protocol. 

Multiannual programming has been jointly 
established in accordance with the national 
fisheries and aquaculture and with the Protocol. 

3.c assessment of the results 
obtained in terms of impacts, 
and also on budgetary and 
financial requirements 

Effective and timely execution of sectoral 
support funds by Guinea-Bissau and 
corresponding timely payments by the EU. 

Percentage of the EU 
contribution to the different 
policy areas in Guinea-Bissau, in 
accordance with the national 
fisheries strategy. 

Comprehensiveness and level 
of detail of the sectoral 
support reporting. 

Execution rate of sectoral 
support by Guinea-Bissau and 
corresponding timely payment 
by the EU. 

The indicators mentioned to assess the access, sectoral support and technical components 
of the current implementing Protocol will be referenced throughout the next section, and 
often vis-à-vis the points of comparison.  

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

Current state of play 

3.1 Joint Committee and Joint Scientific Committee meetings 

The  Joint  Committee,  established  under  Article  10  of  the  Agreement,  is  the  body 
responsible  for  monitoring  the  implementation  of  the  Agreement  and  its  implementing 
protocols. It is composed of delegations from the EU and Guinea-Bissau and should meet 
on annual basis. At the time of this evaluation,  and like in the 2014-2017 Protocol, the 
Joint  Committee met  on annual  basis (four times) throughout the current implementing 
Protocol: 

•  October 2019 in Brussels 
•  July 2021 by videoconference 
•  April 2022 in Lisbon 
•  April 2023 in Bissau 

The Joint Scientific Committee, established under Article 4 of the Agreement, provides 
scientific analysis and advice to the Joint Committee and should meet on an annual basis. 
In  the  current  implementing  Protocol,  the  Joint  Scientific  Committee  was  only  able  to 
meet for the first time in April 2022, in Guinea-Bissau. The absence of a meeting in 2020 
and  2021  was  mainly  due  to  travel  restrictions  associated  with  the  global  health  crisis. 
The Joint Scientific Committee also met in July 2023 in Portugal.  

During  the  previous  implementing  Protocol  from  2014-2017,  the  Joint  Scientific 
Committee met three times, in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Common to all the Joint Scientific 
Committee meetings is the production and publication of a joint report with analysis of 
collected data and advice to the Joint Committee.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  addition,  the  monitoring  of  the  current  implementing  Protocol  was  the  subject  of 
several technical missions to Guinea-Bissau by DG MARE. Three missions were carried 
between 2019 and 2021. More recently,  four additional technical missions were carried 
out  between  April  2022  and  March  2023.  The  main  focus  of  these  missions  was  the 
monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  Protocol,  in  particular,  the  sectoral  support 
funds.  

3.2 Access component  

As  described  in  Figure  1,  the  current  implementing  Protocol  provides  fishing 
opportunities for the EU fleet to target demersal and small pelagic species (with freezer 
shrimp  trawlers,  freezer  fin-fish  cephalopod  trawlers  and  small-pelagic  trawlers)  and 
highly-migratory  species,  with  the  exception  of  protected  shark  species  (freezer  tuna 
seiners and surface longliners and pole-and-line tuna vessels). The fishing opportunities 
obtained  were  allocated  by  the  Council  to  eight  EU  Member  States:  France,  Greece, 
Italy, Lithuania Latvia, Poland, Portugal, and Spain. 

Figure 6. Fishing categories in the current implementing Protocol 2019-2024  

Category number  Category name 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Freezer fin-fish and cephalopod trawlers 
Freezer shrimp trawlers 
Pole-and-line tuna vessels 
Freezer tuna seiners and surface longliners 
Small pelagics trawlers 

The implementing Protocol provides access to an important fishing zone for trawlers of 
category 1, 2 and 5 and for tuna vessels of category 3 and 4 (Figure 6). For these vessels, 
Guinea-Bissau's  fishing  zone  is  part  of  a  regional  network  that  allows  a  continuum  of 
operations. Importantly, category 5 was added in the current implementing Protocol for 
the first time. The previous implementing Protocols focused on fishing categories 1-4. 

Importantly, Guinea-Bissau has not managed to reform its fisheries management system 
according  to  the  timetable  anticipated  by  the  current  implementing  Protocol.  Currently 
based  on  the  setting  of  fishing  capacity  limits  expressed  in  vessel  tonnage  (GRT),  the 
reform  plans  to  move  to  a  system  based  on  catch  limits,  accompanied  by  a  fishing 
capacity management regime.  

The reform  could  not  be completed within the timeframe initially envisaged due to  the 
impossibility  of  adopting  the  legal  framework  for  its  implementation  before  the 
dissolution  of  the  National  Assembly  in  2022.  The  non-adoption  of  the  regulatory 
framework has also delayed the implementation of activities designed to make the reform 
operational,  such  as  the  deployment  of  an  electronic  declaration  system  for  fishing 
activities.  

13 

 
 
 
 
As  described  in  Figure  3,  several  indicators  have  been  used  to  assess  the  current 
implementing  Protocol’s  access  component,  in  relation  to  the  objectives  of  the 
intervention logic. These indicators will be outlined in this section.  

State of the stocks targeted under the current implementing Protocol  

The cornerstone of Guinea-Bissau’s fisheries management are the fisheries management 
plans  (Plano  de  Gestão  dos  Recursos  Haliêuticos)  prepared  annually  by  the  National 
Institute  for  Research  on  Fisheries  (INIPO).  The  fisheries  management  plans  identify 
fishing  opportunities  in  relation  to  exploitable  potential  assessed  by  the  scientific 
assessments of the annual stock assessment campaigns carried out by INIPO, and often 
funded by sectoral support. Fishing opportunities are assessed by type of fishing category 
(shrimp,  cephalopods,  fish,  small  pelagics)  in  terms  of  allowable  fishing  capacity, 
expressed in GRT. The fisheries management plans do not cover tuna species since these 
are managed within the multilateral framework of ICCAT.  

The fishing opportunities set by the current implementing Protocol for the EU fleet are 
considered  in  the  national  fisheries  management  plans,  as  were  those  in  the  previous 
implementing  Protocol  (2014-2017).  In  the  current  implementing  Protocol,  the  EU 
fishing opportunities represent 27% of the total allowable potential for industrial fishing 
in Guinea-Bissau.  

For non-tuna species exploited by category 1, 2  and 5 vessels,  scientific  information  is 
available through the reports of the Joint Scientific Committee and the CECAF scientific 
working  groups.  For  tuna  species  exploited  by  fishing  categories  3  and  4,  stock 
assessments are produced by ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics.11  

Assessment and recommendations by the Joint Scientific Committee 

Overall,  the  latest  assessments  of  the  various  stocks  in  the  Joint  Scientific  Committee 
(April 2022 and June 2023) indicate a general excess of fishing pressure  on the stocks, 
leading to overall decreases in biomass12. The Joint Scientific Committee meeting held in 
2017 came to similar conclusions, recommending at the time that any increase in fishing 
effort be prevented and that a biological recovery period be implemented.  

The  introduction  of  a  biological  recovery  period  during  the  month  of  January  (on  an 
annual  basis),  applicable  to  all  industrial  fleets  during  the  month  of  January,  was 
introduced for the first time by Guinea-Bissau in 2022. The EU fleet has fully complied 
with  this  fisheries  management  measure  and  the  EFCA  provided  satellite  imagery  and 
analysis for the implementation of the biological recovery period in 2023. 

11 For more information on the state of stocks, please consult Section 5 of the evaluation study. 
12 More information can be found in the latest published report of the Joint Scientific Committee meeting, 

from April 2022.  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Joint  Scientific  Committee  also  made  several  recommendations  for  improving  the 
collection and provision of scientific data. These included increasing the number of on-
board  scientific  observations,  improving  database  quality  and  continuing  annual  stock 
assessment  campaigns,  with  parallel  programs  to  strengthen  INIPO's  capacity.  Guinea-
Bissau  has  taken  these  recommendations  onboard  in  their  2023-2027  National  Strategy 
for Fisheries and Aquaculture and in the programming of sectoral support.  

CECAF scientific working groups on demersal and pelagic fisheries 

In late 2022, CECAF convened two scientific working groups on demersal  species and 
on  small  pelagics.  These  working  groups  assessed  the  status  of  several  stocks  between 
Guinea-Bissau  and  Angola  based  on  data  (including  from  2021)  provided  by  the 
countries 
fisheries  management 
recommendations  for  those  stocks  for  which  an  assessment  could  be  made.  Guinea-
Bissau participated in these working groups through INIPO. 

concerned.  The  working  groups  proposed 

The general conclusions of the CECAF working groups are that fishing effort be reduced 
for overfished species, and not increased for other stocks. As most fisheries in Guinea-
Bissau  are  multi-species,  an  overall  reduction  in  fishing  effort  is  necessary  over  the 
coming years13.  

ICCAT 

Tuna species and associated large pelagic species are under the management mandate of 
ICCAT. The stock status of the tuna species exploited in the fishing zone is satisfactory, 
with the exception of bigeye tuna, which is assessed as overexploited but not overfished 
at the scale of its stock distribution, i.e. the entire Atlantic Ocean. Stock management and 
conservation  measures  are  decided  and  implemented  within  the  multilateral  framework 
of ICCAT (inter alia fishing capacity limits, catch limits, restrictions on the use of FADs) 
and they apply to all parties14. 

Utilisation rate of fishing opportunities 

According  to  the  evaluation  of  the  previous  protocol,  the  average  utilisation  rate  of 
fishing opportunities remained relatively stable throughout the 2011-2012 and 2014-2017 
implementing protocols (Figure 7).  

13  FAO  CECAF  (2022)  CECAF/SSCIX/2022/4  Scientific  Sub-Committee  9th  session.  Summary  of  the 
meeting  on  the  working  group  on  demersal  resources  South  2022  and  summary  of  the  meeting  and 
Working Group on Small Pelagics South, here. 

14 For more information on ICCAT’s stock assessments and executive summaries, see here.  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7. Utilisation rate of fishing opportunities negotiated under previous protocols 

2011-2012 
Category number  Base 
42% 
GRT 
1 
GRT 
2 
36% 
Number of vessels  57% 
3 
Number of vessels  100% 
4 
5 
NA 
Average 
*No fishing between 2013 and 2014, due to an interruption between the 2011-2012 Protocol and the 2014-
2017 Protocol. There was also no fishing from December 2017 to June 2019, due to the interruption period 
between implementing the 2014-2017 Protocol and the 2019-2024 Protocol.  

2016  
95.6% 
18.3% 
66.7% 
82.1% 
NA 
65.8% 

2015 
70% 
32% 
66.7% 
75% 
NA 
60.9% 

2017 
90.5% 
22.9% 
66.7% 
75% 
NA 
63.8% 

NA 
58.8% 

The average utilisation rate of the fishing opportunities by the EU fleet was 42 % during 
the first four fishing periods (2019-2023) of the current implementing Protocol, with an 
average  rate  per  fishing  category  of  59 %  for  cephalopod  trawlers,  27 %  for  shrimp 
trawlers, 48 % for pole-and-line tuna vessels, 76 % for tuna seiners and longliners, and 
1 % for small pelagic fishing vessels (Figure 7).  

In  comparison  with  previous  implementing  protocols,  the  average  utilisation  rate  of 
fishing  opportunities by the EU fleet  is  lower.  This  most likely  due  factors such as  the 
interruption  between  implementing  protocols  (between  2017  and  2019)  and  the  global 
health  crisis,  as  well  as  the  almost  non-utilisation  of  category  5  in  the  current 
implementing Protocol.  

Figure  8.  Utilisation  rate  of  fishing  opportunities  negotiated  under  the  2019-2024 
Protocol, by period 

Categor
y 
number 
1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
Average 

Base 

GRT 
GRT 
Number 
of vessels 
Number 
of vessels 
GRT 

Period 1 
(06/2019 – 
06/2020) 
86.1% 
26% 

61.5% 

78.6% 

2.8% 
51% 

Period 2 
(06/2020 – 
06/2021) 
58.2% 
18% 

Period 3 
(06/2021 – 
06/2022) 
50.7% 
29.5% 

Period 4 
(06/2022 – 
06/2023) 
42% 
36% 

61.5% 

78.6% 

0.8% 
43.4% 

38.5% 

78.6% 

0% 
39.5% 

31% 

68% 

0% 
35% 

For category 1, the average utilisation was 59%. The utilisation was satisfactory during 
period  1  (86.1%),  but  then  declined  from  period  2  onwards  (42%  in  period  4).  The 
average utilisation for this category is lower than that of the same category in the 2014-
2017 Protocol. An annual average of ten vessels operated under this category.  

For  category  2,  the  average  utilisation  was  27%.  Utilisation  remained  relatively  low 
during period 1 and 2 but started picking up in period 3 (29%) and 4 (36%). The average 
utilisation for this category is higher than that of the same category in previous protocols. 
An annual average of ten vessels operated under this category, with significant variations 
from one year to the next.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For  category  3,  the  average  utilisation  was  48%.  With  utilisation  at  almost  62%  in 
periods  1  and  2  (eight  vessels),  and  declining  to  31%  in  period  4  (four  vessels).  The 
average utilisation for this category is lower than that of the same category in previous 
protocols. 

For  category  4,  the  average  utilisation  was  76%  with  around  20  vessels  per  year.  The 
average  utilisation  for  this  category  is  similar  to  that  of  the  same  category  in  previous 
protocols.  For  surface  longliners,  between  one  and  two  vessels  per  year  have  taken 
fishing authorisations in periods 1 to 3 and none in period 4.  

For category 5, the rate of utilisation of fishing opportunities was very low in periods 1 
and 2, and non-existent in periods 3-4. Only three EU vessels made use of these fishing 
opportunities in 2020. This category did not exist in previous implementing protocols.  

By Member State, the 2014-2017 Protocol provided fishing opportunities to EU vessels 
from  five Member States  (Spain,  France, Portugal,  Italy  and Greece). All  five Member 
States used these fishing opportunities.  

In  the  current  implementing  Protocol,  three  Member  States  have  used  the  fishing 
opportunities  allocated  by  the  Council  (Spain,  France  and  Italy),  and  five  have  not 
(Latvia,  Lithuania,  Greece,  Poland  and  Portugal).  Latvia,  Lithuania  and  Poland  benefit 
from fishing opportunities in category 5. Portugal benefits from fishing opportunities in 
category 2, and Greece from fishing opportunities in category 1. Greece reported that it 
had  not  used  its  allocation  due  to  a  prolonged  technical  stoppage  of  the  potential  user 
vessel.  Portugal  and  Greece  have  indicated  that  they  have  temporarily  transferred  their 
fishing opportunities to Italy.15 

Number of fishing licences 

On an annual average, around 50 EU vessels took out fishing licences for all categories 
combined,  including  around  30  tuna  vessels  and  around  20  trawlers  per  calendar  year. 
Figure 9 shows the number of EU vessels  that have taken fishing licences per calendar 
year,  distinguishing  within  category  4  between  tuna  seiners  (code  TS)  and  surface 
longliners (code SL). 

Figure 9. Number of EU vessels with fishing licences per calendar year under the 2019-
2024 Protocol 
Category number 
1 
2 

Average 
10 
10 

2022 
8 
13 

2021 
10 
6 

2019 
12 
9 

2020 
9 
11 

15  For  more  information  on  the  utilisation  rate  of  fishing  opportunities,  please  see  Section  6.3.1  of  the 

evaluation study. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
4 (TT) 
4 (SL) 
5 
Total 
Support vessels 

8 
21 
1 
0 
51 
4 

8 
20 
2 
3 
53 
4 

5 
20 
2 
0 
43 
3 

4 
19 
0 
0 
44 
2 

6 
20 
1 
1 
48 
3 

Overall, the average number of EU vessels has remained relatively stable throughout the 
current implementing Protocol and is higher than the 2014-2017 Protocol. As an annual 
average  over  the  period  2019-2022,  the  EU  fleet  accounted  for  14%  of  the  number  of 
active industrial vessels, 7% of the active capacity measured in GRT of this fleet and 5% 
of total catches, all types of fishing licences combined for the industrial fleet in Guinea-
Bissau16.  

Importantly, Guinea-Bissau grants fishing licences to an annual average of 128 industrial 
fishing  vessels  between  2019  and  2022  (excluding  tuna  vessels).  Industrial  fishing 
vessels  access  the  zone  in  the  framework  of  fishing  agreements  (EU,  Senegal,  Chinese 
company Zhongiu Global  Seafood Corporation ZGFC)  and under regimes provided for 
by national regulations concerning national vessels and chartered foreign vessels17.  

In  terms  of  nationality,  the  majority  (59  %)  of  industrial  fishing  vessels  authorised  in 
2021  flew  the  Chinese  flag  (ZGFC  agreement  and  chartering  arrangements).  EU  and 
national vessels accounted for 14 % and 13 % of the fleet respectively. As far as small-
scale  fishing  is  concerned,  the  available  data  indicate  around  900  units,  two-thirds  of 
which are of Guinea-Bissau nationality, and one-third foreign (Guinea and Senegal). 

Number of catches  

Overall catches by the EU fleet totalled 7,859 tonnes, with an estimated first-sale value 
of  EUR  23.1  million  on  average  over  the  first  four  years  of  the  current  implementing 
Protocol. Cephalopod trawlers and shrimp trawlers accounted for more than 90 % of EU 
catches,  and catches  by tuna vessels for around 3 % of the total. Figure 10 shows total 
catches by EU vessels by fishing category and calendar year18. 

Figure 10. Annual catches by EU vessels in the FPA fishing zone (tonnes) per calendar 
year under the 2019-2024 Protocol 
2019 
Category number  

Average 

2022 

1 

2 

3 

6 975 

996 

1 

2020  2021 
7 285 

1 142 

8 

5 651 

1 284 

0 

3 870 

1 537 

27 

5 945 

1 240 

9 

16 For more information on fishing licences, please see Section 3.1.3 of the evaluation study. 

17 For more information on the repartition of fleets, please see Section 3.1.1 of the evaluation study 

18 For more information on catches, please see Table 15 and 16 of Section 6.3.2 of the evaluation study. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 (TT) 

4 (SL) 

5 

Total 

10 

73 

0 

8 055 

487 

5 

1 764 

10 690 

106 

0 

0 

218 

0 

0 

7 041 

5 653 

205 

20 

441 

7 859 

Due to a lack of infrastructure, catches made by EU trawlers are not landed in Guinea-
Bissau,  nor  processed  or  marketed  there.  Similarly,  the  tuna  vessels  tend  to  land  their 
catches in Dakar where they have long-standing ties with canneries. 

Compared  to  previous  implementing  protocol,  the  total  catches  by  the  EU  fleet  have 
decreased significantly, and with it supply to the EU market. Expressly, when compared 
to  total  catches  in  the  2014-2017  Protocol,  that  exceeded  the  18,000  tonnes  annually 
(Figure 11), the total catches by the EU fleet are lower.19 

Figure  11.  Annual  catches  by  EU  vessels  in  the  FPA  fishing  zone  (tonnes)  in  previous 
implementing protocols 

Category number  

2015 

2016 

2017 

1 

2 

3 

4  

5 

14 985 

15 666 

18 247 

1 507 

1 370 

824 

NA 

477 

285 

1 997 

NA 

1 640 

162 

560  

NA 

2019 
6 975 

996 

1 

83 

0 

2020 
7 285 

1 142 

8 

2021 
5 651 

1 284 

0 

492 

106 

1 764 

0 

2022 
3 870 

1 537 

27 

218 

0 

2023 
5 945 

1 240 

9 

225 

441 

Total 

18 686 

26 163 

20 611  

8 055 

10 690 

7 041 

5 653 

7 859 

According to information provided by the operators of category 1 and 2 trawlers, almost 
all of their catches,  which represent 90% of EU catches under the current Protocol, are 
intended to supply the EU market20. Even if the level of catches has decreased since the 
2014-2017 Protocol, the percentage of catches supplied to the EU market has remained 
constant.  

Access fees for licences and catches 

Figure  12  shows  the  fees  paid  for  periods  1-4  of  the  current  implementing  Protocol, 
including access fees, pro rata increases for quarterly or half-yearly authorisations, and 
contributions  to  the  observer  program.  The  table  also  includes  contributions  paid  by 
support vessels assisting tuna vessels. 

EU  vessels  paid  an  annual  average  of  almost  EUR  1.2  million  in  access  fees,  72%  of 
which was paid by vessels in categories 1, 2 and 5, and 8% by vessels in categories 3 and 
4. Fees amounted to EUR 1.6 million for the first period in which fishing opportunities 
were  used  to  the  greatest  extent.  Around  EUR  1.1  million  were  for  access  fees  and 

19 For more information on catches, please see Section 6.3.2 of the evaluation study. 

20  For  more  information  on  supply  of  markets,  please  see  specific  objective  2.3  on  page  64  of  the 

evaluation study. 

19 

 
 
 
 
administrative  costs,  and  just  over  EUR  100  thousand  per  year  for  contributions  to  the 
observer program.21  

Figure  12.  Amounts  paid  by  EU  operators  for  fishing  authorisations  under  the  2019-
2024 Protocol (in euros) 

Category number 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Support vessels 
Total 

Period 1 
(06/2019 – 
06/2020) 
958 376 
463 566 
10 959 
53 425 
115 249 
4 932 
1 606 506 

Period 2 
(06/2020 – 
06/2021) 
648 266 
298 205 
20 000 
96 000 
31 795 
3 000 
1 097 266 

Period 3 
(06/2021 – 
06/2022) 
506 461 
479 242 
12 500 
94 558 
0 
3 000 
1 095 760 

Period 4 
(06/2022 – 
06/2023) 
384 627 
615 603 
10 000 
85 500 
0 
3 000 
1 098 730 

Average 

624 432 
464 154 
13 365 
82 371 
36 761 
3 483 
1 224 566 

the  current 

Under 
implementing  Protocol,  EU  non-tuna  vessels  using  fishing 
opportunities  under  categories  1,  2  and  5  pay  access  fees  calculated  in  proportion  to 
vessel  capacity  (expressed  in  GRT).  In  addition  to  access  fees,  category  1,  2  and  5  are 
required  to  pay  a  contribution  to  Guinea-Bissau's  observer  program.  EU  tuna  vessels 
using  fishing  opportunities  under  categories  3  and  4  pay  access  fees  calculated  in 
proportion to total catch. 

For  non-tuna  vessels  in  categories  1,  2  and  5,  the  current  implementing  Protocol 
established a transition to catch-based access fees starting in period 3 (July 2021). Due to 
legislative and operational delays to implement this transition in Guinea-Bissau, this has 
not yet taken place.  

Overall,  the  EU  financial  contribution  for  access  and  sectoral  support  has  increased 
steadily,  alongside  the  increase  in  fishing  opportunities  and  categories  over  the  past 
implementing Protocols. This increase is  also reflected in the EU financial contribution 
for sectoral support, which has also augmented.  

Figure  13.  EU  financial  contribution  and  cost  for  operators  for  the  implementing 
Protocols from 2007-2024 

Protocol 

Duration (in years) 

Number of categories  
Annual 
contribution 
for access  

EU financial 
contribution 

2007-2011 

2011-2012 

  2014-2017 

  2019-2024 

4 

4 

1 

4 

3 

4 

5 

5 

4.55 million EUR per year + 1 
million EUR (conditional) 

6.2 million EUR per year 

11.6 million EUR per year 

21 For more information on access fees, please see Section 6.3.3 of the evaluation study. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
Annual 
contribution 
for sectoral 
support 

2.45 million EUR per year + 
0.5 million EUR to improve 
sanitary conditions 

3 million EUR per year 

4 million EUR per year 

TOTAL 

7.5 million EUR 

9.2 million EUR per year 

15.6 million EUR per year 

Pole-and-line 
tuna vessels 

500 EUR per year (for 20 t) 
then 25 EUR per tonne fished 
for a maximum of 14 vessels 
per year 

550 EUR per year (for 22 
t) then 25 EUR per tonne 
fished for a maximum of 
12 vessels per year 

55 EUR per tonne with a non-
recoverable fixed advance of 
2,500 EUR for 45.5 tonnes 

Freezer tuna 
seiners and 
surface 
longliners 

3,150 EUR per year (for 90 t) 
then 35 EUR per tonne fished 
for a maximum of 23 vessels 
per year 

3,500 EUR per year (for 
100 t) then 35 EUR per 
tonne fished for a 
maximum of 28 vessels 
per year 

Cost for EU 
operators  

Freezer fin-
fish and 
cephalopod 
trawlers 

229 EUR per GRT per year for 
a maximum of  
4,400 GRT per year 

256 EUR per GRT per year 
for a maximum of 3,500 
GRT per year 

Freezer 
shrimp 
trawlers 

307 EUR per GRT per year for 
a maximum of  
4,400 GRT per year 

344 EUR per GRT per year 
for a maximum of 3,700 
GRT per year 

Small pelagic 
trawlers 

NA 

NA 

Freezer tuna seiners: 70 EUR per 
tonne with a non-recoverable 
lump-sum advance of 4,500 EUR 
for 64.3 tonnes 
Surface tuna longliners: 55 EUR 
per tonne with a non-recoverable 
lump-sum advance of EUR 3,000 
for 54.5 tonnes 

Years 1 and 2: 282 EUR per GRT 
per year 
Year 3 onwards: 90 EUR per tonne 
of demersal catches and 270 EUR 
per tonne of cephalopod catches  
Years 1 and 2: 395 EUR per GRT 
per year  
Year 3 onwards: 280 EUR per 
tonne 
Years 1 and 2: 250 EUR per GRT 
per year  
Year 3 and onwards: 100 EUR per 
tonne (vessels over 1 000 GT) and 
75 EUR per tonne (vessels under 1 
000 GT)  

As seen in Figure 13, the EU financial contribution increased by 36% (from 4 500 000 
EUR  to  6  200  000  EUR)  between  the  2007  to  2014.  In  the  current  implementing 
Protocol,  the  EU  financial  contribution  doubled.  This  is  mainly  due  to  an  increased 
allocation of fishing opportunities and the addition of fishing category 5.  

In comparison, the amount allocated to sectoral support has risen by 22% from the 2007-
2011  Protocol  to  the  2014-2017  Protocol.  From  the  2014-2017  Protocol  to  the  current 
implementing Protocol, we have seen a 33% increase. These changes reflect the rise in 
the EU financial contribution for the access component.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
Level of fees and technical conditions applied to EU vessels 

The  principal  of  non-discrimination  in  the  current  implementing  Protocol  prohibits  the 
granting of more favourable technical conditions to other fleets than those granted to EU 
operators in Guinea-Bissau. It has been mostly respected.  

Most  of  the  technical  rules  applicable  to  EU  vessels  are  the  same  as  those  legally 
applicable  to  all  foreign-flagged  industrial  fleets  (fishing  zones,  gear  dimensions, 
monitoring,  control  and  surveillance  obligations).  The  new  rules  introduced  during  the 
current  implementing  Protocol  (e.g.  biological  recovery  period)  have  been  applied 
uniformly to all fleets22.  

There  are,  however,  a  few  differences  in  treatment  regarding  the  rules  on  authorised 
percentages of by-catches, which INIPO recommends should be aligned with the values 
already applicable to EU vessels. For example, EU cephalopod trawlers are authorised to 
retain  on  board  different  percentages  of  fish  and  crustaceans,  when  compared  to  other 
fleets  under  the  same  fishing  category  operating  under  other  access  agreements  in 
Guinea-Bissau23.  

Compliance of fisheries management measures by EU vessels 

Since the start  of the Protocol,  no infringement  proceedings have been initiated against 
an EU vessel for failure to comply with  fisheries management measures for the fishing 
categories  in  which  the  EU  operates.  This  has  been  the  case  for  the  past  implementing 
protocols.  

The fisheries management measures in Guinea-Bissau include technical rules applicable 
to all ships, including EU vessels. These rules include, authorized fishing zones (outside 
the  12-mile  limit),  mesh  sizes  for  fishing  gear  minimum  sizes  for  certain  species,  and 
since  2022,  a  biological  recovery  period  during  the  month  of  January  each  year.  The 
management  system  also  incorporates  limits  on  the  percentage  of  by-catch  species  for 
each category of fishing authorization, but for the time being, these limits are specific to 
each access regime (fishing agreements, national law). 

For  the  fishing  categories  dedicated  to  tuna,  stock  management  and  conservation 
measures  are  decided  and  implemented  within  the  multilateral  framework  of  ICCAT 
(inter  alia  fishing  capacity  limits,  catch  limits,  restrictions  on  the  use  of  FADs).  They 
apply  to  all  parties.  There  are  no  measures  specific  to  the  fishing  zone  defined  by  the 
Protocol.  

For  the  fishing  categories  dedicated  to  other  species,  Guinea-Bissau  has  not  adopted 
management measures to reduce by-catches and discards, and to reduce possible impacts 
on ecosystems. However, scientific information from the EU data collection programme 

22 For a detailed comparison, please see Annex 4 of the evaluation study 

23 For more information, please see Section 3.1.1 of the evaluation study 

22 

 
 
 
suggests  that  the  activities  of  cephalopod  and  shrimp  trawlers  in  Guinea-Bissau  may 
generate relatively high levels of discards24.  

Economic benefits for the EU and Guinea-Bissau  

Overall, as an annual average over the period 2019-2021, 43% of the total value added of 
the current  implementing Protocol  is  for the benefit of the EU, 48% for  Guinea-Bissau 
(including  the  financial  compensation  paid  by  the  EU  for  access)  and  9%  for  other 
entities including Senegal (trawler and baitboat activities) and Côte d'Ivoire (tuna seiner 
activities).  

This  estimate  of  share  of  value  added  for  Guinea-Bissau  only  takes  into  account  the 
access  component  of  the  Protocol.  The  sectoral  support  part  of  the  Protocol  produces 
economic benefits  for the fisheries sector resulting  from  the implementation  of sectoral 
support  activities  which  must  be  considered  for  a  more  complete  assessment  of  the 
distribution of economic benefits between the EU and Guinea-Bissau25. 

In  terms  of  the  economic  performance  of  the  EU  fleet,  estimates  of  the  economic 
performance  of  category  1  and  2  trawlers  indicate  a  moderate  positive  level  of 
profitability,  probably  facilitated  by  a  proportionate  relative  cost  of  access  fees  in  the 
order  of  4-5%  of  turnover.  For  category  3  and  4  tuna  vessels,  the  affordable  cost  of 
access  fees  means  that  fishing  authorisations  can  be  taken  as  a  precautionary  measure 
without impacting the profitability of the fleets concerned26. 

3.3  Technical conditions  

As  described  in  Figure  4,  several  indicators  have  been  used  to  assess  the  current 
implementing  Protocol’s  technical  conditions,  in  relation  to  the  objectives  of  the 
intervention  logic.  These  indicators  will  be  outlined  in  this  section.  Importantly,  EU 
vessels  generally  complied  with  the  technical  conditions  of  the  current  implementing 
Protocol, as they had done in the 2014-2017 Protocol. 27 

On  scientific  data  collection,  the  activities  of  EU  fishing  vessels  are  subject  to  the 
monitoring  framework  defined  by  the  Protocol  (catch  declarations,  VMS,  on-board 
observers) and to the EU scientific data collection program implemented under the Data 
Collection  Regulation  Framework.  The  information  is  shared  with  INIPO  which 
highlighted  in  interviews  the  quality  of  EU  vessel  tracking  information  in  comparison 
with industrial vessel tracking data flying other flags. The information is shared with the 

24 For more information, please see Section 5.5 of the evaluation study. 

25 For more information, please see Section 7.4 and 7.5 of the evaluation study. 

26 For more information, please see Section 7.2 of the evaluation study. 

27 For more information, please see Section 6.3.4 of the evaluation study. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
ICCAT  and  CECAF  scientific  committees  comprising  representatives  of  both 
participating parties.  

On  monitoring,  control  and  surveillance,  EU  vessels  comply  with  the  regular 
monitoring of vessel positions and the submission of catch declarations. Guinea-Bissau 
also  confirmed  that  EU  vessels  are  exceptional  in  submitting  their  catch  declarations 
electronically  within  short  deadlines,  when  necessary.  Guinea-Bissau  confirmed  that 
catch  declarations  of  other  industrial  fleets  follow  a  more  tedious  process  based  on 
manual entry of data. reports from onboard observers.  

On provisions regarding the boarding of observers, Guinea-Bissau and EU operators 
report  compliance  by  the  EU.  The  main  EU  operator  association  of  category  1  vessels 
operating in  the region (ANACEF) has  organised, at  its own expense, training sessions 
for  Guinea-Bissau  observers,  with  the  aim  of  improving  the  qualifications  of  national 
observers. 

On employment, the current implementing Protocol requires vessels under categories 1, 
2  and  5  to  employ  a  minimum  number  of  seamen  from  Guinea-Bissau,  based  on  the 
tonnage of vessels. There is no indication of non-compliance by the EU.  

On average over the period 2019-2021, the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs on 
board EU vessels is estimated at around 150, of which 25% involve EU nationals, 35% 
Guinea-Bissau  nationals  and  40%  nationals  of  other  countries.  Seamen  were  taken  on 
board  by  EU  operators  despite  difficult  conditions  linked  to  shortcomings  in  the 
certification  of  national  seamen's  training  levels  and  the  absence  of  lists  of  qualified 
seamen  that  the  Guinea-Bissau  authorities  had  to  submit.  These  difficulties  persist  in 
Guinea-Bissau and were also present during previous implementing protocols.  

On social clauses applicable to seamen on board EU vessels, there are no indications 
of  possible  non-compliance  by  EU  vessels.  The  national  authorities  in  Guinea-Bissau 
have indicated that they check the compliance of all contracts for seafarers employed on 
industrial fleets, including EU fleets.  

On food security, the current implementing Protocol requires vessels under categories 1 
and 2 to transfer to Guinea-Bissau a certain amount of fishery products. In 2022, the EU 
transferred to Guinea-Bissau a contribution of 92 tonnes of fishery products, according to 
data from  the national  authorities.  This  quantity is  consistent  with the EU’s obligations 
under the current implementing Protocol. There is almost no available information on the 
mechanisms implemented by Guinea-Bissau to ensure that this contribution benefits the 
local population.  

On  economic  integration,  the  current  implementing  Protocol  commits  both  Parties  to 
promote the economic integration of EU operators in the Guinea-Bissau fishing industry. 
The  provisions  in  the  2019-2024  Protocol  reflect  a  desire  by  Guinea-Bissau,  after  the 
previous  implementing  protocols,  to  ensure  a  greater  integration  of  EU  economic 
operators  into  the  national  economy  (e.g.  joint  ventures  and  more  activity  in  national 
ports through landings).  

24 

 
Although EU operators confirm that the fishing zone is attractive for the exploitation of 
resources,  they  express  that  the  business  environment  in  Guinea-Bissau  does  not  yet 
encourage 
industrial  fishing  port 
infrastructure,  lack  of  export  health  approval,  small  pool  of  skilled  labour  and 
institutional instability.  

investment  due  factors  such  as, 

inadequate 

Since the start of the Protocol, no infringement proceedings have been initiated against 
an EU vessel for non-compliance of the above mentioned technical conditions. Similarly, 
no infringement procedures were launched in the 2014-2017 Protocol.  

3.4 Sectoral support component  

The current implementing Protocol has earmarked a budget of EUR 4 million per year – 
or EUR 20 million over a period of five years – to contribute to the implementation of the 
national strategy for fisheries and aquaculture and support the sustainable management of 
fishery resources and the development of the fisheries sector in Guinea-Bissau. ~ 

As  described  in  Figure  5,  several  indicators  have  been  used  to  assess  the  current 
implementing Protocol’s sectoral support component, in relation to the objectives of the 
intervention logic. These indicators will be outlined in this section.  

Monitoring of sectoral support  

The Joint Committee is responsible for adopting annual and multi-annual programming 
and monitoring sectoral support. Any changes to programming must be approved by the 
Joint Committee.  

In addition, the Guinea-Bissau authorities have set up a Sectoral Support Monitoring and 
Control Department. The main tasks of this department are to draft programming for the 
various  tranches  of  sectoral  support  on  the  basis  of  needs  expressed  by  the  technical 
departments,  and  to  monitor  the  execution  of  activities  on  the  basis  of  supporting 
documents  submitted  by  the  departments  concerned  (execution  reports,  invoices).  The 
operations of the department are financed by sectoral support. 

Guinea-Bissau  has  submitted  reports  on  activities  implemented  with  sectoral  support 
funds. At the time of this evaluation, the following reports have been submitted28: 

Implementation report for the first part of tranche 1 (April 2022) 
Implementation report for tranche 1 (October 2022) 
Implementation report for tranche 2 (October 2022) 

• 
• 
• 
•  Updated implementation report for tranche 2 (January 2023) 

28 For more information on the monitoring of sectoral support, please see  Section 6.4.1 of the  evaluation 

study. 

25 

 
 
 
Payment of sectoral support 

The  current implementing Protocol has  earmarked an EU  financial  contribution  of EUR 4 
million per year  (2019-2024) towards sectoral support. The current implementing Protocol 
provides for the EU to suspend payments in whole or in part if the Joint Committee considers 
that  results are not in line with programming. The Protocol  stipulates  that sectoral  support 
payments may not be made beyond 6 months after the Protocol expires (December 2024). 

Figure 14. EU sectoral support payments in the 2019-2024 Protocol29 

EU payment  
Tranche 1 (partial) 
Tranche 1 (partial) 
Tranche 2 
Tranche 3 (reinforced)  
Total  
Maximum EU financial contribution to sectoral 
support by December 2024 

Date 
04/11/2019 
14/12/2020 
23/12/2021 
11/05/2023 

Amount (EUR) 
2 000 000 
2 000 000 
4 000 000 
6 000 000 
14 000 000 

20 000 000 

Payments for activities to beneficiary departments, or directly to certain contractors, are 
subject to the double signature of the Ministry of Finances and the Ministry of Fisheries, 
and are governed by State rules on the management of public funds. The amounts paid by 
the EU are held in a joint fisheries/finance account, which is housed in a private bank and 
not  in  a  Treasury  account,  despite  the  provisions  of  the  Protocol.  In  2023,  an  account 
reserved exclusively for sectoral support was created in order to facilitate transparency in 
the management of funds, in compliance with the provisions of the Protocol. 

Programming of sectoral support  

Overall,  sectoral  support  funding  was  essential  to  enable  the  competent  authorities  to 
carry  out  their  tasks  throughout  the  current  implementing  Protocol.  The  Ministry  of 
Fisheries’  average  annual  budget  allocation  (2020  and  2021)  was  around  EUR  8.1 
million,  including  EUR  6.5  million  for  operations  (80%)  and  EUR  1.6  million  for 
investment (20%). With an expected annual financial contribution of EUR 4 million, the 
EU  sectoral  support  represents  approximately  half  of  the  budgetary  allocation  of  the 
Ministry of Fisheries since the beginning of the current implementing Protocol.30 

Importantly,  this  financing  was  the  only  external  financing  that  Guinea-Bissau  could 
benefit from since the end of the World Bank's PRAO program in 2017.  

The  sectoral  support  funds  paid  by  the  EU  to  Guinea-Bissau  (tranches  1-3)  were 
programmed towards the activities of the following Directorate-Generals of the Ministry 
of Fisheries of Guinea-Bissau31: 

29  For  more  information  on  the  payment  of  sectoral  support,  please  see  Section  6.4.1  of  the  evaluation 

study. 

30 For more information, please see Section 4.2 of the evaluation study. 

31 For more information on programming of sectoral support, please see Section 6.4.1 of the evaluation study. 

26 

 
 
 
 
1.  INFISCAP  (institute  responsible  for  monitoring,  control,  and  surveillance 
measures  in  Guinea-Bissau):  Received  the  highest  amount  of  sectoral  support 
funds  (36%  of  programmed  funds  in  tranches  1-3)  for  activities  such  as:  new 
patrol vessel and the reparation of existing patrol vessels; building and equipping 
the new INFISCAP headquarters; supporting the everyday surveillance operations 
by INFISCAP inspectors in the territorial waters and the EEZ of Guinea-Bissau; 
and  installing  and  operationalising  the  ERS  (Electronic  Reporting  System). 
Training and operating resources are also programmed.  

2.  INIPO (national institute responsible for fisheries research and sanitary control): 
Received  the  second  highest  amount  of  sectoral  support  funds  (21%  of 
programmed funds in tranches 1-3) for activities such as: constructing new INIPO 
headquarters;  funding  annual  stock  assessment  campaigns;  collecting  data  on 
industrial and artisanal fishing; monitoring fishery resources in marine protected 
areas;  and  participating  in  international  scientific  working  groups.  Sanitary 
control  activities,  including  inspection  missions  and  assistance  to  the  control 
laboratory, are also programmed under the sectoral support funds. 

3.  DGPI  (Directorate-General  for  Industrial  Fishing):  Receives  16%  of  the 
programmed  sectoral  support  funds  for  activities  such  as:  membership  fees  to 
regional fisheries organisations; participation in international meetings of regional 
fisheries  organisations;  support  the  legal  team  of  the  Ministry  of  Fisheries; 
regulatory  awareness-raising;  establishing  fish  storage  warehouses;  and  studies 
for a new industrial fishing port. 

4.  DGFADP  (Directorate-General  for  Training  and  Development  Support): 
Receives  11%  of  the  programmed  sectoral  support  funds  for  activities  such  as: 
developing  the  new  National  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  Strategy  2023-2027; 
developing  and  implementing  the  new  Training  and  Education  Strategy  for  the 
Ministry  of  Fisheries;  supporting  the  CEFOPE  training  centre;  and  recruiting 
external technical assistance. 

5.  DGPA  (Directorate-General  for  Artisanal  Fishing):  Receives  8%  of  the 
programmed  sectoral  support  funds  for  activities  such  as:  rehabilitating  and 
equipping  regional  delegations;  supporting  co-management  of  marine  protected 
sites; and managing the artisanal fleet. 

6.  DGAPP (Directorate-General for Fishing Port Management): Receives 6% of 
the programmed sectoral support funds for activities such as: acquiring tools and 
equipment  for  the  artisanal  port  (including  public  lighting,  security,  ancillary 
buildings,  and  isothermal  containers  for  fish  preservation);  and  training 
stakeholders in good hygiene practices. 

The  sectoral  support  funds  are  allocated  to  these  beneficiaries  to  improve  levels  of 
capacity  across  the  board:  reinforce  control  and  surveillance  of  the  EEZ;  promote  an 
environment  favourable  to  the  development  of  the  sector;  improve  the  sustainable 

27 

 
management of fisheries resources; promote artisanal fisheries; and improve the sanitary 
quality of fisheries products32.  

This  allocation  also  reflects  the  priorities  established  in  the  latest  National  Strategy  for 
Fisheries and Aquaculture of Guinea-Bissau, which was  developed  and adopted for the 
period  of  2023-2027.  It  was  prepared  on  the  basis  of  an  evaluation  of  the  previous 
strategy  and  a  broad  and  unprecedented  consultation  of  stakeholders  during  a  national 
conference  organized  in  December  2022,  with  the  support  of  sectoral  support  funds. 
Through the support provided towards the development of the national strategy, sectoral 
support contributed to improving the governance framework of the sector for the period 
2023-2027.33 

During  the  2014-2017  Protocol,  the  allocation  of  sectoral  support  was  guided  mostly 
through  the  2015-2020  National  Plan  for  the  Development  of  the  Fisheries  Sector  of 
Guinea-Bissau. Importantly, Guinea-Bissau launched the update of its previous sectoral 
policy in 2021, with the support of EU sectoral support funds.   

Implementation of sectoral support  

Over  the  course  of  the  current  implementing  Protocol,  implementation  of  the  sectoral 
support funds were delayed. In April 2023, almost four years after the start of the current 
implementing Protocol, Guinea-Bissau had been able to justify 94 % of the execution the 
first  tranche  of  sectoral  support  (paid  in  two  instalments  in  November  2019  and 
December  2020)  and  55  %  of  the  execution  of  the  second  tranche  of  sectoral  support 
(paid in December 2021).  

These  delays  are  attributable  to  external  factors  (global  health  crisis,  institutional 
instability)  and  internal  factors  (difficulties  in  the  management  of  funds,  programming 
and  monitoring-evaluation  capacities),  for  which  corrective  measures  have  been 
identified.  For  example,  establishing  a  single  bank  account  for  sectoral  support  funds, 
with  a  double  signature  mechanism  by  the  Ministry  of  Finances  and  the  Ministry  of 
Fisheries,  and  the  mobilisation  of  technical  assistance  to  strengthen  administrative 
capacities in the Ministry of Fisheries. In view of these corrective measures and Guinea-
Bissau's  need  to  meet  significant  expenditure  on  the  sectoral  support  budget,  the  EU 
agreed to pay a third increased tranche of EUR 6 million (April 2023) to enable Guinea-
Bissau to speed up disbursements. At the time of this evaluation, Guinea-Bissau is still in 
the early stages of the execution of tranche 3 of sectoral support funds34.  

Despite delays in their implementation, the sectoral support funds have enabled Guinea-
Bissau to ensure the operation of its Ministry of Fisheries and its fisheries management 
system,  as  well  as  sustainably  develop  its  national  fisheries  policy.  At  the  time  of  this 

32 For more information on the impact of sectoral support, please see Section 6.4.2 of the evaluation study. 

33 For more information on the national strategy, please see Section 4.3 of the evaluation study. 

34 For more information, please see Section 6.4.3 of the evaluation study. 

28 

 
 
evaluation,  EUR  6  million  of  sectoral  support  funds  are  still  not  programmed  nor 
disbursed by the EU.  

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS  

4.1 To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

Following  the  intervention  logic  in  Figure  2,  this  section  considers  to  what  extent  the 
current  implementing  Protocol  was  successful  in  reaching  the  general  and  specific 
objectives it set out to achieve through a lens of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence.  

Effectiveness: to what extent have the objectives of the current implementing Protocol 
been achieved? 

The  current  implementing  Protocol  is  effective  on  achieving  the  following  objectives, 
with some specific areas for improvement:  

Objective  1.  Contribute  to  resource  conservation  and  environmental  sustainability 
through rational and sustainable exploitation of Guinea-Bissau's fishery resources. 

1.a  Directing  fishing  activities  exclusively  towards  surpluses,  preventing  the 
overexploitation  of  stocks  on  the  basis  of  the  best  scientific  advice  and  improving 
transparency on the overall fishing effort in waters included in the Protocol. 

As described in the previous section, the fishing opportunities for EU vessels established 
by the current implementing Protocol are within the limits set (by Guinea-Bissau) for the 
conservation  of  non-tuna  species  and  (by  ICCAT)  for  tuna  species.  The  activities 
implemented  under  the  current  implementing  Protocol  -  by  the  Joint  Scientific 
Committee or though sectoral support - have contributed to improving scientific advice, 
and  establishing  a  reasonable  level  of  transparency  on  the  activities  of  all  industrial 
fishing fleets.  

The main weakness under this specific objective is that Guinea-Bissau has not managed 
to reform its fisheries management framework to improve its effectiveness as envisaged 
by the Protocol,  due to  political  factors beyond  the control of the Ministry of Fisheries 
and  the  EU  side.  Guinea-Bissau's  current  situation  with  regard  to  its  ICCAT  reporting 
obligations  for  reasons  that  could  have  been  addressed  under  the  Protocol  is  another 
concern. 

1.b  Implementation  of  principles  and  standards  for  fisheries  management  as  those 
applied in EU waters 

As  described  in  Section  3.2  of  this  evaluation,  the  EU  fleet  operating  under  the 
implementing Protocol follow the same principles and standards as vessels operating in 
EU  waters,  according  to  the  CFP.  In  addition  to  this,  the  EU  fleet  is  also  required  to 
adhere to the principles and standards established by Guinea-Bissau in its fishing areas. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As described in Section 3.2 of this evaluation, the principal of non-discrimination in the 
current  implementing  Protocol  has  been  effective  in  prohibiting  the  granting  of  more 
favourable  technical  conditions  to  other  fleets  than  those  granted  to  EU  operators  in 
Guinea-Bissau.  

Most  of  the  technical  rules  applicable  to  EU  vessels  are  the  same  as  those  legally 
applicable  to  all  foreign-flagged  industrial  fleets  (fishing  zones,  gear  dimensions, 
monitoring,  control  and  surveillance  obligations).  The  new  rules  introduced  during  the 
current  implementing  Protocol  (e.g.  biological  recovery  period)  have  been  applied 
uniformly to all fleets 

1.c Improvement of technical and scientific assessment of the fisheries  

As  described  in  Section  3.2  of  this  evaluation,  The  activities  of  EU  fishing  vessels  are 
subject  to  the  monitoring  framework  defined  by  the  Protocol  (and  to  the  EU  scientific 
data  collection  programme  implemented  under  the  Data  Collection  Framework 
regulation. The information collected is shared with INIPO, which emphasised during the 
interviews the quality of the monitoring information for EU vessels in comparison with 
the  monitoring  data  for  industrial  vessels  flying  other  flags.  Information  is  shared  with 
the ICCAT and COPACE scientific committees, in which representatives of both parties 
participate. 

Overall,  the  activities  implemented  under  the  Protocol  have  been  effective  in 
encouraging  scientific  cooperation  between  the  two  parties.  Scientific  cooperation  has 
been encouraged by the organisation of Joint Scientific Committee meetings, which have 
enabled both parties to pool their data and produce joint analyses. Scientific cooperation 
has also been encouraged by the organisation of training sessions for national observers 
and trawl selectivity campaigns by the amateur association representing the cephalopod 
category in association with Spanish and Guinea-Bissau scientific institutes. In addition, 
a  significant  amount  of  sectoral  support  has  been  earmarked  (21%  of  the  cumulative 
budget for the first three tranches) to support INIPO's activities to facilitate and improve 
the collection of scientific data. 

1.d Ensuring control and compliance with EU fleet rules 

As  detailed  in  Section  3.2  and  3.3  of  this  evaluation,  EU  fishing  vessels  are  subject  to 
monitoring, the details of which are set out in the Protocol. In addition to this framework, 
there are the provisions of relevant EU legislation such as i) the EU Control Regulation, 
which imposes a certain number of measures aimed in particular at improving the quality 
of catch declarations and complying with deadlines for the transmission of this data, ii) 
the External Fleet Regulation (SMEFF Regulation) with, in particular, provisions for the 
management  of  fishing  authorisations,  and  iii)  the  IUU  Regulation  with  provisions 
designed  to  discourage  EU  operators  from  supporting  or  engaging  in  IUU  fishing 
practices. 

30 

 
 
According  to  information  received  from  both  Parties,  EU  vessels  have  fully  complied 
with  the  conservation  and  management  rules  applicable  in  the  Guinea-Bissau  fishing 
zone.  No  infringement  involving  an  EU  vessel  has  been  recorded  since  the  Protocol 
entered into force. 

In addition, and as was outlined in Section 3.4 of this evaluation, sectoral support funds 
have  supported  INFISCAP  with 
the 
refurbishment of navigational resources, the financing of patrols at sea, training sessions 
for  inspectors  and  observers,  and  the  refurbishment  of  forward  bases  in  the  regions. 
INFISCAP is the technical entity receiving the largest share of sectoral support funding 
(36% of the cumulative budget for the first three tranches). 

the  construction  of  a  new  headquarters, 

Objective 2: to contribute to the continuity of fishing activities by the EU distant water 
fleet and employment linked to fleets  

2.a Obtain an appropriate share of the resource, fully proportionate to the interests of 
the EU fleet and its sub-regional and regional strategies 

As outlined in Section 3.2 of this evaluation, the current implementing Protocol provides 
access  to  a  major  fishing  zone  and  commercially  target  species  for  category  1  and  2 
trawlers and category 3 and 4 tuna vessels.  

As  far  as  category  1  and  2  trawlers  are  concerned,  Guinea-Bissau's  fishing  zone  is  the 
main fishing  zone exploited  in  the region in addition to Mauritania's fishing zone, with 
vessels  in  these  categories  dividing  their  annual  activities  between  the  two  zones.  The 
fishing opportunities available under the agreements concluded by the EU with these two 
countries are complementary.  

For category 3 and 4, the fishing opportunities available in Guinea-Bissau's fishing zone 
are  also  part  of  a  network  of  regional  agreements  that  includes  the  fishing  zones  of 
Mauritania,  Senegal  and  Cabo  Verde  for  pole-and-line  tuna  vessels,  and  all  the  fishing 
zones  between  Angola  to  the  south  and  Mauritania  to  the  north  for  tuna  seiners.  The 
interest of the area for these vessels is demonstrated by the fact that almost all the active 
vessels in these categories in the Atlantic Ocean have taken out a fishing  licence under 
the current implementing Protocol.  

Importantly, the fishing opportunities available in Guinea-Bissau's fishing zone are of an 
acceptable volume, even in excess of requirements, judging by the rate of utilisation of 
fishing  opportunities,  which  has  been  relatively  low  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
Protocol.  

The main fragility of the current fishing opportunities concerns fishing category 5, which 
has  not  been  exploited  by  EU  vessels  specializing  in  this  type  of  fishery,  due  to  the 
technical constraints imposed by the Protocol and the availability of fishing opportunities 

31 

 
in  sufficient  quantities  under  other  SFPAs  concluded  by  the  EU  with  Morocco  and 
Mauritania.  

EU pelagic trawlers exploiting the small pelagic fishing areas of Morocco and Mauritania 
generally exceed the individual  tonnage ceiling  authorised by the current  implementing 
Protocol  (5  000  GT)  and  consider  the  minimum  mesh  size  (70  mm)  not  adequate  for 
targeting  these  species.  EU  pelagic  trawlers  have  also  indicated  that  they  have  no 
strategic  interest  in  going  further  south  to  exploit  a  fishing  area  where  fishing 
opportunities  are  limited  compared  to  those  available  in  Morocco  and  Mauritania. 
Fishing opportunities in Guinea-Bissau could be of potential interest for fishing category 
5  if  fishing  opportunities  in  Morocco  and  Mauritania  were  to  decrease  and  technical 
conditions were adapted35.  

Importantly, adapting the technical  conditions  to  fit  the interests of the  EU fleet  would 
require  a  derogation  from  national  legislation.  For  example,  the  latest  conditions  of 
access  to  the  EEZ  of  Guinea-Bissau  stipulate,  among  other  things,  that  fishing  vessels 
operating in the EEZ may not exceed a 2 500 GT (lowered from 5 000 GT)36. In addition, 
the  mesh  size  authorised  (70  mm)  is  too  large  compared  with  the  conventional  mesh 
authorised for this fishing category in other fishing zones (40 mm).    

Overall,  the  current  implementing  Protocol  is  effective  in  providing  access  to  an 
important  fishing  zone  for  most  of  the  fishing  categories,  with  some  areas  for 
improvement.  In  particular,  Guinea-Bissau's  fishing  zone  is  part  of  a  network  of 
agreements  concluded  by  the  EU  with  countries  in  the  region,  enabling  the  vessels 
concerned to maintain their activities throughout the year.  

2.b  Level  of  fees  paid  by  EU  vessel  owners  for  their  fishing  activities  is  fair  and 
proportionate to costs and revenues, and non-discriminatory 

As  outlined  in  Section  3.2  and  3.3  of  this  evaluation,  the  technical  fishing  conditions 
applicable to EU vessels are broadly similar to those applicable to other foreign vessels. 
Estimates of the economic performance of category 1 and 2 trawlers indicate a moderate 
positive  level  of  profitability,  probably  facilitated  by  a  proportionate  relative  cost  of 
access  fees  in  the  order  of  4-5%  of  turnover.  For  category  3  and  4  tuna  vessels,  the 
affordable  cost  of  access  fees  means  that  fishing  authorisations  can  be  taken  as  a 
precautionary measure without impacting the profitability of the fleets concerned. 

2.c Ensure supplies to markets in the EU, Guinea-Bissau and certain third countries 

35 For more information, please see Section 6.3.1 of the evaluation study. 

36  Despacho-Conjunto  de  04  de  Março  de  2022  sobre  Condição  de  acesso  na  ZEE,  no  quadro  de 

afretamento e navios nacionais (not published) 

32 

 
 
As  explained  in  Section  3.2  of  this  evaluation,  EU  operators  of  category  1  and  2  have 
communicated that almost all their catches, which represent 90% of EU catches under the 
current  implementing  Protocol,  are  to  supply  the  EU  market.  Although  the  current 
implementing Protocol  has suffered  from  a decrease in  the  rate of utilisation of fishing 
opportunities – including a decrease in catches in comparison to the 2014-2017 Protocol 
– it has continued to be effective in supplying the EU market in relative terms.  

On  providing  a  framework  to  encourage  landings  by  EU  vessels  in  Guinea-Bissau,  the 
current implementing Protocol has been less effective. As explained in Section 3.3 of this 
evaluation, the supply of the Guinea-Bissau market by EU operators is limited to the in-
kind  contributions  required  for  under  the  current  implementing  Protocol  (around  100 
tonnes per year). 

Almost all industrial vessels authorised to operate in Guinea-Bissau use foreign ports to 
land  their  catches.  Importantly,  the  lack  of  landings  in  Guinea-Bissau  is  largely  due  to 
structural problems that prevent fishery products from being marketed under conditions 
equivalent  to  those  available  in  other  regional  ports  such  as  Dakar.  The  challenges 
involved  in  making  Guinea-Bissau  more  attractive  as  a  landing  site  go  far  beyond  the 
possibilities  offered  by  the  current  implementing  Protocol.  Certain  sectoral  support 
activities, including those supporting steps towards export certification to the EU and the 
construction of the industrial fishing port, are likely to encourage landings. 

2.d  Encourage  the  creation  of  a  favourable  environment  for  private  investment  and 
economic  activities  that  contribute  to  the  sustainable  development  of  the  partner 
country and strengthen its cooperation with the EU 

On  encouraging  cooperation  between  economic  operators,  the  current  implementing 
Protocol has been less effective. EU fleets using fishing opportunities under the current 
Protocol  do  not  use  Guinea-Bissau  ports.  Port  and  related  activities  supported  by  EU 
vessels mainly  benefit  Senegal  (port of Dakar frequented by trawlers  and pole-and-line 
vessels) and Côte d'Ivoire (port of Abidjan frequented by purse seiners), and to a lesser 
extent the ports of the Canary Islands (Las Palmas). The current implementing Protocol 
currently  creates  economic  development  opportunities  in  these  foreign  and  EU  ports. 
Certain  sectoral  support  activities,  including  those  supporting  steps  towards  export 
certification  to  the  EU  and  the  construction  of  the  industrial  fishing  port,  are  likely  to 
encourage economic cooperation in the long term.  

In  addition,  the  provisions  of  Article  10  of  the  current  implementing  Protocol  for 
promoting  the  economic  integration  of  EU  operators  in  the  fisheries  sector  of  Guinea-
Bissau have not  been used by both  parties for  reasons  linked to  difficult  context of the 
2019-2022 period (institutional instability, COVID pandemic, economic shock linked to 
the Ukrainian crisis). 

Objective  3:  support  the  development  of  a  sustainable  fishing  sector  in  Guinea-Bissau  
and analysis of  social, economic and environmental impacts 

33 

 
3.a  Contribute  to  capacity  building  and  social,  environmental  and  economic 
development in Guinea-Bissau 

On  objectives  regarding  the  implementation  of  the  national  fisheries  policy  and 
sustainable  development  of  the  fisheries  sector,  the  current  implementing  Protocol  was 
relatively  effective.  Despite  the  obstacles  mentioned  in  Section  3.4  –  including 
significant delays in the implementation of sectoral support funds  - the sectoral support 
funds  contributed  to  the  implementation  of  essential  functions  of  the  Ministry  of 
Fisheries such  as  fisheries  research, protection of the marine  environment  and fisheries 
monitoring, control and surveillance measures. As previously mentioned, the importance 
of sectoral support funds for the fishing sector is confirmed by the fact that they represent 
approximately 50% of the budgetary allocation of the Ministry of Fisheries (in 2020 and 
2021).  Sectoral  support  activities  have  also  been  effective  in  contributing  to  improving 
the governance framework of the fisheries sector through support for the preparation of 
the 
the  2023-2027  National  Strategy  for  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture 
organization of a broad public consultation of stakeholders in the sector. 

including 

3.b Defined annual and multiannual objectives to be achieved with the aim of developing 
sustainable fishing activities in Guinea-Bissau  

As  outlined  in  Section  3.4  of  this  evaluation,  annual  and  multiannual  objectives  are 
jointly programmed by the Joint Committee in regards for sectoral support funds. While 
the current implementing Protocol has been effective in providing a framework for such 
programming,  there  are  areas  for  improvement  in  terms  of  implementing  the 
programmed activities under sectoral support.  

External (global health crisis, institutional instability) and internal factors (difficulties in 
the  management  of  funds,  programming  and  monitoring-evaluation  capacities)  have 
contributed  to  the  delay  in  the  implementation  of  sectoral  support  funds  in  accordance 
with  the  jointly  agreed  programming  by  Guinea-Bissau.  Corrective  measures  –  such 
reprogramming of activities, a single bank account for sectoral support, among others  - 
have  been  jointly  agreed.  The  final  periods  of  the  Protocol  will  enable  us  to  verify 
whether these necessary measures are sufficient to resolve the problems encountered. 

3.c Assessment of results obtained in terms of impacts 

Implementation  of  the  impact  of  sectoral  support  is  jointly  monitored  by  the  Joint 
Committee, on the basis of supporting documents supplied by the Ministry of Fisheries, 
and through technical missions of the EU dedicated to monitoring technical support.  

Importantly,  the  reports  and  documentation  provided  by  the  Ministry  of  Fisheries 
generally identify the activities implemented and the main challenges encountered by the 
national authorities, but there is room for improvement in their analysis of economic and 
social  benefits.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  Protocol  does  not  specifically 
address the need to address this dimension.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.d Promote employment of local seafarers 

As  demonstrated  in  Section  3.3  of  this  evaluation,  EU  obligations  to  employ  national 
seafarers  on  EU  vessels  appear  to  have  been  respected  overall  and  the  current 
implementing  Protocol  has  been  effective  in  encouraging  such  employment.  According 
to  the  evaluation  study37,  sustained  employment  could  concern  around  110  full-time 
equivalent  seafarer  jobs.  This  estimate  is  compatible  with  the  figure  of  142  employed 
seafarers communicated during the first Joint Commission meeting.  

The Protocol has been less effective in ensuring that training levels of national seafarers 
are  adequate.  This  has  often  been  raised  as  a  problem  by  EU  operators  and  national 
authorities. Guinea-Bissau has a pool of experienced seafarers, but their qualifications are 
not  recognized  according  to  the  standards  of  the  International  Maritime  Organization 
which  apply  to  EU  vessels  (STCW-F  convention).  The  national  authorities  are  fully 
aware  of  the  needs  in  terms  of  education  and  professional  training  of  and  intend  to 
address  the  problem  with  the  assistance  of  sectoral  support  funds  for  the  training 
activities retained in the matrices programming38.  

There are also no indications to suggest that the social clause in the current implementing 
Protocol  has  not  been  respected.    On  the  other  hand,  due  to  the  obstacles  to  economic 
integration outlined in the previous section (e.g. lack of port infrastructure), the activities 
of  EU  vessels  under  the  current  Protocol  have  not  contributed  to  supporting  national 
employment in related upstream and downstream industries. 

Efficiency: to what extent were the expected effects achieved at reasonable costs?  

In  terms  of  the  cost-benefit  for  the  EU,  the  efficiency  of  the  current  implementing 
Protocol  is  diminished  because  EU  vessels  have  only  exploited  part  of  the  negotiated 
fishing  opportunities.  The  fishing  opportunities  available  to  EU  vessels  were  used  at  a 
rate of 42% on average over the first four periods of the current implementing Protocol. 
Utilisation was satisfactory for category 4 (76% on average over the first four periods); 
average with  a downward trend for category 1  and 3 (around 50%); low but increasing 
for  category  2  (27%);  and  non-existent  for  category  5  (1%  on  average).  For  more 
information on this, see Section 3.2.  

In  summary,  the  utilisation  rates  are  explained  by  reductions  in  the  number  of  active 
vessels  (categories  1  and  3),  by  an  overestimation  of  needs  for  category  2,  and  by  a 
mismatch  between  needs  and  access  modalities  for  category  5  small  pelagic  vessels 
(tonage  limit,  trawl  mesh  size).  Another  factor  impacting  the  use  of  non-tuna  fishing 
opportunities  is  the  availability  of  fishing  opportunities  under  the  agreement  with 

37 For more information, please see Section 8.1.3 of the evaluation study. 

38 For more information, please see Section 8.1.3 of the evaluation study. 

35 

 
 
Mauritania (categories 1 and 2) and under the agreements with Morocco and Mauritania 
(category 5) throughout the duration of the current Protocol. 

Due to the relatively low use of fishing opportunities by EU vessels, the cost benefit ratio 
of  the  current  Protocol  is  acceptable,  with  a  reduced  economic  leverage  effect  (1  EUR 
invested by the EU in  the counterpart for access  is  estimated to  support the creation of 
1.10  EUR  of  added  value  for  the  benefit  of  the  EU).  The  financial  compensation  for 
access  (EUR  11.6  million  per  year)  is  currently  not  proportionate  to  the  fishing 
opportunities  used  by  EU  operators,  resulting  in  a  lower  cost-benefit  ratio  for  the  EU. 
Category 5 stands out from the other categories, with almost no utilisation, as the main 
reason for the lower cost-benefit ratio for the EU.  

Nevertheless,  the  EU’s  investment  in  access  still  generates  a  positive  return  on 
investment: for every euro invested by the EU towards the access  component generated 
EUR 1.33 of added value.  

In terms of the cost-benefit for EU operators, the fishing activities of EU category 1 
and  2  trawlers  are  profitable.  The  estimates  indicate  a  positive  gross  operating  surplus 
(EBE) for these two categories. The EBITDA/turnover ratio is 7% for category 1 vessels 
and  4%  for  category  2  vessels,  which  suggests  an  acceptable  rate  of  profitability.  The 
relative cost of access fees paid by vessels in these two categories is 5% of turnover for 
category 1 vessels and 4% for category 2 vessels.  

For category 3 and 4 tuna vessels, fishing activities in the Guinea-Bissau zone have not 
been  profitable.  This  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  tuna  vessels  have  not  reached  the 
volume of catches identified by the Protocol to set the amount of the flat-rate access fee. 
Fishing authorizations for these segments were taken each year as a precaution to ensure 
the continuum of access to areas potentially frequented by highly migratory species, with 
affordable  flat-rate  fee  amounts  for  these  types  of  vessels  (4,500  EUR  /  year  for  purse 
seiners  and  2,500  EUR/year  for  baitboats)  which  allow  them  to  be  caught  without 
necessarily having the need to make them profitable. 

In  term  of  the  cost-benefit  of  the  actions  of  sectoral  support,  the  pace  of 
implementation  of  sectoral  support  delayed.  In  April  2023,  almost  four  years  after  the 
start of the Protocol, the use of sectoral support funding was 97% of tranche 1 and 55% 
of tranche 2. These delays are attributable to external factors that cannot be controlled by 
the  competent  authorities  (health  crisis,  institutional  instability)  and  to  internal  factors 
(financing  management,  programming  and  monitoring-evaluation  capacities)  for  which 
mitigation measures have been identified.  

Expenditures  made  under  sectoral  support  are  managed  jointly  by  the  Ministry  of 
Fisheries  and  the  Ministry  of  Finance,  and  are  placed  within  the  general  framework  of 
national  regulations  regarding  the  management  of  public  finances.  DG  MARE  also 
carries  out  an  expenditure  audit  in  collaboration  with  the  Ministry  of  Fisheries.  This 

36 

 
expenditure  control  framework  was  effective  in  identifying  challenges  and  in  allowing 
both parties to agree on solutions.  

In  terms  of  financial  compensation  for  fishing  opportunities  benefits  the  EU  and 
Guinea-Bissau,  over  the  period  2019-2021,  43%  of  the  total  added  value  is  for  the 
benefit of the EU, 48% for Guinea-Bissau (including the financial compensation paid by 
the  EU  for  access)  and  9%  for  other  entities  including  Senegal  (trawler  activities)  and 
Côte  d'Ivoire  (tuna  vessel  activities).  The  share  of  value  added  estimated  for  Guinea-
Bissau only considers the access component of the Protocol. Although not quantifiable, 
the  sectoral  support  component  of  the  Protocol  generates  significant  additional  socio-
economic benefits. 

The  annual  added  value  (average  2019-2021)  to  the  EU  is  based  on  wages  of  EU 
nationals  working  on  vessels  benefiting  from  fishing  opportunities  in  Guinea-Bissau 
(34%);  indirect  downstream  value  from  the  marketing/processing  of  catches  in  the  EU 
(46%); indirect upstream value by EU companies in the shipbuilding and the bunkering 
sectors  (13%);  and  remaining  earnings  before  interest,  taxes,  depreciation  and 
amortization (7%). 

The annual  added value (average 2019-2021) for Guinea-Bissau is mostly based on the 
EU  financial  compensation  and  access  fees  paid  by  EU  operators  (90%).  The  share  of 
added  value  captured  by  Guinea-Bissau  from  the  activities  of  EU  fishing  vessels  is 
relatively  low  (10%),  and  consists  almost  entirely  of  salaries  paid  to  national  seamen 
working on EU trawlers.  

Taking direct and indirect jobs into account, the Protocol is estimated to support a total of 
almost 600 FTEs on an annual average, of which 264 FTEs are occupied by EU nationals 
(45% of the total). The number of FTEs occupied by Guinea-Bissau nationals is around 
150 (26% of the total) and concerns almost exclusively jobs on board EU vessels. 

Coherence 

Overall,  the  current  implementing  Protocol  is  coherent  and  cooperates  positively  with 
other EU interventions and contributes to the priorities identified by both Parties.  

On  coherence  with  EU  legislation  in  fisheries,  the  activities  of  EU  vessels  are 
monitored  in  accordance  with  the  standards  applicable  in  EU  waters,  in  particular  the 
CFP.  The  activities  implemented  under  the  Protocol  have  especially  encouraged 
scientific  cooperation  between  both  Parties.  For  example,  the  meetings  of  the  Joint 
Scientific Committee, initiatives by stakeholders  in  association with  scientific institutes 
to train observers, and the implementation of selectivity campaigns for trawlers.  

On other SFPAs in the region and other access agreements between Guinea-Bissau 
and other partner countries, the current  implementing  Protocol  is  generally coherent. 
In  fact,  the  technical  fishing  conditions  applicable  to  EU  vessels  are  broadly  similar  to 

37 

 
 
 
 
those applicable to other foreign vessels. The main difference lies in the authorized by-
catch  percentages,  which  could  benefit  from  further  alignment  with  values  already 
applicable to EU vessels. 

On  EU  objectives  at  regional  and  sub-regional  level,  the  Agreement  is  part  of  a 
coherent  regional  network  of  SFPAs,  enabling  vessels  of  different  categories  to  access 
important  fishing  zones  under  the  binding  framework  of  EU  agreements.  The  current 
implementing  Protocol  contributes  to  the  objectives  of  RFMOs,  such  as  ICCAT,  by 
providing  for  management  and  conservation  measures  that  do  not  derogate  from  those 
applicable  throughout  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  The  sectoral  support  component  of  the 
Protocol  partly  supports  Guinea-Bissau's  integration  into  RFMOs,  but  has  been  less 
successful  in  directing  support  to  ensure  compliance  with  Guinea-Bissau’s  reporting 
obligations under RFMOs.  

On  alignment  with  international  objectives  in  fisheries  and  ocean  governance,  the 
measures  implemented  under  the  Protocol  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  UN 
Sustainable  Development  Goal  14  (life  below  water0),  with  a  further  contribution  to 
SDG  8  (decent  work  and  economic  growth)  due  to  the  measures  to  protect  seafarers' 
rights enshrined in the Protocol. 

4.2 How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

EU Added Value 

The current implementing Protocol mostly responds to the needs of both Parties through 
the  interventions  provided  for  under  the  access  and  sectoral  support  components.  The 
EU's added value lies mainly in the following three elements: 

•  Access to Guinea-Bissau's waters and fishing resources under a legal framework for 

both Parties; 

Without the current implementing Protocol, EU vessels would have been unable to take 
direct  fishing  licences  due  to  the  exclusivity  clause  applicable  under  Article  6  of  the 
Agreement.  The  inability  to  access  the  fishing  areas  under  the  current  implementing 
Protocol would have had negative impacts on the operators, which base their exploitation 
strategies on access to these fishing areas.   

In addition, the involvement of the EU makes it possible to put in place a binding legal 
framework setting out the rights and obligations of both parties, with the possibility for 
the European Commission to supervise the implementation of the current implementing 
Protocol.  

•  Availability  of  sectoral  support  funds  (EUR  20  million,  from  2019-2024)  targeting 
the  sustainable  development  of  the  fisheries  sector  under  joint  management  by  the 
EU and Guinea-Bissau; 

38 

 
The conclusion of the Protocol also allowed the EU to put in place mechanisms for the 
sustainable  development  of  the  national  fishing  sector  in  Guinea-Bissau  provided  for 
under  the  sectoral  support  component.  In  the  case  of  Guinea-Bissau,  the  financial 
envelope available (EUR 20 million over five years) is significant, and makes it possible 
to  support  important  projects  in  terms  of  infrastructure,  research  and  construction  of  a 
competent  authority  for  the  health  certification  of  fishery  products.  The  situation  since 
2019  reveals  that  sectoral  support  is  practically  the  only  support  available  to  Guinea-
Bissau for the development of its sector.  

• 

Increased  and  stronger  cooperation  between  both  Parties  in  scientific  research  and 
monitoring, control and surveillance measures. 

The meetings of the Joint Scientific Committee provided for by Article 7 of the current 
implementing Protocol are another element likely to contribute to the added value of EU 
intervention. These meetings makes it possible to create a forum for exchanges between 
scientists  from  both  Parties,  which  allows  the  sharing  of  data  and  the  sharing  of 
experience. The presence of Spanish vessels in the Guinea-Bissau fishing areas, which is 
made  possible  by  the  intervention  of  the  EU,  has  also  favoured  scientific  cooperation 
between  the  IEO  and  the  INIPO  to  implement  campaigns  at  the  sea  (evaluation 
campaigns, experimental campaigns for selective devices) and observer training sessions. 

Acceptability39 

EU  fleets  that  have  made  use  of  fishing  opportunities  are  generally  satisfied  with  the 
conditions defined by the Protocol, and support its renegotiation with a few adjustments 
and clarifications.  Importantly,  EU vessels  specializing  in  small  pelagic  species are not 
satisfied with the technical conditions of the Protocol and have not made use of it.  The 
interest  in  access  to  small  pelagic  species  has  nevertheless  been  confirmed,  but  would 
require  substantial  technical  adaptations  compared  with  the  current  implementing 
Protocol40. 

the  Ministry  of  Fisheries  are  generally  satisfied  with 

the 
Representatives  of 
implementation  of  the  current  Protocol.  The  share  of  value  added  benefiting  Guinea-
Bissau can be considered advantageous in view of the relative importance of the fishing 
activities  carried  out  by  the  EU  fleet  in  its  fishing  zone.  The  value  added  captured  by 
Guinea-Bissau is made up of the EU financial contribution towards access (89%) and the 
remuneration of national seamen employed on EU vessels (10%).  

Importantly, the EU financial contribution for access is crucial for the good functioning 
of  the  State.  State  revenue  from  the  fisheries  sector  averaged  EUR  25  million  per  year 
over  the  period  2019-2021,  representing  around  15  %  of  the  country's  total  budget 
revenue, and almost 50 % of its non-tax budget revenue. The EU financial contribution 

39 For a full report of the consultations conduction, see Annex 6 of the evaluation study. 

40  For  a  full  outline  of  the  positions  of  the  EU  fleet  on  fishing  category  5,  see  also  Annex  6  of  the 

evaluation study. 

39 

 
 
for access represents 60 % of national budget revenue from the fisheries sector. Guinea-
Bissau's  population  (2.0 million  people)  and  economy  are  based  on  the  primary  sector, 
with the fisheries sector contributing an estimated 3 % of the gross domestic product. 

The  sectoral  support  contribution  is  also  very  important  in  meeting  the  considerable 
needs of the fisheries administration in particular as regards the monitoring, control and 
surveillance  of  fishing  activities.  Despite  this  support,  recurring  problems  linked  to  the 
use  of  sectoral  support,  such  as  delays  and  modifications  to  the  actions  agreed 
beforehand,  prevent  the  full  and  timely  attainment  of  the  desired  results  in  terms  of 
improving the quality of fisheries management.  

Civil  society  actors  in  Guinea-Bissau  regret  the  limited  impact  of  the  Protocol's 
provisions on the economic integration between operators in the national fishing sector.  
The national conference organized by the Ministry of Fisheries in December 2022, with 
the support of sectoral support funds, was seen as a positive step towards establishing a 
public-private  dialogue.  In  this  context,  civil  society  members  were  very  clear  that  the 
positive  impacts  of  the  current  implementing  Protocol  in  Guinea-Bissau  are  mostly 
invisible or misunderstood. The lack of communication and visibility by both Parties of 
the role of the EU and the Agreement  continues to reinforce a misrepresentation of the 
EU as a ‘resource plunderer’ in regional fisheries.  

4.3 Is the intervention still relevant? 

The  Agreement  and  its  current  implementing  Protocol  are  relevant  insofar  as  they 
satisfactorily meet the needs of both Parties through the interventions provided for under 
the access and sectoral support components of the current Protocol.  

The fishing opportunities negotiated correspond somewhat in excess to the needs of the 
EU's  distant  water  fleets  active  in  the  region.  In  particular,  the  needs  of  EU  vessels 
specialising in small pelagics. 

For EU operators, the current implementing Protocol provides  a predictable access to  a 
productive fishing area integrated in a network of important fishing zones for EU vessels 
in  the  Atlantic,  particularly  in  the  sub-region  including  Cabo  Verde,  Mauritania, 
Morocco, Senegal, and The Gambia, among others.  

The  Protocol  also  responds  to  Guinea-Bissau's  need  to  be  able  to  exploit  its  fishing 
potential  in  the  absence  of  national  fishing  fleets  capable  of  doing  so.  In  addition,  the 
current  implementing  Protocol  delivered  socio  economic  benefits  to  Guinea-Bissau 
through the financial compensation for the access and sectoral support components.   

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

The  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  current  implementing  Protocol  demonstrates  that  the 
Protocol  has  generally  succeeded  in  achieving  its  main  objectives,  with  some  areas  for 
improvement. The following elements of the EU intervention are working well: 

40 

 
i. 

ii. 

iii. 

EU vessels operate within the capacity limits established by the annual management 
plans which are science-based. The EU fleet has contributed to the improvement of 
knowledge  through  the  transmission  of  monitoring  data,  and  by  initiatives  by 
operators to improve the selectivity of trawls and contribute to the training of Guinea-
Bissau observers. No infringements of fisheries management measures involving EU 
vessels have been identified by the competent authorities.  

EU  vessels  generally  complied  with  the  provisions  of  the  Protocol  concerning  the 
contribution  in  kind  to  food  safety  and  the  embarkation  of  national  seamen  despite 
the  difficulties  associated  with  the  insufficient  levels  of  training  of  the  national 
workforce.  

Sectoral  support  funds  have  enabled  Guinea-Bissau  to  ensure  the  functioning  of  its 
fisheries management system in a context where there were no other external funding 
available to support the governance of the sector. Sectoral support has thus enabled 
the implementation of certain essential functions such as scientific, protection of the 
marine environment  (management of MPAs) and fisheries  control, supporting other 
initiatives  important  for  the  governance  of  the  sector  (e.g.  2023-2027  National 
Fisheries and Aquaculture Strategy), and progress towards the country’s accreditation 
to export fishery products to the EU and the certification of its control laboratory.  

In terms of the lessons learned, a new protocol will nevertheless have to introduce some 
adjustments to fishing opportunities compared with the current implementing Protocol to 
improve both effectiveness and efficiency. The main elements of the EU intervention that 
did not work as effectively as planned are the following :  

i. 

 The failure to implement the transition from a fisheries management system based on 
fishing capacity limits to a fisheries management system based on catch limits on the 
third  year  of  implementation  (as  described  in  Section  3.2  of  this  evaluation). 
Importantly,  the  failure  to  transition  is  not  attributable  to  the  EU  side,  which  had 
anticipated  this  transition  in  the  Protocol  and  pushed  for  it  to  take  place  at  the 
meetings of the Joint Committees meetings, but to unforeseen events at the national 
level which delayed the legislative process to accompany the transition.  

ii.  A  lower  level  of  efficiency  of  the  Protocol  resulting  from  the  under-utilisation  of 
fishing opportunities by EU trawlers, especially by EU vessels targeting small pelagic 
species  (as  described  in  Section  3.2  of  this  evaluation).  This  category  of  fishing, 
which was added for the first time to the fishing categories of the Agreement in the 
current  implementing Protocol,  has hardly been  used  due to  technical  restraints and 
sufficient fishing opportunities in other regional agreements.  

iii.  Delays in the use of the funds earmarked for sectoral support by Guinea-Bissau, due 
to reasons beyond the control of the competent authorities (health crisis, institutional 
instability,  uncertainties  inherent  in  infrastructure  works)  but  also  by  management 
practices which have slowed down the execution of funds (as described in Section 3.4 

41 

 
of  this  evaluation).  Importantly,  these  issues  were  reviewed  in  full  transparency 
between the parties and corrective actions are being taken.   

iv.  A  lack  of  initiatives  implemented  to  promote  the  economic  integration  of  operators 
on  both  sides.  However,  the  context  was  not  favourable  with  a  business  climate  in 
Guinea-Bissau’s fisheries sector which is unattractive for many reasons, including the 
lack  of  landing  infrastructure,  the  lack  of  authorisation  for  the  export  of  fishery 
products  to  the  EU  and  institutional  instability  which  diminishes  the  visibility  that 
investors need  (as  described in  Section 3.3 of this evaluation). The EU  fleet,  as  the 
other  industrial  fleets  authorised  to  enter  the  EEZ,  uses  foreign  ports  for  landing 
operations. 

v.  A  lack  of  communication  and  visibility  of  the  benefits  of  the  Agreement  and  the 
current  implementing  Protocol  which  have  likely  diminish  the  acceptability  the 
operations of the EU fleet for civil society in Guinea-Bissau and in the EU. 

Overall, the EU's role in the current implementing Protocol has been marked by several 
distinctive factors. Through the current implementing Protocol, the EU provides fishing 
opportunities for Union fishing vessels in important fishing areas. In addition, the EU has 
established a legal  framework for fishing  operations that is  guided by principles on the 
economic,  financial,  technical,  and  scientific  cooperation  in  the  fisheries  sector  with  a 
view  to  ensure  the  conservation  and  sustainable  exploitation  of  fisheries  resources. 
Lastly, through the sectoral support component of the implementing Protocol, the EU has 
empowered  Guinea-Bissau  through  capacity  building,  and  ensured  compliance  with 
regulations, safeguarding the interests of both the EU and Guinea-Bissau. 

6.  EX-ANTE EVALUATION 

The ex-ante evaluation of the current implementing Protocol provides a forward-looking 
perspective that is complementary to the ex-post evaluation. Expressly, it reflects on the 
lessons learned and outlines the possible ways forward, through a set of available policy 
options, for the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU 
and Guinea-Bissau  

6.1 Problem analysis and needs assessment  

In  the  context  of  the  intervention  logic  in  Figure  2,  this  section  outlines  the  possible 
current  and  future  needs  of  both  Parties  to  the  current  implementing  Protocol  and  the 
Agreement. 

Current and future needs of Guinea-Bissau 

Guinea-Bissau’s  fishing  area  is  attractive  because  it  is  relatively  rich  in  fisheries 
resources. According to the results of the 2022 stock assessment campaign, the biomass 
available  is  in  the  range  of  360 000  tonnes  of  various  species,  including  high-value 
commercial species such as cephalopods, crustaceans, demersal fish and small pelagics.  

42 

 
Guinea-Bissau  has  no  fishing  fleet  capable  of  exploiting  this  potential.  Access 
agreements with foreign fleets enable the country to exploit its fishing potential through 
financial contributions and spill over effects on the employment of national seamen and 
the supply of the local market. To sustainably exploit its resources, Guinea-Bissau needs 
to  be  able  to  determine  fishing  opportunities  on  a  scientific  basis,  to  implement  an 
effective  and  sustainable  fisheries  management  system.  Meeting  these  needs  requires 
specialised  research  and  fisheries  monitoring  with  adequate  technical  means  and  well-
trained human resources.  

Guinea-Bissau has just adopted a new sectoral policy for the period 2023-2027. One of 
the main ambitions of the strategy is to promote the integration of the fisheries sector into 
the  national  economy,  through  the  development  of  a  national  fishing  fleet.  The 
implementation of this sectoral policy requires significant budgetary resources, estimated 
at EUR 243 million over five years, which the State cannot assume on its own. Through 
its  partner  countries,  the  Ministry  of  Fisheries  needs  to  be  able  to  secure  multiannual 
budgetary  resources  in  order  to  meet  the  priorities  identified  for  the  sustainable 
development of the sector. 

Current and future needs of the EU 

The EU is committed to improving international ocean governance, including the global 
fight against IUU fishing. The EU gives support for numerous development programmes 
aimed  at  strengthening  governance  mechanisms  in  the  fisheries  sector  in  West  Africa, 
including the SFPAs and the PESCAO programme. In this context, the EU fleet is held to 
the highest standard possible regardless  of the fishing  areas in  which they operate.  The 
EU uses instruments such as the SFPAs and their implementing protocols to regulate the 
activity of its fleet in partner country waters, in accordance with international law and the 
objectives and requirements of the EU Common Fisheries Policy.  

The EU’s international ocean governance agenda also promotes the sustainability of fish 
stocks. The  Agreement  and its  implementing Protocol complement a network of multi-
species agreements which makes it possible to intervene on shared regional stocks other 
than  tuna  vessels  (Morocco,  Mauritania,  Senegal,  The  Gambia,  Senegal  and  Guinea-
Bissau) and a network of tuna agreements covering part of the western tropical Atlantic. 
In addition, the principle of non-discrimination between fleets is central to the CFP. The 
EU  must  be  able  to  ensure  that  the  negotiated  access  conditions  for  access  to  Guinea-
Bissau’s  fishing  area  are  consistent  with  the  conditions  laid  down  by  the  national 
authorities and with the conditions negotiated with other third countries in order to ensure 
fair treatment. 

Finally,  as  part  of  its  external  action,  the  EU  has  committed  to  have  a  leading  role  in 
implementing  the  2030  UN  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development.  The  EU  therefore 
needs  to  be  able  to  mobilise  an  instrument  that  contributes  to  achieving  the  UN 
Sustainable Development Goals, in particular the goals concerning aquatic life (SDG 14) 

43 

 
in  the  waters  of  Guinea-Bissau,  in  synergy  with  other  interventions  by  the  EU  and  its 
Member States. 

The sectoral support funds, in synergy with other EU interventions, allow both Parties to 
jointly exchange and implement initiatives to promote the sustainable development of the 
fisheries  sector,  including  initiatives  to  combat  IUU  fishing  and  the  strengthening  of 
fisheries research. 

Current and future needs of the EU fleet 

For  EU  trawlers  currently  fishing  under  fishing  categories  1,  2  and  5  of  the  current 
implementing Protocol, access to fishing areas of third countries in West Africa is a need 
for specialised units  that do not  have fishing opportunities in  EU waters. These vessels 
make  use  of  the  fishing  opportunities  available  under  the  EU  SFPAs  in  the  sub-region 
(Morocco, Mauritania, Senegal, The Gambia and Guinea-Bissau). Within this network of 
agreements,  EU  operators  stressed  the  importance  of  fishing  opportunities  available  in 
Mauritania  and  Guinea-Bissau  for  trawlers  exploiting  demersal  species,  and  of  fishing 
opportunities available in Morocco and Mauritania for trawlers exploiting small pelagic 
species.  The  latter  indicated  a  potential  interest  in  Guinea-Bissau’s  fishing  areas,  with 
technical adjustments and if fishing opportunities decrease in Morocco and Mauritania.  

For pole-and-line tuna vessels, fishing activities are traditionally carried out in a network 
of  fishing  areas  which  includes  Guinea-Bissau,  Senegal,  The  Gambia,  Mauritania  and 
Cabo Verde. For tuna seiners, fishing activities shall take place throughout the Western 
Atlantic, between Angola and Mauritania. For tuna vessels, Guinea-Bissau’s fishing area 
is  not  among  the  most  productive,  but  is  important  to  track  movements  of  highly 
migratory species in the region.  

Finally, having stable access agreements for multiannual durations allows the EU fleet to 
plan  their  regional  fishing  strategies  over  several  seasons.  The  fleets  also  need  access 
conditions framed by a robust legal instrument that clearly sets out rights and obligations. 

All EU shipowners’ associations consulted in the context of this evaluation support the 
renewal of access opportunities to Guinea-Bissau’s fishing areas41. 

6.2 EU added value  

The  EU  holds  exclusive  competence  to  negotiate  the  implementing  protocols  to  the 
SFPAs, in  accordance  with  Article 3 of the Treaty  on the  Functioning  of the European 
Union. In  addition  to  the added value outlined in  Section 4.2,  the EU’s involvement in 
the negotiation of a new implementing protocol also brings the following benefits: 

41 For a full report of the consultations conduction, see Annex 6 of the evaluation study. 

44 

 
 
i. 

ii. 

iii. 

a  mandate  from  the  EU  that  ensures  that  the  Protocol  and  its  implementation  are 
aligned  with  international  law  and  the  CFP  and  consistent  with  other  agreements 
concluded with partner countries in the region,  

the possibility for the EU to have an instrument to strengthen sectoral policy at sub-
regional level, which is facilitated by a network of agreements and EU interventions 
within ICCAT and CECAF, and  

a  specific 
interventions within ICCAT and CECAF. 

instrument  of  bilateral  cooperation  with  Guinea-Bissau,  and 

its 

6.3 Policy and management objectives  

The objectives of SFPAs are guided by Articles 31 and 32 of the Basic Regulation on the 
CFP and the Council conclusions on the external dimension of the CFP. The objectives 
of  a  future  intervention  under  the  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreement  concluded  between 
the  EU  and  Guinea-Bissau  must  be  based  on  the  general  and  specific  objectives  (see 
Section 2.1.2) which guide the EU’s intervention logic for  all SFPAs. This intervention 
logic is outlined in Figure 2.  

6.4 Policy options, including associated risks  

Two  options  are  available  when  the  current  implementing  Protocol  to  the  Agreement 
expires on 14 June 2024:  

•  Option  A:  non  negotiation  of  the  Protocol  implementing  the  Agreement  when  the 

current implementing Protocol expires 

•  Option  B:  negotiation  of  a  new  protocol  implementing  the  Agreement  with  two 

possible sub-options:  

o  Sub-option  B1:  negotiation  of  a  new  implementing  protocol  with  the  same 

conditions as the current Protocol (status quo) 

o  Sub-option  B2:  negotiation  of  a  new  implementing  protocol  with  adjusted 

conditions  

6.4.1  Option A 

The  Agreement  becomes  dormant  without  an  implementing  protocol.  The  instruments 
provided  for  in  Articles  31  and  32  of  the  CFP  become  non  applicable,  except  for  the 
provision on the exclusivity clause which prevents EU vessels from accessing the fishing 
areas in Guinea-Bissau. 

6.4.2  Option B 

Under  option  B,  the  EU  and  Guinea-Bissau  agree  on  the  conclusion  of  a  new 
implementing  protocol  under  the  Agreement  for  a  new  multiannual  period.  The 

45 

 
conclusion of a new protocol will make it possible to implement the tools provided for by 
the  CFP  to  establish  the  framework  under  which  EU  vessels  may  operate  in  Guinea-
Bissau  waters  and  to  mobilise  an  EU  financial  contribution  for  access  and  sectoral 
support. The financial contribution in question will be the result of a negotiation and are 
not known at this stage. 

Sub-option B1  

Sub-option  B1  consists  of  negotiating  a  new  protocol  without  any  adjustment  to  the 
conditions of the current implementing Protocol (same conditions for the implementation 
of the access component and sectoral support, same financial commitments) 

Sub-option B2  

The main conclusions of the ex-post evaluation and the lessons learned suggest that there 
are  areas  for  improvement  in  the  conditions  of  the  current  implementing  Protocol.  The 
purpose of the proposed adjustments under the access component would mainly be (i) to 
improve  the  efficiency  of  EU  intervention  by  improving  the  alignment  between  the 
fishing  opportunities  negotiated  and  their  actual  utilisation  and  (ii)  to  better  define  the 
operational characteristics of fishing category 5 targeting small pelagic species.  

The following adaptations could be made per fishing category: 

i.  Category 1 – fin-fish/cephalopod trawlers: The fishing opportunities available under this 
sub-option could be better aligned with the actual use of the fishing opportunities of the 
category over the first four years (average utilisation rate 54 %– average annual catches 
equivalent to 48 % of the TAC in case of transition). In addition, the definition for this 
fishing category could be clarified to avoid combining two categories (fish/cephalopods) 
which  are  subject  to  separate  treatment  in  the  fisheries  management  plan  prepared  by 
Guinea-Bissau.  The  percentages  of  cephalopods  caught  by  vessels  in  this  category 
(around 15 % of the reported catches) and its consideration as an exclusively cephalopod 
category in the fisheries management plan suggest that its definition be clarified. 

ii.  Category 2 – shrimp trawlers:  the fishing opportunities available under this sub-option 
could be better aligned with the actual use of fishing opportunities of the category over 
the first four years (average utilisation rate 27 %– average annual  catches equivalent to 
50 % of the TAC provided in case of transition). 

iii.  Category 3 and 4 – tuna vessels: these two categories have a relatively smaller impact on 
the operations of the current implementing Protocol, nevertheless, a slight alignment of 
fishing opportunities with the actual use of fishing opportunities recorded during the first 
periods of the current Protocol could be considered.  

iv.  Category  5  –  small  pelagic  trawlers:  this  fishing  category  was  barely  used  (3 %  of  the 
available  capacity)  by  fish/cephalopod  trawlers  in  category  1.  This  occurred  during  the 

46 

 
beginning of the current Protocol when the fishing opportunities of category 1 were fully 
utilised. Category 5 for small pelagic species could become attractive for the fleet if:  

•  The  tonnage  limit  would  be  increased  compared  to  that  authorised  under  the 
current  Protocol.  This  increase  would  require  a  derogation  from  national 
legislation which has just reduce the limit from 5 000 GT to 2 500 GT per vessel.  

•  The  minimum  mesh  size  authorised  would  be  lowered  to  40 mm,  as  is  the  case 

under the Morocco and Mauritania agreements.  

•  Propose more appropriate framework measures for this fishery, including a clear 
list of species defining small pelagics and adapting the permitted by-catch to the 
targeting of small pelagic species.  

In  addition  to  these  changes,  the  following  adjustments  could  be  considered  regarding 
sectoral support:  

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

v. 

Strengthen  the  implementation  of  research  and  monitoring  activities  and  relevant 
capacity  levels  within  the  national  administration  of  Guinea-Bissau  to  support  the 
transition to a management system based on catch limits.  
Supporting Guinea-Bissau's compliance with its reporting obligations to the RFMOs 
of which it is a member, such as ICCAT. 
Strengthen the ability of the national administration to implement controls linked to 
the export of fishery products to the EU. 
Facilitating  access  for  national  seamen  to  training  leading  to  qualifications  in  line 
with International Maritime Organisation standards applicable to EU vessels. 
The  identification  of  activities  in  the  programming  of  sectoral  support  funds  that 
address the areas for improvement in the current Protocol. For example: 

o  for  the  implementation  of  activities  designed  to  promote  the  economic 
integration of EU operators in the Guinea-Bissau fisheries sector (Article 10 
of the current Protocol)  

o  for the financing of a technical assistance selected jointly by the two parties to 
support the  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  sectoral 
support  

o  for the organisation  of at  least  one new national  conference of presentations 

and debates on the development of the fisheries sector. 

Importantly,  the  availability  of  the  new  2023-2027  National  Strategy  on  Fisheries  and 
Aquaculture in Guinea-Bissau will be a relevant tool to guide the joint programming of 
sectoral support funds. 

47 

 
 
6.5 Results and impacts  

6.5.1  Option A 

Under  option  A,  EU  vessels  would  no  longer  have  access  to  Guinea-Bissau’s  fishing 
zone as a result of the application of the exclusivity clause. Failure to  enter the fishing 
area will have different impacts depending on the fishing categories: 

i. 

For  categories  1  and  2:  fishing  opportunities  in  Guinea-Bissau  represent  a 
significant  part  of  their  annual  activities.  Guinea-Bissau  accounted  for  around 
45 % on average of the annual catches of the two segments over the period 2019-
2022,  ahead  of  Mauritania’s  fishing  zone.  Without  access  to  Guinea-Bissau, 
category  1  trawlers  may  not  transfer  their  activities  to  Mauritania  where  the 
fishing opportunities for vessels in that category are fully exploited. For category 
2  trawlers,  a  carry-over  could  be  possible  in  Mauritania’s  fishing  zone  where 
fishing opportunities are relatively underutilised. 

ii. 

For categories 3 and 4: loss of access to Guinea-Bissau is undesirable but would 
have  a  more  moderate  impact.  The  record  of  catches  in  the  area  by  vessels  in 
these categories shows moderate levels representing some tenths of a percentage 
of the annual catches in all fishing areas visited.  

iii. 

For category 5: the loss of access will not have an impact, as fishing opportunities 
in this category have not been used due to technical access conditions. 

For Guinea-Bissau, the absence of EU vessels will result in a reduction of approximately 
60 %  in  State  revenue  from  the  fisheries  sector.  Guinea-Bissau  will  probably  have  to 
compensate for this loss of revenue by selling the fishing opportunities left vacant by EU 
vessels to vessels flying other flags, with the risk that these vessels will not operate under 
an  ocean  governance  instrument  that  is  as  strict  and  transparent  as  that  offered  by  the 
SFPAs.  

For  the  EU,  it  will  no  longer  have  a  specific  instrument  to  support  the  sustainable 
development of Guinea-Bissau’s fisheries sector. Scientific cooperation between the EU 
and  Guinea-Bissau  may  continue  within  the  multilateral  framework  of  ICCAT  (tuna 
species)  and  FAO-COPACE  (other  species)  meetings.  However,  the  multilateral 
framework offers fewer opportunities for targeted scientific work in the fishing area than 
the bilateral one. EU support for the development of the fisheries sector can be provided 
through  the  priorities  of  the  Multiannual  Indicative  Plan  2021-2027  under  programmes 
under  formulation.  Guinea-Bissau  will  also  be  among  the  beneficiaries  of  the  EU 
regional  programme  on  improving  ocean  governance  in  the  West  Africa,  which  should 
take  over  the  activities  of  the  PESCAO  programme.  These  various  options  for 
intervention  will  not  be  sufficient  to  replace  breadth  and  depth  of  the  sectoral  support 
component,  which  allows  the  use  of  funds  specifically  targeted  for  the  sustainable 
development of the fisheries sector. 

48 

 
Without sectoral support, Guinea-Bissau will have to turn to other partners to finance the 
implementation of its sectoral policy. The associated risks are that Guinea-Bissau will not 
succeed in finding support commensurate with its needs and/or that the country will have 
to turn to foreign partners whose cooperation arrangements are not necessarily based on 
the same principles as those of the SFPAs and, by extension, the CFP. 

6.5.2  Option B 

In  terms  of  the  sectoral  support  component,  the  negotiation  of  a  Protocol  under  sub-
option  B1  or  B2  will  enable  both  parties  to  maintain  a  bilateral  sectoral  partnership 
framework  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  2023-2027  National  Fisheries  and 
Aquaculture  Strategy.  This  dialogue  framework  will  allow  for  specific  scientific 
cooperation through the  meetings of the Joint Scientific Committee provided for in  the 
Agrement, with the possibility for the EU side to provide high-quality scientific data on 
the activities of EU vessels in Guinea-Bissau’s fishing zone.  

In addition, the continuation of a sectoral support component would continue to facilitate 
sectoral  dialogue  to  direct  sectoral  support  activities  towards  shared  priorities  (fight 
against  IUU  fishing,  scientific  research,  effectiveness  of  the  fisheries  conservation  and 
management  system)  and  national  priorities  (development  of  the  fisheries  sector, 
integration into the overall economy). This dialogue is particularly important at a pivotal 
moment  when  Guinea-Bissau  is  preparing  for  important  developments  (reform  of  the 
management system, creation of an export chain for fishery products to the EU). 

The next sub-sections will consider the possible impacts on the access component: 

Sub-option B.1 

Categories  1,  2,  3  and  4  would  likely  continue  to  access  Guinea-Bissau’s  fishing  area. 
Based  on  the  levels  of  activity  observed  during  the  current  implementing  Protocol, 
around 50 EU vessels will be likely to use the fishing opportunities negotiated.  

The main risk is that the fishing opportunities negotiated remain significantly in excess 
of the needs of EU operators, with a negative impact on the efficiency of EU investment 
under the access component. There are little indications that the fishing capacity of EU 
vessels  in  Guinea-Bissau’s  zone  could  increase  significantly  over  a  new  multiannual 
period.  The  number  of  active  EU  vessels  may  change  in  the  direction  of  decrease  or 
increase, but only marginally.  

Category 1 could  be affected by discontinuity in  the access  opportunities to  the fishing 
zones  of  Morocco,  but  in  a  limited  manner,  noting  the  lack  of  attractiveness  of  the 
opportunities available under the Morocco SFPA.  

Category  5  would  likely  remain  at  anecdotal  levels  until  the  technical  conditions  are 
adapted  to  the  technical  characteristics  of  the  EU  fleet  vessels  specialising  in  these 

49 

 
species  (tonnage  limit,  mesh  size  of  trawls),  even  if  the  fishing  opportunities  currently 
available under the Morocco and Mauritania agreements are decreasing.  

Sub-option B.2 

The adapted fishing opportunities under this sub-option would comprehensively increase 
the efficiency of the EU’s investment in the access component by improving alignment 
between access and foreseeable levels of use.  

For fishing category 5, the inclusion of adjustments aimed at increasing the attractiveness 
and management of  fishing  opportunities does not  guarantee that these will be used by 
EU vessels. The interest in fishing opportunities in the area has been confirmed by some 
EU operators currently active in the sub-region but will depend to a large extent on the 
fishing opportunities exploited under the agreements with Morocco and Mauritania.  

6.5.3  Preferred option 

A  comparison  of  the  options  indicates  that  sub-option  B2  (negotiation  of  a  new 
implementing  protocol  with  some  adjustments)  is  the  preferred  option.  Adjustments  to 
ensure  greater  proportionality  between  the  fishing  opportunities  negotiated  and  the 
effective use of these opportunities will improve the efficiency of the EU’s investment in 
the financial contribution for access.  

Compared  with  sub-option  B2,  sub-option  B1,  which  considers  a  renegotiation  of  the 
current  implementing  Protocol,  has  as  its  main  weaknesses  (i)  maintaining  fishing 
opportunities in excess of needs and (ii) maintaining a category of small pelagic fisheries 
whose technical arrangements are not suitable for EU operators specialising in this type 
of fishery.  

The  sub-options  B1  and  B2  will  allow  the  EU  to  mobilise  specific  EU  funding  for 
sectoral  support,  decoupled  from  the  EU  counterpart  for  access.  The  performance  of 
sectoral  support  will  depend  on  its  implementation  conditions  (available  budget, 
programming, technical and financial management of planned activities, monitoring and 
evaluation). By comparison, option A of non-renewal of the Protocol does not meet any 
of the needs of both parties. 

6.6 Monitoring of a future implementing Protocol 

Once it enters into force, a new implementing protocol would continue to be monitored 
through  the  ongoing  technical  dialogue  between  the  Ministry  of  Fisheries  and  DG 
MARE. This technical dialogue should continue to encourage, as was the case under the 
current  implementing  Protocol,  the  preparation  of  the  annual  meetings  of  the  Joint 
Committee, which has the power to make decisions on the implementation of the access 
and sectoral support components of the Agreement.  

The  monitoring  framework  should  continue  to  incorporate  indicators  on  the  use  of 
fishing  opportunities.  The  monitoring  framework  should  also  add  indicators  for  the 

50 

 
periodic  monitoring  of  the  application  of  the  provisions  of  the  Protocol  concerning  the 
embarkation  of  national  seamen  and  observers,  and  the  contribution  in  kind  to  food 
security. 

For  the  sectoral  support  component,  the  monitoring  framework  should  continue  to 
consider disbursement indicators to measure progress in implementation. Where possible, 
it would be appropriate for the monitoring include more systematically indicators on the 
number  of  direct  beneficiaries  of  activities  (disaggregated  by  gender)  and,  where 
appropriate, indicators on the economic benefits of activities.  

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  EU  Financial  Regulation  and  the  CFP,  the 
Protocol will have to be the subject of an independent ex-post evaluation, which it will be 
necessary to implement approximately 18 months with the date of expiry of the Protocol 
in order to give the European institutions time to prepare for a possible negotiation under 
the ordinary legislative procedure without interruption of access possibilities. 

51 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Ocean  

PLAN/2022/2287 - EU-Guinea-Bissau Fisheries Partnership Agreement – negotiation mandate for a new protocol 

1.  Organisation and timing  

Tasks  

Time  

Signature of the contract   

19 December 2022  

Kick-off meeting  

31 January 2023  

Report of the Kick-off meeting  

6 February 2023  

Submission of the inception report   

17 February 2023  

Comments to the inception report  

3 March 2023 

Meeting to discuss inception report  

9 March 2023  

Submission of the draft final report  

19 May 2023  

Meeting to discuss draft final report   

13 June 2023  

Submission of the final report   

7 July 2023  

52 

 
 
 
2.  Derogations granted  

This  initiative  does  not  require  an  impact  assessment  as  it  sets  out  a  general  policy  approach  and  does  not  commit  to  any  action.  However,  a 
retrospective and forward-looking evaluation will be carried out. For the retrospective evaluation, the questions look at the effectiveness, efficiency, 
economy, relevance, coherence, EU added value and acceptance of the Protocol. 

For  the  prospective  evaluation,  the  questions  focus  on  identifying  problems  and  needs,  the  objectives  to  be  achieved,  the  options  available 
(conclusion or not of a new Protocol) and the associated risks, and lessons learned. 

3.  Evidence, sources and quality  

The results of this SWD are mainly informed by an evaluation study conducted by an independent consultant. This evaluation study took place from 
January to May 2023 under the guidance of an interservice steering group established by different services of the European Commission and within 
the framework of the terms of reference of specific contract number 4 under the framework contract MARE/2021/OP/0001. The evidence base of 
this evaluation study consisted of two main components: analysis of available documentation and consultations with stakeholders. 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

The  results  of  this  SWD  are  mainly  informed  by  an  evaluation  study  conducted  by  an  independent  consultant.  The  evaluation  work  was  carried  out 
between January 2023 and May 2023. Conducted under the guidance of an inter-service group(ISG) set up by the European Commission's DG MARE, 
the method used for the study can be broken down into three main components: analysis of available information, consultations and preparation of an 
evaluation study. 

1. Analysis of available information 

DG MARE shared several documents and databases with the consultant team. The main elements shared include: 

•  Data and information from the meetings of the four Joint Committee meetings held since the start of the Protocol (October 2019, July 2021, April 

2022 and April 2023) 

•  Reports from the various DG MARE technical missions to Guinea-Bissau 

53 

 
• 

Information  exchanged  between  the  two  parties  in  relation  to  the  implementation  of  sectoral  support:  programming  and  monitoring  documents, 
implementation reports prepared by Guinea-Bissau, etc. 

•  The reports of the meetings of the Joint Scientific Committee held in March 2017 (previous Protocol) and April 2022 (current Protocol) 
•  Data on fishing authorisations and catches by EU vessels in the fishing zone concerned by the Protocol (extracted from DG MARE's aggregated catch 

database) 

•  DG MARE data on the payment of fees due by EU operators for the issue of fishing authorisations; 
•  Amounts paid from the EU budget under the financial contribution identified under Article 4 of the Protocol (DG MARE budget monitoring). 

The evaluation study also made use of other documentary sources, including the regulatory texts applicable in the context of the Agreement, the reports 
of the FAO-COPACE and ICES scientific working groups, and the reports of the FAO-COPACE and ICES scientific working groups. 

2. Consultations 

The consultations carried out for the purposes of this evaluation study, with the assistance of the independent consultants, included : 

-  Consultation of stakeholders in the EU: from the outset of the evaluation, EU stakeholders were identified and consulted on the basis of a strategy 
validated  by  DG  MARE  at  the  start  of  the  evaluation.  The  consultation  involved  the  Commission  and  EEAS  services  involved  in  relations  with 
Guinea-Bissau,  the  flag  Member  States  of  EU  vessels  benefiting  from  fishing  opportunities,  the  professional  associations  grouping  EU  operators 
using the negotiated fishing opportunities and civil society. The consultation period ran from March 2023 to May 2023; 

-  Consultation of stakeholders in Guinea-Bissau: a mission was organised in Guinea-Bissau in consultation with the EU and Guinea-Bissau parties 
between  17  and  24  April  2023.  During  the  mission,  face-to-face  discussion  sessions  were  held  with  the  various  departments  of  the  Ministry  of 
Fisheries involved in monitoring the Agreement, the agencies of other Ministries also involved in monitoring the Agreement, and representatives of 
the private sector in the industrial and artisanal sectors. Representatives of the EUD in Bissau were also consulted. 

3. Preparation of the evaluation study  

54 

 
The preparation of this evaluation study takes into account the guidelines and tools recommended by the EU in this area, as well as the methodological 
elements specific to the external dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy, such as those concerning the methods for evaluating the socio-economic 
impact of EU SFPAs. 

55 

 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

Effectiveness – The extent to which the objectives of the implementing Protocol to the Agreement were achieved 

Objective 1: To contribute towards resource conservation and environmental sustainability through rational and sustainable exploitation of living marine 
resources of Guinea-Bissau. 

1.1 To what extent fisheries activities 
addressed exclusively at surplus 
resources and prevent the overfishing 
of stocks, on the basis of the best 
scientific advice and improved 
transparency on the global fishing 
efforts in the waters included in the 
current Protocol. 

Stocks targeted by the EU fleet are not overexploited at the regional 
level (highly migratory species- Tuna) or at national level, and the 
EU fishing capacity is within the limits established or recommended 
by the relevant RFMO or RFO. The Protocol takes into account the 
management strategies expressed by RFMOs and Guinea-Bissau. 
Guinea-Bissau takes part in the relevant RFMO/RFOs and provides 
data on activities carried out by vessels flagging its flag and by other 
foreign fleets operating in its waters. 

The EU and Guinea-Bissau adopt management measures to reduce 
by-catches and discards and reduce the possible impacts on the 
ecosystem. 

State of the stocks targeted under the 
Protocol (scientific advice analysis by the 
joint scientific committee meetings, regional 
scientific reports and data, RFMO/RFO and 
national scientific institutes). All fleets 
catches and fishing effort in Guinea Bissau 
and in the region. Possible impacts on the 
environment of the EU fleet and all other 
fleets operating in these waters.  
State of the stocks taken as by-catch by EU 
vessels; management measures adopted at the 
regional, national or EU level or in the 
framework of the Protocol.  

1.2 To what extent the implementation 
has followed the same principle and 
promote the same standards for 
fisheries management as applied in EU 
waters. 
1.3 To what extent the scientific and 
technical evaluation of the fisheries 
concerned have improved? 

EU fishing activities are subject to an appropriate reporting 
obligation framework (logbook, VMS, observers etc.) in the 
Agreement and a scientific data collection framework (size 
composition of the catches, biological parameters etc.). This 
information is transmitted to the relevant RFMO and national 
research institutes. EU scientists and scientists from Guinea-Bissau 
actively participate in scientific meetings and RFMO/RFO scientific 
committees. Cooperation between scientific institutes is encouraged 

Inclusion of data collection provisions in the 
Agreement and timely availability of relevant 
data joint scientific committee meetings; 
amount and quality of data collected; number 
of reports to RFMO and scientific institutes; 
participation rate in RFMO/RFO scientific 
committees; results achieved with sectoral 
support; number of joint scientific committee 

56 

 
 
Questions 

Success criteria 
and supported where appropriate. Joint scientific analysis at regional 
level at RFMO level are taken into account. 

Suggested indicators 
meetings; extent of follow-up and 
implementation of the recommendations take 
at these meetings.  

1.4 To ensure compliance and control 
of EU-fleet activities. 

The activity of the EU fleet is properly monitored (VMS, AIS, etc.); 
reporting, monitoring and control takes place as stipulated in the 
Protocol and as legislation requires. Moreover there is adequate 
monitoring, reporting and control of all catches and catch 
composition, possible infractions are sanctioned; sectoral support is 
used to reinforce monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS). 
Objective 2: To contribute to continuing the fishing activity of the EU long distance fleet and the employment linked to the fleet operating within the 
Agreement and its Protocol. 
2.1 To seek appropriate share of the 
surplus resources, fully commensurate 
with the EU fleets interests and their 
regional and sub-regional fishing 
strategy. 

The Agreement and its Protocol provide for access to fishing zones 
that are important for the EU fleet. Species and quantities covered by 
the Protocol correspond to the fishing patterns of the EU fleet. The 
fishing opportunities allowed are acceptable considering the 
activities of all fleets active in the same waters at national, sub 
regional and regional level.  

Level of implementation of the monitoring 
provisions in the Agreement and its Protocol; 
level of implementation of the monitoring, 
reporting and control provisions; results 
achieved with sectoral support in terms of 
MCS. 

Utilisation of fishing licences; catches in 
waters covered by the current Agreement and 
Protocol compared to overall catches at 
national, regional and sub-regional, level if 
appropriate; employment (direct and indirect 
jobs); evolution of the number of EU vessels 
in the region; contribution to the supply of 
the EU market and EU processing sector 
(volume and value) and to the local 
processing sector.  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
Questions 
2.2 To ensure that the level of fees 
payable by Union ship-owners for their 
fishing activities is fair and 
proportional considering the revenues 
and costs, non-discriminatory and 
promotes a level playing field among 
the different fleets. 
2.3 To ensure supply for the EU and for 
the markets of Guinea-Bissau and third 
countries. 

Success criteria 
The Protocol offers similar conditions to other foreign fleets 
operating in the fishing zones and management areas of the 
Agreement. 
The cost benefit ratio is acceptable and reasonable for the EU ship 
owners and for Guinea-Bissau. 

The Agreement offers a reasonable framework to foster landings and 
thus supplying local markets and trade with third countries. The 
Agreement fosters trade on fisheries cooperation between the EU 
and Guinea-Bissau and/or third countries.  

2.4 To encourage the creation of a 
secure environment that is favourable 
to private investment and economic 
activities contributing to the sustainable 
development of the partner country and 
reinforcing its cooperation with the EU. 
2.5 To take into account the specific 
interests of the  
Union's outermost regions located in 
the vicinity 
Union’s fleet.  

Part of the fish caught in the framework of the Agreement supplies 
local market and processing industry; the EU-fishing supports port- 
and ancillary activities and the economic and social development in 
the EU and in the area covered by the current Protocol. The 
Agreement could have an important impact regionally. 

The Agreement and its Protocol cover the specific needs of the EU 
fleet based in outermost regions and in the EU by ensuring the 
continuity of their fishing grounds. 

Suggested indicators 
Level of fees and technical conditions applied 
to third countries fleets in the fishing zones 
and management areas of the Agreement. 
Proportion between fees, costs and benefits 
for the EU ship owners and for Guinea-
Bissau. 

Percentage of landings versus local and 
neighbouring countries market’s needs. 
Trade figures on fish (and composition) 
between the EU and fish products from 
Guinea-Bissau. 
Commercial balance and relation with 
Guinea-Bissau and neighbouring countries 
related to fish caught in Guinea-Bissau 
waters 
Number of initiatives to ensure cooperation 
between economic operators of the EU and 
local. Benefits that such activities are brought 
to the EU, national and locally. Number of 
initiatives that have had a local, national and 
regional benefit. 
Number of vessels originating from the 
outermost region operating under the 
Protocol and percentage of catches 
comparted to total catches. The same for the 
EU vessels originating from other EU 
regions. 

Objective 3: To support the development of a sustainable fisheries sector in partner countries (through the governance framework that the Agreement creates 

58 

 
Success criteria 

Questions 
and also through the sectoral support; cooperation on blue economy, to the small scale and artisanal fisheries, to job direct and indirect creation, development 
of the local and national sectoral policies, etc.) and analysis of geographic, social, environmental and economic impacts. 
3.1 To contribute to capacity building 
and social, environmental and 
economic development in Guinea-
Bissau. 

Suggested indicators 

The sectoral support and the economic activity that the Agreement 
and the Protocol establish, contribute to the functioning of the 
fisheries sector, better governance, transparency and social and 
economic development of the area covered. Moreover, the sectoral 
support provides for adequate training, equipment and infrastructures 
namely in the areas of science and MCS. Utilisation of the sectoral 
support has been duly reported (detailed results on expected 
economic and social benefits in all geographic scope of the 
Agreement). 

Results achieved with sectoral support and 
socio-economic impact of the implementation 
of the current Protocol. Percentage of the EU 
contribution to the different strategies, 
policies and value of indicators for assessing 
the socio-economic impact in the EU and in 
the areas covered by the Agreement. 
Including, the budget of the national fisheries 
strategy. Comprehensiveness and level of 
detail of the sectoral support reporting and 
cooperation on Blue Economy, small scale 
and artisanal fisheries, food security and 
policy areas. 
Respect of the minimum number of local 
seamen embarked; catches (value and 
volume) landed, in comparison with landing 
obligations, catches processed and catches 
marketed locally. Employment created 
directly and indirectly in the EU and in 
Guinea-Bissau or in the sub region/sub 
region. 
Percentage of supplies to the local and 
neighbouring markets. Percentage of the fish 
caught by the EU fleet that supplies these 
markets and comparison with other sources. 

3.2 To promote employment of local 
seamen, improving infrastructures and 
encouraging landings, supporting the 
third country in developing local 
fisheries and processing industry EU 
and for the markets of certain 
developing countries. To create 
employment directly and indirectly. 

EU vessels recruit part of their staff locally: they benefit from good 
working conditions and appropriate training, equivalent to ILO 
standards. Part of the catches is landed and processed locally. 
Catches landed traded in the local and neighbouring markets. 
Successful trade flows generated. Identification of elements that 
facilitate the trade relation and the ones that discourages it.  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

Efficiency – The extent to which the desired effects are achieved at a reasonable costs 

To what extent does the Protocol offer 
value-for-money to the EU? 

The EU financial contribution for access is commensurate to all 
fishing opportunities offered by the current Protocol and per 
category. 

Utilisation of the fishing opportunities and 
positive cost-benefit ratio per category and 
globally.  

To what extent have the sectoral 
support and cooperation on blue 
economy actions, policy area, small 
scale and artisanal fisheries, food 
security, etc. agreed in the initial 
programming, been achieved at 
reasonable cost? 
To what extent does the Protocol offer 
value-for-money to the EU ship-
owners? 

To what extent is the financial 
compensation for the fishing 
possibilities under the Agreement 
advantageous for the EU and for 
Guinea-Bissau?  

All activities included in the sectoral support have been properly 
used and benefited in environmental, social and economic terms in 
the EU and Guinea-Bissau. 

The EU ship-owners' contribution is commensurate to effective 
catches and profits compared to total costs and benefits.  

Guinea-Bissau benefits from the added value of the catches and the 
financial compensation.  

Degree of completion of the initial 
programming; % of sectoral support activities 
and projects compared to overall EU 
contribution, to the national budget for 
fisheries, marine and maritime issues and to 
other donor contributions. Contribution to the 
sustainable development of the country. 
Volume of catches; evolution of first sale 
prices, operating costs, all other costs and 
estimation of the profitability for each 
segment of the EU fleet, category, vessel, 
gear type and country (if applicable). 

Ratio overall EU contribution /added value 
generated by the activity of the EU fleet in 
the fishing zone. 
Ratio of the benefits of all financial 
compensation to the concerned population 
proportional to the fishing activities. 
Ratio of the economic and social indicators. 

60 

 
 
Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

Economy – the extent to which resources are available in due time, in appropriate quantity and quality at the best price 

To what extent is all the EU 
contribution, in particular, its sectoral 
support, proportional to the needs of 
Guinea-Bissau and their absorption 
capacity? 

The EU contribution for sectoral support is in line with national and local 
needs and absorption capacity. The total amount of sectoral support is used 
according to the planned calendar and adapted to the needs of the partner 
country. Where there have been modifications to the initial programming of 
the sectoral support, these have helped to improve the use of financial 
support and contributed successfully to the sustainable development of the 
country. 

To what extent has the sectoral support 
payments been made in due time and 
according Articles 4 and 5 of the 
current Protocol? 

Contributions have been paid in due time and consistent with the Protocol. 
Contributions could be allocated to the national or local budget without delay 
and fulfilled the engagements of the Protocol. 
Achievement of the criteria, reports and procedures, budget, financial 
indicators and methods of control and audit. 
Achievements of annual and multi-year objectives 

Consumption of the EU contribution 
for sectoral support and geographical 
distribution compared to the local 
and national needs in the related 
policy area. 
Geographical and social distribution, 
impacts and benefits of all financial 
compensation. 
Absorption capacity of the sectoral 
support; success stories; percentage 
of sectoral support compared to the 
national and local budget for 
fisheries and to other donor 
contributions. 
Calendar of payments and considered 
allocations. 
Results of the budget and financial 
indicators and methods of control 
and audit. 

61 

 
 
 
Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

Relevance – the extent to which the objectives of the Protocol match current needs and problems  

To what extent have the objectives set 
out in the Agreement and the Protocol 
still correspond to the needs of EU, 
member states, its ship-owners in the 
area covered by the current Protocol? 
Should there have been different 
objectives? 

How is the Agreement relevant to the 
policy objectives of RFMOs and to the 
EU's regional network of fisheries 
agreements? To what extent is relevant 
and creates an important impact? 

The implementation of the Agreement and its Protocol are in line with the 
objectives of resource and environmental sustainability; support to the 
development of a sustainable fisheries sector at national and local level; 
facilitation of the integration of coastal states into the global economy; 
improvement of scientific and technical knowledge, support to the economic 
exchanges, strengthening sustainable economic and social development, and 
effective governance. These objectives address correctly the national and 
local needs and the needs of the EU and its fleet. 
For highly migratory species, the Protocol contributes to achieving 
objectives set at RFMOs and other regional organisations42 including 
CECAF43 and to maintaining a network of SFPAs in the region on fisheries 
management and scientific issues. It creates synergies with the EU and 
neighbouring countries at RFMOs.  

Comparison between the 
Agreement’s objectives and national 
and local needs and those of the EU 
and its fleet improved with the 
implementation of the Agreement 
and the Protocol. 

Comparison between Agreement and 
these organisations objectives and 
how the implementation of the 
Protocol contributes to their 
objectives; consistency, coherence 
and cooperation with objectives of 
other fisheries Agreements in the 
region and the EU’s interest and 
objectives in such regional 
organisations. 

42 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), The Ministerial Conference on fisheries cooperation among African States bordering the Atlantic Ocean 
(ATLAFCO/COMHAFAT) 

43 Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) 

62 

 
 
 
Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

Coherence – The extent to which the Agreement and its Protocol do not contradict and is coherent other interventions with similar objectives 

How coherent is the Protocol with CFP 
in general and with its external 
dimension and the regional fisheries 
policy (RFMOs and other organisations 
including CECAF and network of 
SFPAs at national, sub regional and 
regional scale)? 
To what extent is the Protocol and its 
implementation consistent and coherent 
and complements with the other EU 
policies, such as the EEAS, INTPA, 
SANTE, TRADE and TAXUD policies 
and legislation?  

In what ways are the Agreement and 
Protocol consistent with the national 
fisheries policy and other related 
policies and are well coordinated with 
regional fisheries policies? 

The Protocol is in line with the CFP in general, contributes to achieving EU 
objectives at the regional level - including the creation of a regional network 
of SFPAs – and is consistent with other SFPAs in the region, RFMOs and 
other international organisations.  

Consistency with the CFP and its 
external dimension and the main 
strategies policy orientations at 
regional and sub-regional level. 

The Protocol makes a substantial contribution to other EU policies and vice-
versa. The Protocol and its implementation is coherent and cooperates 
positively with other EU interventions. 

The Protocol contributes to achieving the priorities identified nationally, 
locally and regionally. Authorities, stakeholders and society are aware and 
informed on the contribution. 
The Protocol contributes to the sustainable management of fisheries at local, 
national and regional level. At the international level, the Protocol 
contributes to the implementation of the relevant UN Sustainable 
Development Goals.  

Consistency with the main EU 
strategies / policy orientations. 
Implementation of social clauses and 
contribution to sustainable food 
security. Overall coherence of the 
Agreement with EU policies in the 
region and the country. 

Consistency with the national and 
regional fisheries, marine and 
maritime policies and sectoral 
policies in the country. Benefits to 
the governance of the country and to 
the protection and sustainable 
management of natural resources and 
to the society. 

63 

 
 
 
Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

EU added value – The extent to which the intervention brings EU added value  

What is the additional value resulting 
from the EU intervention under the 
Protocol, compared to the absence of 
Protocol? 
To what extent would Member States 
have had the ability or possibility to put 
in place appropriate alternative 
measures? 
To what extent the overall benefits of 
the Agreement and Protocol have an 
added value for the EU? 

What is the added value resulting from 
the EU intervention under the 
Agreement and the Protocol, compared 
to what could be achieved by the Union 
fleet outside the framework of the 
Agreement? 

Financial contribution, in particular sectoral support, successfully used to 
support and develop the national and local fisheries sector. 
Evidence of the need and usefulness of the benefits arising from the 
Agreement, in particular in terms of good governance, natural resources 
conservation, sound implementation of sectoral policies, infrastructure, 
social services, the setting-up of businesses, vocational training, and of 
programmes aimed at developing and modernising the fisheries sector, to 
ensure that this distribution benefits the country, its natural resources and the 
population.  
The fishing species included in the agreement are the ones of interest for the 
EU fleet considering the species available and fishing possibilities for all 
fleets operating in the same area. 
The Agreement and its implementing Protocol provide substantial benefits to 
the EU and nationally and locally over private agreements. 

Data on the implementation within 
the current Protocol in economic, 
social and environmental terms 
compared to other agreements or to 
when there is no agreement. 

Uptake of licences, comparison of all 
costs and benefits of operating under 
this Agreement, other SFPAs and 
private agreements, degree of legal 
certainty provided by the Agreement 
and its legal framework 

64 

 
 
 
Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators and sources 

Acceptability – The extent to which stakeholders accept the policy in general and the particular instrument proposed or employed 

To what extent are the EU ship-owners 
satisfied with the Protocol? 
To what extent is the Protocol 
supported by the civil society in the EU 
and nationally and locally? 

The EU ship-owners are satisfied with the technical and financial conditions 
set up by the Protocol and support its renewal (with possible adaptations). 
Representatives of the civil society are satisfied with the environmental and 
social conditions set up by the Agreement and its Protocol and support their 
renewal (with possible adaptations). 

To what extent is the Protocol 
supported by the sector (ship owners 
and processors) in the EU and in the 
partner country, nationally and locally? 
To what extent the administration, 
stakeholders and society are in general 
satisfied with the Protocol? 

The national and local ship-owners do not experience competition by the EU 
fleet and fish processors benefit from purchase opportunities generated by 
the Protocol and support its renewal. 

National and national and administration, stakeholders and society in general 
are satisfied with the implementation of the Protocol's obligations and seek 
its renewal; they praise the benefits of the Agreement. 

Result of interviews of ship owners 
and fisheries associations 
Result of interviews of NGO 
representatives and other 
stakeholders, local population, 
fishing operators in the EU and in 
Guinea-Bissau, fisheries industry in 
the EU and at local, national and 
regional level.  
Result of interviews of industry and 
NGOs representatives, content of 
articles, press, reported incidents 
between fleets. 
Level of compliance with the 
Protocol's obligations in terms of 
seamen embarked, landing 
obligation, observers, data reporting 
etc. Socio-economic impact of the 
Agreement’s implementation to 
national/local population. Impact of 
communication activities such as, 
press statements, content of articles, 
etc. 

65 

 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS 

To provide a systematic presentation of the costs and benefits that have been identified and assessed during the evaluation process, a mixed approach has 
been  chosen  in  this  annex  by  presenting  the  information  in  tabular  form  (as  required  by  the  SWD  template  guidelines)  and  accompanying  it  with  an 
explanatory narrative.  

The cost/benefit analysis of the current implementing Protocol is based on the access component and for the periods for which complete economic data 
are  available.  The  cost/benefit  ratio  of  the  sectoral  support  component  cannot  be  estimated  at  this  stage,  as  this  would  require  the  identification  and 
measurement of the impacts of the various projects, which is not possible within the framework of this evaluation. 

Overall, as an annual average over the period 2019-2021, 43% of the total added value of the current implementing Protocol is for the benefit of the EU, 
48%  for  Guinea-Bissau  (including  the  financial  compensation  paid  by  the  EU  for  the  access  component)  and  9%  for  other  entities  including  Senegal 
(trawler activities) and Côte d'Ivoire (tuna activities).  

EU financial compensation and access fees paid by EU shipowners together account for 90% of the value added  for Guinea-Bissau. The share of value 
added for Guinea-Bissau from the activities of EU fishing vessels is relatively low (10%), and consists almost entirely of salaries paid to national seamen 
embarked on EU trawlers. Given the virtual absence of EU catches entering the local industry's value chain (apart from contributions in kind) and the 
lack of interaction between EU vessels and Guinea-Bissau suppliers of goods and services to vessels (shipyards, etc.), the share of indirect value added 
created in the upstream and downstream sectors in Guinea-Bissau is not significant. 

The breakdown of the EUR 12.7 million in annual value added (average 2019-2021) accruing to the EU is based on the salaries of EU national seamen 
embarked  on  vessels  benefiting  from  fishing  opportunities  (34%),  the  indirect  downstream  value  added  resulting  from  the  marketing/processing  of 
catches  in  the  EU  (46%),  the  indirect  upstream  value  added  by  EU  companies  in  the  shipbuilding,  ship  repair,  bunkering,  etc.  sectors  (13%)  and  the 
remaining EBITDA (7%). 

The relative cost of access is EUR 1,477/tonne of fishery product caught: 91% is borne by the EU (EUR 1,350/tonne) and 9% by EU vessels benefiting 
from fishing opportunities (EUR 127/tonne). The indicators for sharing the cost of access between the EU public authorities and EU vessels differ from 
most other EU SFPAs in that a relatively high proportion of access costs is borne by the EU budget. This is the result of i) relatively modest catch levels, 
due to relatively low utilisation of the fishing opportunities, and ii) a rather low level of access fees in the Protocol, around 4% of sales. 

66 

 
Figure 1. Indicators relating to the benefit/cost ration of the access component of the current implementing Protocol 

Financial compensation for the access 
component  
11 600 000 

Total financial compensation for the access and 
sectoral support components  
15 600 000 

Indicators 

EU financial compensation (EUR) 

Sectoral support (EUR) 

Access fees paid by EU operators 

Total EU and EU operator payments (EUR) 

Total payments as % of total sales 

EU payments as % of total sales 

EU operator payments as % of sales 

1 092 000 

12 692 000 

53% 

48% 

5% 

Average cost per tonne of fish caught (EUR/tonne)   1 477 

Average cost for the EU (EUR/tonne) 

Average cost for EU operators (EU/tonne) 

Percentage of costs for EU operators 

1 350 

127 

9% 

4 000 000 

1 092 000 

16 692 000 

72% 

65% 

5% 

1 942 

1 815 

127 

7% 

Regarding the cost-benefit ratio, the main lesson to be learned is that every euro invested by the EU in financial compensation for access to the resource 
generated 1.33 EUR in total added value. As a result, the cost-benefit ratio of EU investment for access to the resource is slightly positive, due to the 
addition of direct and indirect added value.  

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

Background   
In line with the Terms of Reference and the Better Regulation ‘toolbox’, a consultation strategy was elaborated by the independent consultant to obtain 
evidence from relevant stakeholders. The strategy defined the best means of achieving relevant stakeholders both in the EU and in the partner country 
concerned.    

Objectives   
The aim of the consultation:    
1.  To  obtain  stakeholders’  views  on  the  implementation  of  the  ongoing  protocol,  as  well  as  on  the  possible  renewal  of  the  protocol,  including  the 

different options;    

2.  To use the results of this consultation in the evaluation report.  

Results of the stakeholder consultation  
The  views  of  the  organizations  are  synthesized  in  the  main  text  of  the  evaluation  study  by  the  independent  consultant.  The  detailed  answers  to  the 
stakeholders’ consultation are included in Annex 6 of the evaluation study.  The following list of entities, in figure 1 and figure 2, were consulted by the 
independent consultants for the purposes of the evaluation study. 

Figure 1. List of contacted entities in the evaluation study consultations in the EU 

List of consulted stakeholders 
A – Parties responsible for implementing the current Protocol 
DG MARE (HQ and attaché at EUD-Dakar) 
Member States benefitting from fishing opportunities 
Spain 
France 
Greece* 

68 

Response 

x 
x 

x 
x 
x 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Italy 
Latvia* 
Lithuania* 
Poland* 
Portugal* 

B – Stakeholders benefitting from the Agreement 
ANACEF (cat. 1 et 5) 
ANAMAR (cat. 2) 
DakaTuna (cat. 3) 
OPAGAC (cat. 4) 
ANABAC (Cat. 4) 
ORTHONGEL (Cat. 4) 
ORPAGU (Cat. 4) 
OP Lugo (Cat. 4) 
PFA (Cat. 5) 
C- Stakeholders with an interest in the Agreement 
European Institutions  
DG SANTE 
DG INTPA 
Political and cooperation sections of the European Union Delegation in Guinea-Bissau  
Non-governmental organisations  
Europêche 
European Transport Federation 
CAPE 

69 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WWF 
European Justice Foundation 
Note: * Member States whose vessels did not use fishing opportunities  

Number of entities contacted for the consultation 26 

Number of entities responding to the consultation 19 

x 

Figure 2. List of contacted entities for the evaluation study during the mission to Guinea-Bissau by the independent consultants on 17-24 April 2023 

Ministry of Fisheries 

Minister of Fisheries 
Secretary-General 
Monitoring and Control Department 
DG for Industrial Fishing (DGPI) 
DG for Artisanal Fisheries (DGPA) 
DG for Training and Development in Fisheries (DGFADP) 
DG for Fishing Port Administration (DGAPP) 
Legal Office (GJ) 
National Laboratory for Inspection and Quality Control of Fishery Products 
National Institute for Fisheries Research and Oceanography (INIPO, ex CIPA) 
National Institute for Control and Surveillance of Fisheries (INFISCAP, ex FISCAP) 

Ministry of Transport 

Maritime and Port Institute (IMP) 

Ministry of the Environment 

Institute for Biodiversity and Protected Areas (IBAP) 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Private Sector 

Association Amis et Frères des Hommes de Mer (AIRHOMAR) 
Association Nationale des Professionnels Maritimes de la Pêche Industrielle (ANAPMAPI-GB) 
Association Nationale de Entrepreneurs de Pêche Industrielle (ANEP) 
Association Nationale des Armateurs Industriels de Pêche (ANAPI) 
Plateforme des Acteurs Non-Étatiques de la Pêche Artisanale et de l'Aquaculture (PANEPA-GB) 
Réseau National des Femmes dans la Pêche (RENAMUP-GB) 
Association Nationale des Armateurs et des Pêcheurs Artisanaux (ANAN-PA) 
Association des Femmes dans l'Activité Économique (AMAE) 
Société Afripêche 
Agence belge de développement (ENABEL) 

71