COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the European Union for a new Implementing Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire
Date: 2024-01-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Côte d'Ivoire, agreement (EU), catch quota, financial compensation of an agreement, fishing agreement, fishing area, fishing rights, interim agreement (EU), protocol to an agreement, sea fishing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.1.2024  SWD(2024) 22 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Accompanying the document Recommendation for a  COUNCIL DECISION authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the European Union for a new Implementing Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire {COM(2024) 48 final} - {SWD(2024) 25 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

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

Purpose and scope of the evaluation .......................................................................................... 1 

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

2.1 

Description of the intervention and its objectives .......................................................... 2 

2.1.1 

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs) .............................................. 2 

2.1.2 

Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire 3 

2.2 

Point(s) of comparison .................................................................................................... 5 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ........... 6 

3.1.  Utilisation of fishing opportunities .................................................................................. 6 

3.2. 

Catches ............................................................................................................................ 7 

3.3. 

Scientific Cooperation ..................................................................................................... 7 

3.4. 

Technical Measures ......................................................................................................... 8 

3.4.1.  Monitoring, control and surveillance .......................................................................... 8 

3.4.2. 

Embarkation of seamen .............................................................................................. 9 

3.4.3. 

Observers .................................................................................................................... 9 

3.5. 

Sectoral support ............................................................................................................ 10 

3.6.  Monitoring of sectoral support ..................................................................................... 10 

3.7. 

Financial aspects: .......................................................................................................... 11 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ......................................................... 11 

4.1.  TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY? ............ 11 

4.2.  HOW DID THE EU INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE? .................................... 16 

4.3.  IS THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT? ................................................................ 17 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................... 18 

5.1.  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 18 

5.2.  LESSONS LEARNED .......................................................................................................... 19 

6. 

EX-ANTE EVALUATION................................................................................................... 19 

6.1.  PROBLEM ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT ..................................................... 20 

6.2.  CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS OF CÔTE D’IVOIRE ................................................ 20 

6.3.  CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS OF THE EU ............................................................... 21 

6.4.  CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS OF CÔTE D’IVOIRE AND THE EU TOGETHER .. 21 

6.5.  CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS OF THE EU FLEET .................................................. 21 

6.6.  EU ADDED VALUE ............................................................................................................ 22 

6.7.  POLICY AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES................................................................. 22 

 
 
 
 
6.8.  POLICY OPTIONS, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED RISKS ................................................ 23 

6.9.  RESULTS AND IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 24 

6.9.1. ENVIRONMENTAL ............................................................................................................ 24 

6.9.2. ECONOMIC IMPACTS ....................................................................................................... 24 

6.9.3. SOCIAL IMPACTS .............................................................................................................. 25 

6.10.  PREFERRED OPTION ........................................................................................................ 26 

6.11.  MONITORING OF A FUTURE IMPLEMENTING PROTOCOL ..................................... 28 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 29 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ..................................... 29 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX ......................................................................................... 32 

Effectiveness – The extent to which the objectives of the Implementing Protocol to the 
1 
Agreement were achieved ..................................................................................................... 32 

2 

Efficiency – The extent to which the desired effects are achieved at a reasonable costs
38 

3 
Economy – the extent to which resources are available in due time, in appropriate 
quantity and quality at the best price ..................................................................................... 39 

4  Relevance – the extent to which the objectives of the Protocol match current needs and 
problems ................................................................................................................................ 40 

5  Coherence – The extent to which the Agreement and its Protocol do not contradict and 
is coherent other interventions with similar objectives ......................................................... 41 

6 

The EU added value – The extent to which the intervention brings EU added value ... 42 

7  Acceptability – The extent to which stakeholders accept the policy in general and the 
particular instrument proposed or employed ......................................................................... 43 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ............................................................. 45 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................... 49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

SFPA 

CFP 

EU 

IUU 

ICCAT 

SDG 

CIV 

Sustainable Fishery Partnership Agreement 

Common Fisheries Policy, Regulation  

European Union 

Illegal, unreported, unregulated (fishing activities) 

International Commission for the conservation of 
Atlantic Tunas 

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 

Côte d’Ivoire 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

The evaluation’s purpose is determined by the following legislations:  

-  Article 31(10) of the Common fishery policy Regulation5 requires the European 
Commission to arrange for ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of each implementing 
protocol to a Sustainable Fishery partnership Agreement (SFPA) before it submits 
to the Council of the EU a recommendation to authorise the opening of negotiations 
for a successor protocol.  

-  Article 34 of the Financial Regulation1, requires Commission Services to undertake 
both ex-ante and ex-post evaluations for all programmes and activities which entail 
significant spending. 

These  evaluations  aim  to  inform  decision  makers  before  adopting  a  Council  Decision 
authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the EU. 

These  evaluations  should  serve  demonstrating  how  financial  instruments  have  been 
effective for the achievement of the policy objectives of the Union, based on performance 
review, analysis of relevance and of added value of Union involvement.  

Policy objectives pursued by Union with the SFPA instrument are defined in section 2.1.  

The evaluation draws upon an external ex post and ex ante evaluation study of the current 
implementing Protocol 2018-2024, performed by an external consultant through a specific 
contract, whose final report is published on the EU bookshop2.  

The ex-post evaluation study covers the period of application of the current implementing 
Protocol of the Agreement, starting from 1st August 2018 to May 2023 (while the protocol 
expires in August 2024). The geographical scope is Côte d’Ivoire and concerned Member 
States are France, Spain and Portugal (as per the fishing opportunities allocation3).   

The evaluation covers the 5 criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and 
EU added value, as well as economy (together with efficiency) and acceptability, through 
specific questions and suggested indicators for each criteria.  

The ex-ante evaluation study analyses the relevant objectives for the Agreement and its 
implementing protocol, considering the current and future needs for this intervention. It 

1 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). 
2https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6a0dbe7d-60d5-11ee-9220-

01aa75ed71a1/language-fr/format-PDF/source-296919898  

3 Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1095 of 26 July 2018 on the allocation of fishing opportunities under the 
Protocol on the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the 
Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (2018-2024) OJ L 197, 3.8.2018, 

1 

 
 
considers the lessons learned from previous implementing protocols and the results of the 
ex-post evaluation of the current implementing Protocol.  

Two policy scenarios are considered in the ex ante evaluation study: 

•  A  renegotiation  of  the  current  implementing  Protocol  for  the  Agreement  (statu  quo 

with some adaptations if needed);  

•  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 
external consultant. This evaluation study took place from  February to September 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 3 under the framework contract MARE/2021/OP/0001.  

The study’s methodology is an information and data gathering from literature, Commission 
data  base,  targeted  questionnaires  and  semi  directed  interviews  of  a  limited  number  of 
stakeholders (fishing operators, fish processors, fishery authorities in EU Member States 
and Partner Third country, Civil society representatives4), synthesis of their satisfaction or 
dissatisfaction  on  the  implementation  of  the  Protocol,  and  a  standardised  economic 
analysis  establishing  the  repartition  of  the  generated  economic  added  value.  EU 
stakeholders  were  consulted  between  March  and  May  2023.  Côte  d’Ivoire  stakeholders 
were consulted during the consultant’s field mission to Abidjan. See details in Annex II.  

The methodology is deemed to be reasonably robust. Its limitations are related to the time 
constraint  for  the  evaluation,  the  incomplete  period  of  the  initiative  submitted  to  the 
evaluation  (given  the  target  date  for  the  study’s  final  report,  nearly  one  year  of  the 
implementation period is not covered), the lack of available reliable official data in third 
country statistics, or within operators due to commercial secret.  

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) 

1  The  Common  Fishery  Policy  (CFP)5  provides  that  the  Commission  negotiates  and 
implements  Sustainable  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreements  (SFPAs)  with  third 

4 A feedback period on the “have your say” portal, from 01 June 2023 - 29 June 2023, resulted in one limited 
and non relevant comment (advertising content) https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/13736-EU-Côte-dIvoire-fisheries-agreement-negotiation-mandate-for-a-new-protocol_en 
5 Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L354, 28.12.2013, 

p. 22) 

2 

 
 
countries to create a legal, environmental economic and social governance framework 
for fishing activities carried out by Union fishing vessels in third country waters6. 
2  Union fishing activities outside Union waters should be based on the same principles 
and standards as those applicable under Union Law and promote a level playing field 
for Union operators and non EU country operators. 

3  Union fishing activities in third country waters should be based on the best available 

scientific advice and relevant information and relevant information exchange. 

4  They  should  ensure  a  sustainable  exploitation  of  the  marine  biological  resources, 
transparency  as  regards  the  determination  of  the  surplus  and,  consequently,  a 
management of the resources that is consistent with the objectives of the CFP. SFPA 
should provide for access to resources commensurate with the interests of the Union 
fleet in exchange for a financial contribution from the Union. 
SFPA should ensure, in particular, efficient  data  collection, monitoring, control and 
surveillance measures. 

5  The EU is to provide the partner country with a financial compensation for access to 
its waters and a 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. 
In the case of Côte d’Ivoire, access has been sought for the EU industrial fleet targeting 
tropical tunas, which are entering the global food chain as a large scale commodity, 
participating to international trade, including EU supply of fish.  

6 

7  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. 

8  Under Article 31(5) of the CFP Basic Regulation5, 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. 

2.1.2  Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Côte 
d’Ivoire 

The Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire 
(CIV),  and  its  current  implementing  Protocol,  provide  fishing  opportunities  to  fish  for 
Union  fishing  vessels  in  CIV’s  waters  and  establishes  the  principles  on  the  economic, 
financial,  technical,  and  scientific  cooperation  in  the  fisheries  sector.  It  promotes 
responsible fishing in CIV, conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources 
and through sectoral support contributes to develop the CIV fisheries sector. 

Duration of the 
Agreement 

Six years, tacitly renewable 

6 SFPA’s policy objectives and reform proposals are detailed in  the Commission’ Communication  to the 
European  parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the 
regions  on  the  external  dimension  of  the  CFP  (COM(2011)424  final  of  13  July  2011).  The  Council 
the  CFP  on  19  March  2012 
adopted  Conclusions  regarding 
the  External  Dimension  of 
(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/129052.pdf) 
the 
European Parliament expressed its views in European Parliament’s report on the External Dimension of 
the Common Fisheries Policy of 22 November 2012.  

and 

3 

 
 
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 

1 July 2007 

1 August 2018 

6 years : 1 August 2018  – 31 July 2024 

Highly migratory species  

•  28 freezer tuna seiners (Spain, France) 
•  8 surface longliners (Spain, Portugal) 
•  EUR  330 000  per  year  for  access  for  2  years,  then  EUR 

275 000 

•  EUR 352 000 per year for sectoral support for 2 years, then 

EUR 407 500  
(total contribution remains EUR 652 000 per year) 

• 

Highly migratory species 

•  Freezer tuna seiners: EUR 60/t with a non-recoverable lump-
sum advance of EUR 7620 for 127 t for 2 years, then  EUR 
70/t with a non-recoverable lump-sum advance of EUR 8 890 
for 127 t 

•  Surface  tuna  longliners:  EUR  60/t  with  a  non-recoverable 
lump-sum advance of EUR 2 400 for 40 t for 2 years, then 
EUR 70/t with a non-recoverable lump-sum advance of EUR 
2 800 for 40 t 

•  Support vessels: EUR 3 500 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; (5) strengthening international cooperation and (6) strengthening blue economy 
and aquaculture. 

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 Côte d’Ivoire (CIV) and its current implementing Protocol  

4 

 
 
2.2 Point(s) of comparison  

The  most  relevant  and  accessible  point  of  comparison  is  the  previous  implementing 
Protocol  under  the  same  Fishery  Partnership  Agreement.  Indeed,  the  situation  in  the 
absence of Fishery agreement would date from more than 30 years ago. 

Under the Protocol 2013-2018 (evaluated from 2013-2017) (reference pages in this section 
are  to  the  evaluation  report  of  SCn°  2  under  MARE2015/23  framework  contract: 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/49b6a33f-d02a-11e8-9424-
01aa75ed71a1  

-  EU fleet access to the waters of Côte d’Ivoire was granted to 22 purse seiners (mean 

2014-2016), no longliners were authorised.  

-  The annual mean of tropical tuna catches is at 3406t (51% of reference tonnage), 
generated  income  for  Côte  d’Ivoire  of  852.528  euros  (in  the  year  2016,  table  3 

5 

 
 
p.34). Public contribution transferred to Côte d’Ivoire: 2 885 000 EUR in July 2017 
(p.35). 

-  The fishery resource targeted by the Union fleet is scientifically evaluated by the 

relevant RFMO ICCAT. 

-  The  status  of  the  3  main  targeted  stock  is  (indicators  relate  to  biomass  for 
overfished status and to  fishing mortality for overfishing status, for a concerned 
specie cf p.10):  

o  Yellow fin tuna: slightly overfished, no overfishing 
o  Big eye tuna: overfished, oversfishing 
o  Skipjack and swordfish: likely not overfished, likely no overfishing 

-  Calculation  turnover  for  the  EU  fleet  4.8  million  EUR,  added  value  3.7  million 
EUR, of which 1.6 goes to EU and 1.8 goes to Côte d’Ivoire (pp. 44 and 45) 
-  Level and repartition of the generated added value: it is estimated that for each euro 
of public investment, 5.6 EUR are generated in added value, broken in 2.4 EUR for 
EU and 2.8 EUR for Côte d’Ivoire. (p.iv résumé paragraph 27). 

-  Situation of the control and surveillance system  in Côte d’Ivoire: a Surveillance 
center had been rehabilitated and equipped but not yet made fully functional (p.41). 

-  Direct and indirect employment: estimated 117 at the end of the evaluated period, 

mostly indirect (p. 46). 

-  Sectoral support contribution transferred to Côte d’Ivoire 772 500 EUR up to July 

2017 (p.35). 

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

Reference  pages  in  this  section  are  to  the  evaluation  report  of  SC  n°  3  under  MARE 
2021/OP001 framework contract. 

With regard to the implementation of the Protocol, the current state of play is the following: 

3.1.  Utilisation of fishing opportunities 

On an annual average, almost 75% of the maximum number of 28 fishing licenses for EU 
tuna seiners were granted in the period 2018-2023. This percentage was significantly lower 
(18%) in the category of surface longliners with only 1 authorisation granted per year on 
average. Consequently, total utilisation rate amounted to approximately 61%7. 

Average annual fishing authorisations granted to EU vessels (per vessel category) in the 
SFPA fishing zone  

7 See report, page 28 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Vessel Category 

Fishing 
Licences 
provided  in  the  current 
Protocol 

Fishing 
Authorisations 
obtained 

Percentage  (%)  of  utilized 
fishing opportunities 

Tuna purse seiners 

28 

Surface longliners 

8 

TOTAL 

36 

3.2.  Catches  

20 

1 

22 

73% 

18% 

61% 

On average, EU tuna vessels caught  66% of the reference tonnage of 5500 tons  agreed 
under the Protocol.  EU catches varied between 41% of the  reference tonnage caught in 
2021 and 125% in 2022, with, hence, one year during which total catches were higher than 
the reference tonnage, confirming the highly migratory nature of the tuna species and the 
unpredictability of the catches in Côte d’Ivoire waters. EU purse seiners represented almost 
100% of the total catches, with longliners having zero or close to zero catches8. 

Annual catches by EU vessels in the SFPA fishing zone (tonnes) per calendar year under 
the 2019-2024 Protocol 

Category   2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2022 

Average 

Tuna 
seiners 

2 914 

3 322 

2 761 

2 270 

6 873 

3 628 

Surface 
longliners 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

1 

Total 

2 914 

3 322 

2 761 

2 270 

6 879 

3 629 

3.3. 

Scientific Cooperation  

The fishery resources targeted by the EU fleet is scientifically evaluated by the relevant 
RFMO, namely ICCAT, to which both the EU and Côte d’Ivoire are active members, and 
which has provided sufficient scientific base for the management decisions taken by Joint 
Committee.  

Scientific cooperation between the EU and Côte d’Ivoire takes place within the multilateral 
framework of ICCAT, whereas sectoral support is also granted for the participation of Côte 
d’Ivoire delegates in ICCAT meetings. 

8 See report, page 29  

7 

 
 
 
 
Tuna and tuna-like species are under the management mandate of ICCAT. The status of 
the three main targeted stock (yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, skipjack and swordfish) was 
assessed as follows9 (p.24): 

•  Yellowfin tuna: not overfished, no overfishing, 
•  Bigeye tuna: overfished, no overfishing, 
•  Skipjack and swordfish: not overfished, no overfishing. 

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 parties. 

3.4.  Technical Measures  

3.4.1.  Monitoring, control and surveillance  

The Protocol lays down the monitoring, control and surveillance regime (Chapter V of the 
Annex to the Protocol) applying to all EU tuna vessels operating in Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing 
zone.  

The Joint Committees’ minutes indicate a generally satisfactory level of compliance with 
the relevant clauses. The Surveillance center is functional and was reinforced to ensure a 
24/7 functioning. Satellite positioning of the national fleet was extended and inspections 
activities  were  supported  by  the  sectoral  support  spending10.  In  particular,  the  Vessel 
Monitoring System (VMS) has been reported to be functional, enabling national authorities 
to monitor the movements of the EU vessels within the fishing zone. EU tuna vessels have 
also complied with the Protocol’s requirements for reporting entering/leaving the zone and 
prior notifications of entry to the port of Abidjan.  

No infringements of the applicable rules have been identified by the Ivorian authorities 
against EU tuna vessels since the beginning of the Protocol. 

Nonetheless, problems have been observed in the functioning of the Electronic Reporting 
System (ERS), preventing the submission of EU vessels’ reports to the partner country’s 
authorities  regarding  the  exact  nature  of  activities  taking  place  in  the  fishing  zone.  In 
particular, the catch declaration data transmitted to Côte d’Ivoire’s authorities were found 
to  be inconsistent,  hence not  usable. Reception of data by the flag Member States was, 
however,  deemed  satisfactory.  DG  MARE,  together  with  the  partner  country  and  Côte 
d’Ivoire’s service provider held  several  technical meetings to  identify a solution  to  this 

- 

9  indicators  relate  to  biomass  for  overfished  status  and  to  fishing  mortality  for 
overfishing status, for a concerned specie 

10 See report, page 62  

8 

 
 
 
problem with the most recent one held in May 2023. Nevertheless, until this problem is 
resolved, Côte d’Ivoire can only take into account data transmitted by DG MARE11.  

3.4.2.  Embarkation of seamen 

In quantitative terms the EU vessels are required to employ a minimum of 20% of seamen 
who are ACP nationals, while Côte d’Ivoire nationals should have priority where possible. 
From  a  qualitative  point  of  view,  the  Protocol  provides  for  the  application  of  the 
International  Labour  Organisation  (ILO)  Declaration  on  Fundamental  Principles  and 
Rights at Work in the context of employment contracts with the seamen. Notably, the level 
of  pay  cannot  be  lower  than  the  minimum  wage  and,  in  any  case,  not  lower  than  ILO 
standards.  

In general, the two parties agree that the clauses regarding embarkation of seamen have 
been respected by the EU vessels. Seamen from ACP countries represent the majority of 
employed seamen on board, while Côte d’Ivoire nationals account for 40% of total seamen 
in  French  tuna  seiners  and  20%  in  Spanish  tuna  seiners.  Annual  statistics  are  however 
currently lacking. From a qualitative aspect, main issues raised by consulted stakeholders 
concern remuneration levels  (considered lower than the ILO minimum  wage). The EU, 
acting  through  DG  MARE,  stepped  forward  to  create  a  working  group  including 
representatives  from  the  fisheries  sector  and  from  the  seafarers'  associations,  while 
informal consultations also took place between MIRAH and the Ministry of Transport. The 
formal establishment of  the working  group is  still to  be adopted by an inter-ministerial 
decree.  

3.4.3.  Observers 

The Protocol’s clauses regarding embarkation of observers on EU vessels, designated from 
Côte  d’Ivoire  against  a  contribution  of  400  EUR  annually  per  vessel  for  financing  the 
observers, were not fully implemented.  

The main issue raised was that EU shipowners would not employ observers designated by 
the  partner  country.  Nevertheless,  their  contributions  to  financing  the  observers 
programme were duly paid.  

Regarding  the  degree  of  coverage  of  fishing  activities,  all  activities  conducted  by  EU 
vessels in the third country’s fishing zone were monitored by scientific observers, while 
EU shipowners ensured that the data collected during the observers’ trips were of sound 
scientific  quality,  meeting  simultaneously  the  requirements  of  the  EU  data  collection 

11 See report, page 30  

9 

 
 
programme12  and  ICCAT’s  standards13.  EU  shipowners  confirm  that  the  results  of  the 
scientific data collection are transmitted to Côte d’Ivoire’s authorities upon request.  

With regard to the employment of observers appointed by Côte d’Ivoire, the shipowners 
of French tuna vessels have confirmed that they have included nationals designated by the 
competent authorities in their observer pool (23 observers over the last five years). The 
appointed observers have followed the prior training given to all observers. 

On  the  contrary,  regarding  Spanish  tuna  vessels,  the  shipowners  have  taken  on  board 
observers who are nationals of Côte d’Ivoire but not the ones officially appointed by the 
authorities.  The  shipowners’  associations  concerned  have  confirmed  their  agreement  to 
take on board designated observers after specific training, but indicated that they have not 
received notifications from applicants from the authorities. 

3.5. 

Sectoral support 

The current implementing Protocol has earmarked a budget of EUR 352 000 per year for 
the first two years and EUR 407 000 per year for the subsequent years. – or approximately 
EUR 2.3 million over a period of six 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 Côte d’Ivoire.  

3.6.  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. 

The management of the funds granted under the sectoral support component was carried 
out  by  the  Support  Programme  for  the  Management  of  Human  Resources  (PAGDRH) 
which is subject to national public financial management rules.  

As agreed in the first Joint Committee (November 2018), Côte d’Ivoire has submitted three 
reports  on  activities  implemented  with  sectoral  support  funds.  These  reports  include 
information about technical and financial aspects of the activity implemented as well as 
challenges that were encountered. At the time of this evaluation, the following reports have 
been submitted:  

•  The Progress Report on the Sector Programme 2018-2019 (version February 2020) 
The  progress  report  on  the  sectoral  programme  2019-2020  which  also  covers  the 
activities  implemented  over  the  period  2020-2021  affected  by  the  health  crisis 
(version January 2022) 

12  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  May  2017  on  the 
establishment  of  a  Union framework  for  the  collection,  management  and  use of  data  in  the fisheries 
sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy and repealing Council 
Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 (recast). OJ L 157, 20.6.2017, p. 1 – 21 

13 ICCAT Recommendation 16-04 to establish minimum standards for scientific observer programmes on 

board fishing vessels 

10 

 
 
•  The Progress Report on the Sector Programme 2022-2023 (version March 2023).  

3.7.  Financial aspects: 

•  Generated income on average for Côte d’Ivoire of 994 088 EUR (EU yearly public 

contribution + shipowners contributions average, table 15 and 16 p31 ). 

•  Calculation turnover for the EU fleet 5,067 million EUR (p 46), added value 3,002 
million EUR (table 20 and 23 p.47 and 48), of which 0,836 goes to EU and 1,755 
goes to Côte d’Ivoire (pp. 49). 

•  Level and repartition of the generated added value: It is estimated that for each euro 
of public investment, 7,56 EUR are generated in added value, broken in 2,76 EUR 
for EU and 4,8 EUR for Côte d’Ivoire. (p.51). 

•  Direct and indirect employment: estimated 130 Full time equivalent at the end of 

the evaluated period, mostly indirect (p.53 ).  

•  Sectoral  support  contribution transferred to Côte d’Ivoire 1 111 000 EUR  up to 

March 2023 (p.39). 

•  Situation of the control and surveillance system in Côte d’Ivoire: the Surveillance 
center  is  functional  and  was  reinforced  to  ensure  a  24/7  functioning.  Satellite 
positioning  of  the  national  fleet  was  extended  and  inspections  activities  were 
supported by the sectoral support spending (p. 62) 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

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

4.1.1.  Effectiveness 

For each component (access and sectoral support) success criteria have been proposed and 
evaluated, by objective, for effectiveness.  

Objective 1: contribute to the conservation of resources and environmental 
sustainability through rational and sustainable exploitation of Côte d’Ivoire’s 
fisheries resources 

Sub-objective 
1.1  to  what  extent  fishing  activities 
have  been  directed  exclusively  at 
surpluses 
preventing 
by 
overexploitation of stocks on the basis 
of 
the  best  scientific  advice  and 
improving transparency on the overall 
fishing effort in the waters included in 
the Protocol? 
Sub-objective 
1.2 follow the same principles 
and promote the same 
standards of fisheries 
management as those applied 
in EU waters 

Success criterion (s) 
The  stocks  targeted  by  the  EU  fleet  are  not  overfished  nationally  or 
regionally (highly migratory species), and the fishing capacity of EU vessels 
is within the limits established or recommended by the relevant RFMOs or 
RFOs.  The  Protocol  takes  into  account  the  management  strategies 
promoted by RFMOs and Côte d’Ivoire. Côte d’Ivoire participates in the 
work of RFOs/RFMOs and provides data on the activities of vessels flying 
its flag and on foreign vessels operating in its waters. 

Success criterion (s) 
The EU and Côte d’Ivoire adopt management measures to 
reduce by-catches and discards, as well as possible impacts 
on the ecosystem  

11 

 
1.3 improving scientific and technical 
monitoring  of  fisheries  falling  within 
the scope of the Protocol 

1.4 ensuring compliance and control 
of the activities of EU fleets 

in 

The  activities  of  EU  vessels  are  subject  to  an  appropriate  framework  of 
monitoring  (logbooks,  VMS,  observers)  and  scientific  data  collection 
obligations. The information shall be transmitted to the competent RFMOs 
and national scientific institutes. Scientists from the EU and Côte d’Ivoire 
participate  actively 
the  meetings  and  scientific  committees  of 
RFMOs/RFMOs. Scientific cooperation shall be encouraged and supported 
as appropriate. Joint scientific analyses at the level of the RFMOs are taken 
into account. 
The EU fleet is properly monitored (VMS, AIS, etc.); reporting, monitoring 
and control shall take place as provided for in the Protocol and applicable 
legislation. In addition, there is a framework for monitoring and 
controlling all catches and their composition, and possible infringements 
are sanctioned; sectoral support is used to strengthen monitoring, control 
and surveillance (SCS). 

Objective 2: to contribute to the continuity of fishing activities of the EU distant-
water fleet and of employment linked to fleets operating under the FPA and its 
Protocol 

Sub-objective 
2.1 securing an appropriate share of 
the resource, fully proportionate to 
the interests of the EU fleet and its 
sub-regional and regional strategies 

2.2 ensure that the level of fees paid 
by EU vessel owners for their fishing 
activities is fair, non-discriminatory 
and contribute to equality between 
different fleets 
2.3 ensuring supply to the EU, Côte 
d’Ivoire and certain third countries’ 
markets 

Success criterion (s) 
The FPA and its Protocol give access to an important fishing zone for the 
EU fleet. The species and their quantities covered by the Protocol 
correspond to the fishing strategies of the EU fleet. The available fishing 
opportunities are acceptable considering the activities of all fleets 
operating in the same waters at national, sub-regional and regional levels. 
The FPA and its Protocol offer conditions similar to those applying to 
other foreign fleets operating in the fishing zones of the Protocol. 

The SFPA provides a reasonable framework to encourage landings, 
thereby supporting the supply to the local market and trade with third 
countries. The JPA promotes cooperation on trade in products between 
the EU and Côte d’Ivoire and/or third countries. 

Objective 3: Supporting the development of a sustainable fisheries sector in partner 
countries  

(Through the governance framework created by the Agreement and through sectoral 
support;  cooperation  on  the  blue  economy,  the  development  of  small-scale  and 
artisanal fisheries, the creation of direct and indirect jobs, the development of local 
and national sectoral policies, etc.) 

Sub-objective 
3.1 contribute to capacity building 
and social, environmental and 
economic development in Côte 
d’Ivoire  

Success criterion (s) 
The sectoral support and economic activity created by the implementation 
of  the  SFPA  contribute  to  the  functioning  of  the  fisheries  sector,  better 
governance, 
inclusive  social  and  economic 
the 
development  of  the  area  covered  by  the  current  Protocol.  In  addition,  it 
provides adequate training, equipment and infrastructure, including in the 
fields of science and the SHA. 

transparency  and 

3.2 promoting the employment of 
local seamen, encouraging landings, 

The use of sectoral support has been duly documented.  
EU vessels recruit part of their staff locally: they shall be provided with 
good working conditions and appropriate training equivalent to ILO 
standards.  

12 

 
  
supporting the development of the 
fisheries sector 

In general, the assessed Protocol is found to have been effective in reaching the objectives 
of  halieutic  resource  conservation  and  sustainable  exploitation  of  fisheries  given  the 
current status of the stocks targeted under the Protocol by the EU fleet, in the context of 
implementation  by  both  parties  of  the  ICCAT  recommendations  when  carrying  out  the 
activities that are foreseen in the Protocol. The stock status of tuna species exploited in the 
fishing area is satisfactory, apart from bigeye tuna, which is assessed as overexploited but 
not  overfished.  The  management  measures  addressing  the  EU  fleet  activities  (Fishing 
Aggregating  Devices  –FAD-  restrictions,  temporary  closure  of  fishing  with  FADs, 
voluntary  Fisheries  Improvement  Projects  –  FIPs)  have  also  contributed  to  the  general 
effectiveness  of  the  Protocol,  along  with  the  reporting  of  catches  and  data  collection 
onboard  EU  vessels.  Sustainable  exploitation  of  fisheries  is  further  guaranteed  by  the 
presence of observers onboard EU vessels under operators’ voluntary programs and for a 
percentage of fishing trips, under the Data Collection Framework obligations. 

The EU fishing fleet activities were conducted in compliance with the relevant standards 
and obligations and no infringements were reported by the authorities of Côte d’Ivoire.  

The  Protocol  is  also  effective  in  ensuring  a  continuity  of  the  fishing  operations  of  EU 
vessels in the covered area; the present protocol entered into force immediately after the 
previous one, ensuring predictability, stability and full continuity of fishing operations in 
the EEZ of Côte d’Ivoire and consistently with the interest of the fleet to be able to access 
the port of Abidjan coupled with fishing activities in Côte d’Ivoire. 

The sectoral support component of the Protocol included some areas of importance for the 
government of Côte d’Ivoire and was in line with the objectives that the EU was intending 
to achieve through sectoral support for the development of a sustainable fisheries policy.  

Finally,  the  Protocol  was  effectively  contributing  to  supporting  local  employment,  as 
nationals of Côte d’Ivoire are well represented in crews of the EU fleet based in Abidjan 
Port. Landings of tuna contribute to the local economy and local employment in canneries 
supplied by EU vessels. 

4.1.2.  Efficiency and Economy14 

This implementing Protocol has been efficient in the sense that it has generally achieved 
the expected outcomes at reasonable costs. The overall EU financial contribution for access 
was above needs until 2021, as fishing opportunities were not fully utilised. However, in 
2022, the financial contribution was well aligned with the EU fleet needs. Nonetheless, the 
EU’s investment in access still generates a positive return on investment, as it is estimated 
that for every euro invested by the EU towards the access component, an added value of 
EUR 7,56 is created, of which EUR 2,76 for the EU and EUR 4,80 for Côte d’Ivoire. It 

14 See page 84 of the evaluation report 

13 

 
 
 
has to be noted that the financial contribution of this programme remains very modest (less 
than 0,3 Million EUR in public spending by year for access). 

The  fees  paid  by  the  EU  tuna  seiners  in  the  context  of  the  implementing  Protocol 
represented 6% if their turnover and 18% of the added value15. Therefore, it was possible 
for  the  EU  shipowners  to  maintain  an  acceptable  degree  of  profitability  despite  the 
reduction of days at sea because of the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring economic viability 
for the shipowners. Moreover, the system for setting the level of access fees for EU vessels 
provided for in the Protocol also allows a certain proportionality of the fees to the actual 
catches given that it includes a variable share based on the quantities caught. 

Moreover, in total, Côte d’Ivoire’s share of added value from the activities of the EU tuna 
vessels within its fishing zone represents 53% of the generated added value, compared to 
25% for the EU. This high percentage of added value for the partner country is largely 
related to the economic impact of the activities (landings) of the EU vessels in the Abidjan 
Port.  

Regarding absorption of the sectoral support funds by Côte d’Ivoire, the implementation 
pace has not been matching the levels envisaged in the Protocol, with only 4816% of the 
maximum budget provided for in the Protocol actually disbursed by the EU after five years 
of implementation of the Protocol. These delays are mainly due to internal administrative 
issues in the third country, to unforeseen problems in mobilising technical resources within 
the anticipated deadlines and to the additional studies required during the implementation 
of sectoral support activities.  

Efficiency: 

Objective 
The Protocol is cost-effective 
for the EU 

SFPA provides good value for money 
for EU shipowners 
The financial compensation for 
fishing opportunities is beneficial for 
the EU and Côte d’Ivoire 
The sectoral support and cooperation 
measures in the Blue Economy, small-
scale fisheries and food security 
approved in the initial programming 
matrix were carried out at reasonable 
costs. 
Economy: 

Success criterion (s) 
The EU financial contribution is proportionate to the fishing 
opportunities made available in the Protocol and by 
category  
Shipowners’ contribution is proportionate to their actual catches and 
benefits compared to their operational costs and total revenues  
Côte d’Ivoire benefits from a fair share of the added value of catches.  

All activities included in sectoral support have been properly used and 
have benefited the EU and Côte d’Ivoire in environmental, social and 
economic terms.  

Objective 

Success criterion (s) 

15 See Table 22 
16 See Table 18 

14 

 
 
The EU contribution, in particular for 
sectoral support, shall be 
proportionate to Côte d’Ivoire’s 
needs and absorption capacity 
Sectoral support payments were made 
within the deadlines laid down in 
Articles 3 and 4 of the current 
Protocol. 

The EU contribution for sectoral support is aligned with national and 
local needs and its absorption capacity. The total amount of sectoral 
support shall be used in accordance with the agreed timetable and 
adapted to the needs of the partner country. Where there were 
amendments to the initial sectoral support programme, these encouraged 
the use of financial support and contributed to the sustainable 
development of the country.  

As mentioned above, MIRAH encountered several difficulties in using sectoral support 
funds under the current Protocol and the previous Protocol in accordance with the agreed 
timetables and the EU only disbursed installments for the tranches of the sectoral support 
when the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Protocol were met.  

4.1.3 Coherence:  

Objective 
Coherence between the Protocol and 
the CFP in general, and with its 
international dimension, and with 
regional fisheries policy (RFMOs, 
and other organisations including 
COPACE, and the network of 
regional and sub-regional PAPDS) 
To what extent the Protocol and its 
implementation are consistent and 
complementary with other EU 
interventions such as EEAS, INTPA, 
SANTE, TRADE and TAXUD DG 
MARE B4, B2, B1. 

How is the agreement and its 
implementing protocol consistent with 
national fisheries policy and well 
coordinated with regional policies? 
How does the Agreement contribute 
to the achievement of the United 
Nations Millennium Development 
Goals? 

Success criterion (s) 
The Protocol is aligned with the CFP in general and contributes to 
achieving the EU’s objectives at regional level – including the creation of 
a regional network of APPDS; and consists of other APPDS in the region 
and with the objectives of the RFMOs and other organisations  

The Protocol makes a substantial contribution to the effectiveness of other 
EU policies and vice versa. The Protocol and its implementation are 
coherent and contribute positively to other interventions.  

The Protocol contributes to the achievement of the objectives identified at 
national, local and regional level. Authorities, stakeholders and civil 
society are informed of the contribution. 

The Protocol contributes to the sustainable management of fishing in the 
fishing zone covered by the current Protocol.  

At international level, the Protocol contributes to the implementation of 
the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  

The FPA and the implementing Protocol are overall aligned with the CFP as they include 
the  fundamental  principles  of  governance  of  fisheries  agreements,  they  identify  fishing 
opportunities that are aligned with the ICCAT conservation and management rules, they 
contribute to the sustainable development of Côte d’Ivoire’s fisheries sector, and they help 
to maintain the activities of the EU tuna fleet in the region through a network of SFPAs 
that allows EU vessels to have access to several fishing areas stretching from Angola to 
the south and Mauritania to the north.  

Several  EU  interventions  outside  the  scope  of  the  fisheries  agreement  seem  to  be 
compatible, consistent and complementary to the activities provided for in the Protocol. 
More  specifically,  the  Protocol  is  found  to  be  consistent  with  the  PESCAO  regional 

15 

 
  
  
  
 
programme  which  strengthens  the  control  and  surveillance  framework,  research,  the 
development  of  sectoral  policy  and  the  structuring  of  non-state  actors  in  Côte  d’Ivoire. 
Strategically,  the  actions  implemented  under  the  Protocol  for  the  development  of  a 
sustainable  fisheries  sector  in  Côte  d’Ivoire  contribute  to  the  EU’s  objectives  on  ocean 
governance. The activities implemented under sectoral support for capacity building for 
monitoring, control and surveillance, as well as activities implemented under the PESCAO 
regional programme, specifically contribute to the fight against IUU fishing. 

Moreover, the activities financed under the sectoral support component are consistent with 
the priorities identified by Côte d’Ivoire under the PONADEPA sectoral policy 2022-2027, 
promoting  the  sustainable,  responsible  and  participatory  management  of  fisheries 
resources  and  the  improvement  of  the  productivity  and  competitiveness  of  fishery 
products.  The  intervention  carried  out  through  the  implementing  Protocol  further 
contributes  to  the  achievement  of  the  United  Nations  Sustainable  Development  Goal 
(SDG) 14 (life below water) and particularly targets 14.b (access to markets through EU 
supplies of canning vessels and planned sectoral support measures for the artisanal sector), 
14.4  (regulating  levies  and  ending  overfishing  and  IUU  fishing  as  a  result  of  sectoral 
support activities for strengthening Côte d’Ivoire’s monitoring, control and surveillance 
capacities) and 14.a (increasing scientific knowledge as a result of data collected on the 
activities of EU tuna seiners and planned sectoral support activities for stock evaluation 
campaigns). The Protocol also contributes to SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), 
and in particular to its target 8.8 (protection of workers’ rights) through the inclusion of 
the social clause for the employment of seafarers. 

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference? 

Objective 
What is the value added resulting 
from the EU intervention under the 
Protocol, compared to the absence of 
an agreement/protocol. To what 
extent could Member States have put 
in place appropriate alternative 
measures. 
What is the added value of EU 
intervention under the Agreement and 
its Protocol compared to what could 
be achieved by the EU fleet outside 
the framework of the Agreement 
To what extent are local, national and 
EU civil society satisfied with the 
Protocol? 
To what extent the competent Côte 
d’Ivoire authorities are satisfied by 
the Protocol 

Success criterion (s) 
EU intervention adds value compared to Member States’ interventions  

The agreement and its protocol bring substantial benefits) the EU and at 
local and national level, compared to private agreements.  

Civil society representatives are satisfied with the environmental and 
social conditions of the SFPA and the Protocol and support its renewal 
(with possible adaptations)  
National authorities are satisfied with the implementation of the Protocol 
and support its renewal (with possible adaptations)  

The EU added value lies mainly in the possibilities for access to Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing 
zone:  
- 

 under a framework binding on both parties,  

16 

 
 
aligned with applicable international obligations  
and also with provisions of other agreements in the region,  

- 
- 
-  with  the  possibility  for  the  European  Commission  to  supervise  the  activities 

implemented.  

The lack of access to the area would have had a negative impact on the EU tuna seiners 
fleet, which bases its exploitation strategy on access to all fishing areas of Eastern African 
coastal States and the high seas. Without an SFPA the EU fleet would face difficulties in 
accessing  the  resource  when  it  is  located  in  this  region  of  the  Eastern  Atlantic,  and  a 
reduction in profitability if not travelling to/from the port of Abidjan. 

The availability of a budget of EUR 2,3 million over the six years of the Protocol targeting 
capacity building in the  fisheries sector under the joint supervision of the EU and Côte 
d’Ivoire is also adding value to the EU intervention compared to the direct access under 
national law of Côte d’Ivoire. 

Such direct access is in theory possible but would require:  

−  a denunciation of the FPA so that the exclusivity clause foreseen in the agreement 

and in Art 31 of the CFP does not apply 

−  a  direct  negotiation  with  incurred  costs  for  the  shipowners  or  shipowners 

associations, 

−  payments of direct authorisations fees and related taxes 

These conditions costs are not possible to assess, as related information is not available.  

4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

Objective 
To what extent do the objectives set 
out in the FPA and its implementing 
protocol still correspond to the needs 
of the EU, its Member States and EU 
vessel owners? 

The Protocol is relevant to the 
objectives of the RFMOs and the EU 
Regional Network of Agreements. To 
what extent is it relevant and creates 
significant impacts 

Success criterion (s) 
The implementation of the JPA and its Protocol is aligned with the 
objectives of resource and environmental sustainability; support for the 
development of a sustainable fisheries sector at national and local level; 
facilitating the integration of coastal states into the world economy; 
improving scientific and technical knowledge, supporting economic 
exchanges and sustainable economic and social development) and 
adequately addressing the national and local needs of the EU and its fleet  
For highly migratory species, the Protocol contributes to the objectives 
defined at the level of RFMOs and other regional organisations, including 
CECAF, and maintains a network of SFPAs in the region. It creates 
synergies between the EU and neighbouring countries in the RFMOs.  

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 provided for in the Protocol generally meet the needs of the EU 
tuna seiners operating in the fishing zones covering the waters between Angola in the south 
and  Mauritania  in  the  north.  Nevertheless,  regarding  relevance  for  EU  longliners,  the 
envisaged fishing opportunities do not seem to correspond to their needs, as shown by the 
virtually zero utilisation rate for this category of the Protocol. With regard to Côte d’Ivoire, 
the available fishing opportunities contribute to the capitalisation of its strategic position 

17 

 
 
on the route of tuna migration by granting access to foreign vessels within the limits set by 
ICCAT and by upgrading the role of the Port of Abidjan as the main port chosen by EU 
shipowners. In this way, the Agreement and its implementing Protocol are in line with the 
objectives  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  by  generally  responding  adequately  to  the 
needs of both parties.  

The Protocol is also relevant to promote the strategies for the operation of EU vessels under 
the binding framework of bilateral fisheries agreements. It ensures that the management 
and conservation measures applicable to tuna fishing in the waters of Côte d’Ivoire are 
aligned to those adopted by ICCAT to which both sides are contracting parties. Sectoral 
support funds directed to the participation of the partner country in the ICCAT meetings 
and  to  the  payment  of  its  annual  contribution  further  facilitate  the  integration  of  Côte 
d’Ivoire into regional fisheries organisations.Due to the exclusivity clause applicable under 
Article 6 of the SFPA, EU vessels would not be allowed to fish in Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing 
zone without the signature of an implementing Protocol. This would create an interruption 
in the spatial continuity of operations in the region with a negative impact on the EU tuna 
seiners fleet. Moreover, without an implementing Protocol, the EU fleet would not be able 
to generate less profit in the use the port of Abidjan which increases the profitability of the 
EU fleet’s operations due to its strategic significance. Regarding the partner country, the 
intervention is  still considered  relevant  and no objections to  a the negotiation of a new 
implementing Protocol has been raised by the Côte d’Ivoire authorities.  

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

Based on the evaluation, several conclusions can be drawn based on objective analysis of 
the information gathered. Furthermore, specific and relevant recommendations for future 
negotiations on the new protocol between the EU and Côte d’Ivoire can be made. 

Among all options considered, the renewal of the Protocol at the end of its implementation 
period (31 July 2024) clearly appears to be in the interest of both parties and as the most 
beneficial policy option. On the other hand, the option of not renewing the Protocol would 
not be beneficial for any of the parties17.  

Regarding  access  conditions,  for  the  future  Protocol,  the  reference  tonnage  is 
recommended  to  be  set  taking  into  consideration  the  level  of  utilisation  of  fishing 
opportunities of the current implementing Protocol. 

With regard to technical measures, striving for the effective implementation of the ERS 
system  for  Côte  d’Ivoire  is  a  matter  of  great  importance.  As  far  as  the  embarkation  of 
national  seamen  is  concerned,  the  EU  should  push  for  the  conclusion  of  collective 
agreements  that  govern  the  employment  conditions  of  non-EU  seafarers  on  board  EU 

17 See report, page 76 

18 

 
 
vessels,  while  both  parties  should  monitor  the  employment  of  Côte  d’Ivoire  and  ACP 
nationals and communicate this information to each other. 

Concerning the sectoral support component, the future Protocol should provide for clauses 
on  monitoring  and  evaluation,  including  the  submission  by  Côte  d’Ivoire  to  the  Joint 
Committee of annual progress report and a final evaluation report (before the expiration of 
the Protocol) about the impact of the sectoral support on the development of their sectoral 
fisheries  policy.  Clauses  related  to  the  visibility/communication  of  the  sectoral  support 
activities should also be included. Particular attention should further be attributed to the 
efficient  programming  of  the  sectoral  support  activities,  refraining  from  very  complex 
objectives  that  hinder  implementation  and  seeking  external  technical  expertise  when 
necessary.  The  programming  of  sectoral  support  should  be  guided  by  the  activities 
identified by the national sectoral policy for the coming period (PONADEPA 2022-2026), 
while the possibilities for supporting the implementation of this national policy will depend 
on the budget availability which will be the result of the negotiation process.  

5.2.  Lessons learned  

The ex-post evaluation of the Protocol implementing the Fisheries Partnership Agreement 
for the period 2018-2024 shows that the Protocol has generally succeeded in achieving its 
main objectives.  

The main learnings stemming from this ex-post evaluation are three: 

•  Monitoring of the activity of the EU vessels during their fishing operations in Côte 
d’Ivoire waters needs room for improvement as certain provisions of the Protocol 
have not  been fully  implemented. This  improvement should particularly  address 
the  issues  of  autonomous  receipt  of  catch  declarations  and  the  embarkation  of 
designated observers; 

•  Despite the fact that quantitative targets of the Protocol regarding the employment 
of national seamen have been exceeded, qualitative targets do not follow the same 
trend, particularly concerning compliance with the ILO minimum wage. This issue 
has  been  raised  by  several  seafarers  unions  and  has  leaded  to  mediatised  social 
conflicts that could be harmful to the parties involved. 

•  The implementation of the activities funded under sectoral support by Côte d’Ivoire 
has been subject to noticeable delays despite the relatelivy modest annual budgets 
(around EUR 400 000 per year). These delays were partly explained by cyclical 
events outside the control of the authorities responsible, administrative problems, 
but also by difficulties linked to the implementation of the multiannual programme 
adopted at the beginning of the Protocol. It is therefore much needed to prepare a 
clear and detailed programme for a future sectoral support component aiming at 
improving the pace of implementation, meeting both national and EU priorities. 

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 

19 

 
 
options, for the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU 
and Côte d’Ivoire.  

6.1.  Problem analysis and needs assessment   

•  Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing zone is an attractive zone as it is on the route of migration 
of  highly  migratory  species  from  the  Atlantic.  Access  agreements  with  foreign 
interests enable the country to exploit its fishing potential and strategic position on 
the tuna migratory routes through budgetary revenue and spillover effects on the 
employment  of  national  seafarers  and  the  supply  of  domestic  industrial  and 
artisanal industries. 

6.2.  Current and future needs of Côte d’Ivoire 

•  Due to the development of infrastructure and the availability of goods and services 
that meet the needs of EU shipowners and other flags, the port of Abidjan is the 
main port of call of the fleets of tuna seiners operating in the Atlantic Ocean. Côte 
d’Ivoire needs to maintain a high level of attractiveness of its port by acting on all 
the factors contributing to it in order to be able to cope with competition from other 
ports in Africa. One of these factors is the possibility for tuna vessels to fish en 
route to/from the port of Abidjan. 

•  The large volume of fishery products transiting through the port of Abidjan (almost 
900 000 tonnes per year) puts Côte d’Ivoire under significant responsibility as a 
port State in the overall fight against IUU fishing. Côte d’Ivoire thus has the need 
and the duty to be able to implement inspection arrangements for vessels that use 
the  port  and  raise  them  at  the  level  of  the  international  standards,  which  Côte 
d’Ivoire has ratified18. 

•  Côte  d’Ivoire  has  just  adopted  a  new  National  Policy  for  the  Development  of 
Livestock,  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture  for  the  period  2022-2026  (PONADEPA 
2022-2026)  with  the  strategic  objectives  of  (i)  improving  the  governance  of  the 
sector,  (ii)  improving  the  productivity  and  competitiveness  of  environmentally 
friendly sectors and (iii) improving the livelihoods of stakeholders. PONADEPA 
2022-2026  sets  ambitious  objectives  for  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture  sectors, 
particularly  in  relation  to  the  need  to  improve  the  coverage  of  market  needs  by 
national production in order to improve the food security of its population (25,5 
million inhabitants). 

•  The implementation of this sectoral policy requires significant financial resources 
estimated at more than EUR 600 million over five years, which the State cannot 
assume on its own. Côte d’Ivoire therefore needs to be able to secure multiannual 
budgetary  resources  in  order  to  meet  the  priorities  identified  for  the  sustainable 
development of the sector. 

18 In particular the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures and ICCAT Recommendation 18-09 on Port 

State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing 

20 

 
 
6.3.  Current and future needs of the EU  

•  The European Union is committed to improving international ocean governance19. 
The European Union has made the global fight against IUU fishing one of its main 
objectives,  given  concrete  expression  of  support  for  numerous  development 
programmes aimed at strengthening governance mechanisms in the fisheries sector 
in West Africa, including the PESCAO programme implemented under the 11th 
Regional EDF. As such, EU vessels must behave exemplary behaviour regardless 
of  their  fishing  areas,  with  management  mechanisms  that  allow  the  EU  and  the 
Member States concerned to assume their responsibilities as flag States. The EU 
therefore  needs  mechanisms  to  regulate  the  activity  of  European  fleets  in  Côte 
d’Ivoire  waters  in  accordance  with  international  law  and  the  objectives  and 
requirements of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy. 

•  The  EU’s  international  ocean  governance  agenda  promotes  the  sustainability  of 
fish stocks and increased compliance.  In addition to  its  activities at  ICCAT, the 
Union may, through the network of fisheries agreements it signs, promote coherent 
measures to ensure the application of international management conservation rules 
and promote the transparency of the agreements. The agreement with Côte d’Ivoire 
complements a network of agreements covering a large part of the fishing zones of 
coastal States bordering the western tropical Atlantic. 

•  As  part  of  its  external  action,  the  EU  has  committed  itself  to  the  international 
community to take a leading role in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for 
Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations in 2015. The EU therefore 
needs to be able to mobilise an instrument that contributes to achieving the United 
Nations  Sustainable  Development  Goals,  in  particular  the  objectives  relating  to 
aquatic life (SDG 14) in Côte d’Ivoire waters, in synergy with other interventions 
by the EU and its Member States. 

6.4.  Current and future needs of Côte d’Ivoire and the EU together 

•  The creation of a framework for sectoral policy dialogue with dedicated funding in 
synergy with other EU interventions enables both parties to jointly exchange and 
implement  initiatives  to  promote  the  sustainable  development  of  the  fisheries 
sector,  including  initiatives  to  cooperate  in  the  fight  against  IUU  fishing  and  to 
strengthen fisheries research. 

6.5.  Current and future needs of the EU fleet 

•  For tuna seiners, fishing activities shall take place throughout the Eastern Atlantic, 
between Angola’s southern latitude and Mauritania to the north. Côte d’Ivoire’s 
fishing zone is one of the moderately productive areas, but it is important to have 
access to it in order to be able to track the movements of highly migratory species 
from the Atlantic. 

19  Joint  Communication  TO  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT,  THE  COUNCIL,  THE  EUROPEAN 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Setting the 
course  towards  a  sustainable blue  planet  –  Joint  Communication  on  the  EU agenda  for international 
ocean governance. JOIN/2022/28 final 

21 

 
 
•  EU  tuna  seiners  have  made  the  port  of  Abidjan  their  preferred  port  of  call  for 
decades.  Vessels  need  to  be  able  to  carry  out  fishing  operations  by  navigating 
to/from  the  port  in  order  to  make  the  time  spent  at  sea  profitable  as  much  as 
possible. 

•  Finally, irrespective of the type of EU vessel concerned, there is a need to obtain 
stable access agreements for multiannual durations, allowing vessels 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 the rights and 
obligations of each of them (vessels and coastal states) with the possibility of fair 
arbitration  in  the  event  of  a  presumption  of  non-compliance  by  one  of  the  two 
parties. 

6.6.  EU added value   

Only  the  Union  is  competent  to  negotiate  under  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union (TFEU). 

Beyond  this  obligation  stemming  from  the  TFEU,  the  involvement  of  the  EU  in  the 
negotiation of a new Protocol brings a clear added value similar to that identified in the ex-
post part of the evaluation (see paragraph 8.6 p.72). This is related to:  

(i) a mandate from the EU to ensure that the Protocol and its implementation are in line 
with international and CFP standards and consistent with other agreements concluded with 
coastal States in the region,  

(ii) the possibility for the EU to have an instrument to implement its sectoral policy at sub-
regional  level  through  the  leverage  effect  given  by  a  network  of  agreements  and  its 
interventions within ICCAT, and  

(iii) a specific instrument for bilateral sectoral cooperation with Côte d’Ivoire, as well as 
the  possibility  of  coordinating  with  its  other  Member  States’  cooperation  and  Côte 
d’Ivoire, will be able to have an instrument enabling it to implement its sectoral policy at 
sub-regional  level  by  means  of  the  leverage  given  by  a  network  of  agreements  and  its 
interventions within ICCAT. 

6.7.  Policy and management objectives   

The  objectives  of  fisheries  agreements  are  guided  by  Articles  31  and  32  of  the  Basic 
Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), taking into account the 2012 Council 
conclusions20 on the external dimension of the CFP. In line with EU policy on fisheries 
agreements,  the  objectives  of  future  intervention  under  the  Fisheries  Partnership 
Agreement concluded between the EU and Côte d’Ivoire in 2008 must be based on the 
general and specific objectives which guide the EU’s intervention logic for all FPAs and 
SFPAs, namely: 

General  objective  1:  a  contribution  to  resource  conservation  and  environmental 
sustainability through the rational and sustainable exploitation of marine resources in Côte 
d’Ivoire waters, with the following specific objectives (SOs): 

20 Council conclusions on the external dimension of the CFP. 19.03.2012, 7086/12 

22 

 
 
•  SO1.1:  Ensure  the  conservation  of  tuna  stocks  through  the  application  of 
conservation  and  management  measures  adopted  within  the  ICCAT  multilateral 
framework. 

•  SO1.2: Promote the same principles and apply the same standards as those applied 

in EU waters for fisheries management. 

•  SO 1.3: Improve the scientific and technical evaluation of fisheries in Côte d’Ivoire 
waters,  in  particular  through  support  for  data  collection  and  transparency  of  the 
management framework. 

•  SO 1.4: Ensure compliance with the applicable rules and combat IUU fishing. 

General  objective  2:  support  for  the  activity  of  the  EU  distant  fishing  fleets  and  the 
maintenance of employment linked to the activities of these vessels, with the following 
specific objectives (SOs): 

•  SO 2.1: Obtain an appropriate share of available fishery resources in full proportion 

to the interests of around 20 EU tuna seiners in Côte d’Ivoire waters 

•  SO 2.2: Ensure that fees paid by EU armaments for fishing activities are fair, non-
discriminatory  and  proportionate  to  the  benefits  of  access  conditions  while 
avoiding any discriminatory treatment  towards EU vessels by promoting a level 
playing field between different fleets 

•  SO 2.3: Securing supply to the EU market and certain developing third countries 
•  SO 2.4: Encouraging the creation of a favorable environment for private investment 

and economic activities in Côte d’Ivoire 

General objective 3: support for the development of a sustainable fisheries sector in Côte 
d’Ivoire, with the following specific objectives (SOs): 

•  SO  3.1:  contribute  to  the  capacity  building  of  Côte  d’Ivoire  (in  particular  by 
improving the management framework, control and surveillance and the collection 
of scientific data) 

•  SO 3.2: the definition of annual and multiannual objectives to be achieved in order 

to support the implementation of the national sectoral policy 

•  SO  3.3:  evaluation  of  the  results  achieved  in  terms  of  impact,  as  well  as  on 

budgetary and financial needs 

•  SO 3.4: promote the employment of national seamen under conditions aligned with 
those of international standards, and encourage landings, support Côte d’Ivoire in 
the development of the national fisheries sector and the processing industry. 

6.8.  Policy options, including associated risks   

Two options are available: 

•  Renewal  of  the  current  protocol  –  option  A  (status  quo  with  adaptations  where 

necessary), 

•  Non-renewal of the Protocol – option B. 

Option A focuses on a renewal of a Protocol allowing access to highly migratory species 
only, as is the case with the current Protocol. Access to other species is not envisaged due 
to the lack of scientific information on a possible surplus available to EU fishing fleets. 

Under option A, the EU will be able to implement new provisions for access by EU vessels 
and support to Côte d’Ivoire’s fisheries sector under the conditions laid down in Article 31 

23 

 
of the EU CFP21Regulation, with the mobilisation of the financial instruments provided 
for in Article 32. These cover the financial compensation for access and a specific amount 
for the EU contribution to the implementation of the national sectoral policy decoupled 
from the financial compensation for access.  

The renewed Protocol under option A will be the result of negotiations between the two 
parties.  The  characteristics  of  this  future  instrument  cannot  be  known  at  this  stage,  in 
particular the amount of the associated financial commitments. 

Under  option  B,  the  FPA  concluded  in  2008  becomes  dormant,  i.e.  without  an 
implementing protocol and therefore without mobilising the instruments provided for in 
Article 32 of the EU CFP Regulation (see above). However, the general provisions of the 
FPA remain in force, in particular Article 6, which limits the framework for issuing fishing 
authorisations  to  EU  vessels  within  the  framework  of  the  FPA  and  its  Implementing 
Protocol (exclusivity clause). In other words, EU vessels may not apply for direct fishing 
authorisations from the Côte d’Ivoire authorities. They may navigate in the area but have 
no right to fish there. 

6.9.  Results and impacts   

6.9.1.  Environmental 

Whichever  option  is  considered,  EU  tuna  vessels  will  have  to  carry  out  their  fishing 
activities  in  compliance  with  the  conservation  and  management  rules  adopted  in  the 
ICCAT multilateral framework. 

Compared to Option A, Option B could result in a shift of fishing effort deployed in Côte 
d’Ivoire’s  fishing  zone  to  other  areas  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  This  carry-over  of  fishing 
effort will probably have no impact on exploited stocks, as these are distributed across the 
Atlantic without particular vulnerabilities in one area compared to another. 

Option B will no longer make available to both parties the sectoral dialogue framework 
available under option A. This could have the effect of affecting Côte d’Ivoire’s capacity 
to contribute to the overall fight against IUU fishing in a sector (inspections in port and 
rade Abidjan) where Côte d’Ivoire has an important role to play as a port State considering 
the large quantities of fishery products passing through its ports (approximately 900 000 
tonnes per year). The impact may ultimately be an increase in the negative impact of IUU 
fishing  on  the  sustainability  of  stocks,  but  also  on  the  economic  and  social  pillars  of 
sustainability. 

6.9.2.  Economic impacts 

Compared to Option A, the main result of Option B may be a reduction in the rate of 
EU tuna seiners’ use of the port of Abidjan. As pointed out during the consultations, the 
possibility of fishing in the Côte d’Ivoire area contributes to the attractiveness of the port 
of Abidjan. Without possible access to resources in Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing zone, combined 

21 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on 
the  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  amending  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  1954/2003  and  (EC)  No 
1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council 
Decision 2004/585/EC. OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22 – 61 

24 

 
 
with the current lack of access to resources in Liberia’s adjacent fishing zone22, EU tuna 
seiners will seek to diversify the places of call to ports, by choosing the ports of Senegal, 
Ghana  and  Cabo  Verde  which  are  already  alternative  landing  places,  when  the  fishing 
season takes place in the northern part of the East Atlantic, or the Gabonese port if it is 
able to become attractive for tuna fleets, as is the ambition of the Gabonese authorities. 

Under this scenario, the economic impact will be unfavorable for Côte d’Ivoire, which will 
lose part of the added value generated by the port calls of EU tuna seiners to the benefit of 
its economy. 

Local canneries in Côte d’Ivoire sourcing tuna landed by EU tuna vessels, part of their raw 
material will have to be imported by transport vessels or containers, resulting in an increase 
in costs and, without real possibility to  pass on such increased costs to products finally 
exported to the EU market, a reduction in the economic profitability. 

The  situation  will  be  comparable  for  local  industries  which  source  from  the  bycatches 
landed in Abidjan. These associated species to tuna catches landed in other ports may be 
transported to Abidjan, but will be accessible at higher prices due to higher transaction and 
transport costs. 

EU tuna seiners will diversify their stopovers but will not be able to stop in Abidjan in the 
medium  term  due to  the existence of logistical  bases on site and the unpreparedness  of 
other  African  ports  to  increase  reception  opportunities  within  a  reasonable  timeframe 
(rearrangements will probably be necessary). Compared to Option A, EU tuna seiners will 
still be able to come to Abidjan, but without being able to fish in the area, with the impact 
of lower profitability. 

As regards the result of option B on public commitments, the savings made by the EU side 
on the public budget of fisheries agreements will be insignificant (around EUR 0.7 million 
saving from an annual public budget of EUR 135 million23, or 0.5 %). For Côte d’Ivoire, 
the loss of current Protocol revenue will not have any significant impact on the national 
budget balance (current Protocol revenue accounts for 0.01 % of government revenue, see 
section  2.2.2  of  the  study,  p.82).  However,  Côte  d’Ivoire  will  have  to  identify  other 
financing  mechanisms  under  the  PAGDRH,  whose  budget  is  partly  based  on  current 
Protocol payments. A first possible source is the revenue paid by non-EU tuna vessels in 
exchange  for  access  to  the  fishing  zone,  which  for  the  time  being  is  not  paid  from  the 
PAGDRH budget. 

6.9.3.  Social impacts 

The reduction in the profitability of canneries considered as a possible result of option B 
compared to option A may have the impact of compromising some of the 3 000 jobs, 70 % 
of which are women. The decrease in the number of port calls will also have an impact on 
the other 3 000 jobs in port companies supplying goods and services to EU tuna seiners. 

22 The fisheries agreement between the EU and Liberia has been dormant since the end of 2020, and will 
remain  so  until  the  IUU  procedure  launched  by  the  European  Commission  in  2017  (yellow  card)  is 
resolved. 

23 Source: DG MARE (2019): EU sustainable fisheries partnership agreements. Online document  

25 

 
 
With regard to national  seamen, the result of option B, which is likely to lead EU tuna 
seiners to make more calls at ports in other African countries, may encourage armaments 
to make greater use of seamen from those countries who are available locally. In particular, 
EU armaments will be able to replace part of the 220 jobs occupied by Ivorian seamen by 
Senegalese or Ghanaian seamen who already form a significant part of the workforce. 

Ivorian seamen who no longer sign on EU tuna seiners will be able to find alternatives on 
tuna  vessels  flying  other  flags,  but  with  the  result  of  not  being  protected  by  the  social 
clauses  of  the  EU  Protocols  and  as  an  impact  in  the  long  term,  a  deterioration  in  their 
working conditions. 

6.10.  Preferred option  

The following table compares the options in terms of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency 
coherence and added value. 

The result of the comparison indicates that a scenario of further implementation of the FPA 
between the EU and Côte d’Ivoire through a new implementing protocol is likely to have 
a positive impact compared to a scenario of an FPA without an implementing protocol. 
The non-renewal of the Protocol is a worst-loss scenario. 

26 

 
Baseline scenario: option A (renewal of the Protocol) 

Option B: Protocol not renewed 

Relevance 
(to what extent the option meets the needs) 

Baseline scenario: 
The ex-post evaluation indicates that the Protocol meets the needs of the 
Parties. 

Efficiency 
(to what extent the objectives assigned to the intervention can be achieved) 

Efficiency 
(without what extent the resources used are proportionate to the expected 
results) 

Baseline scenario: 
The Protocol has been generally effective in terms of access, but there is a 
need  to  improve  the  transparency  of  fishing  activities  and  the  social 
climate on board EU vessels. 
As  regards  the  sectoral  support  component,  the  delays  in  the  pace  of 
implementation of the multiannual programme have limited effectiveness 
compared to initial forecasts. 
Baseline scenario: 
Due  to  the  unpredictable  nature  of  tuna  migration,  the  proportionality 
between the resources used and the expected results varies from one period 
to another. 
The EU’s investment in the access counterpart generates a positive cost-
benefit ratio. 

Impact of the option compared to the baseline scenario: negative 
The option does not meet any of the needs of two parties, in particular: 

• 

• 

• 

Need for access to a potentially productive fishing area for the 
EU tuna fleet 
Need to strengthen the attractiveness of the port of Abidjan for 
Côte d’Ivoire 
Need  for  a  bilateral  sectoral  dialogue  framework  for  the 
promotion of responsible fishing for both parties 

Impact of the option compared to the baseline scenario: negative 
Without  an  implementing  protocol,  the  objectives  assigned  to  the  FPA 
(Article 3) cannot be achieved by intervention. 

Impact of the option compared to the baseline scenario: not applicable 
Not  applicable:  without  an  implementing  protocol,  no  EU  public 
budgetary resources are mobilised for intervention. 

Coherence 
(to  what  extent  the  intervention  contributes  to  other  interventions  with 
similar objectives) 
EU added value 
(to what extent does the EU intervention brings added value)  

Baseline scenario: 
Initiatives  implemented  under  the  Protocol  contribute  to  other  EU 
interventions, in particular those supporting the fight against IUU fishing.  
Baseline scenario: 
the added value of the EU intervention remains or is increased (if better 
implementation of autonomous follow up by CIV of catches, of sectoral 
support).  

Impact of the option compared to the baseline scenario: not applicable 
Not  applicable:  without  an  implementing  protocol,  assistance  may  not 
contribute to other interventions with similar objectives. 
Impact of the option compared to the baseline scenario: not applicable 
without an implementing protocol, the fishing activities cannot take place, 
even outside the SFPA (no direct authorisations is possible). 

27 

 
 
 
 
6.11.  MONITORING OF A FUTURE IMPLEMENTING PROTOCOL  

The monitoring framework should continue to incorporate indicators on the use of fishing 
opportunities (fishing authorisations issued, catches obtained). During the consultations, 
one EU Member State suggested that the periods taken into account for the calculation of 
the  EU  counterpart’s  access  payments  and  access  fees  should  be  aligned  in  order  to 
facilitate monitoring. 

The monitoring framework should also add indicators for the periodic monitoring of the 
application  of  the  Protocol’s  provisions  on  the  embarkation  of  national  seamen  and 
designated observers in compliance with the rules applicable to the protection of personal 
data, so that both parties have the same objective basis for information on the application 
of these measures. 

As regards the sectoral support component, the monitoring framework should continue to 
take into account indicators relating to EU disbursements and the implementation of funds 
disbursed  by  Côte  d’Ivoire  to  measure  progress  in  implementation.  Where  possible,  it 
would be appropriate for the monitoring framework to add 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 prior to the date of expiry of the Protocol 
in order to give the European institutions time to prepare for a possible renewal under the 
ordinary legislative procedure without interruption of access possibilities. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

−  DG MARE, Decide reference PLAN 2022/ 1928. 
−  Derogations granted : No impact assessment and no open public consultation, considering the low value of the spending evaluated. 
−  Organisation and timing. 
−  The results of this SWD are mainly informed by an evaluation study conducted by an independent consultant. This evaluation study took place from 
20.12.2022 to 08.09 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 3 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 in the EU and in the 
Partner Country. 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

Elements presented in this SWD are mainly taken from the above mentioned evaluation study conducted by an independent consultant.  

The methodology is based on data collection, targeted consultations, data analysis and synthesis of this analysis and consultations outputs.  

1. 

Data collection 

The external study had to collect information on the;  

-  Fishing sector in the third country 
-  Activities of EU and other fleets in the partner country 
-  Stock assessments for the main concerned species 
- 
Institutional set up relevant on fishery issues 
-  Trade figures and data collected on the spot on local processing facilities 
-  Fishing data and economic data collected from EU companies as well as in other studies (costs structures)  
-  Reports of technical meetings, local fishery attaché reports and joint committee meetings 

29 

 
 
-  Structured interviews with stakeholders: representatives from administrations, fishery sector, civil society.  

The information was then analysed and fed an evaluation  

-  Critical review of the appropriateness and performance of the use of EU funds under sectoral support component 
-  Critical review of compliance to the binding provisions of the Protocol for each Party. 

Data used were provided by the Commission (database fed by Member States for authorisations and catches; Commission database on  payments amounts 
and timing), by the Third country, by EU or third countries companies (economic results) or by other public sources (COMEXT data, EUMOFA selling 
price database, RFMOs reports).  

2. Consultations  
The consultations carried out for the purposes of this evaluation study, with the assistance of the independent consultants, according to a strategy validated 
by the ISG, and included :  
Consultation  of  stakeholders  in  the  EU:  administrations  of  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 May to June 
2023;  
Consultation of stakeholders in Côte d’Ivoire: a mission was organised in Côte d’Ivoire between 22 and 28.05.2023. During the mission, face-
• 
to-face discussion sessions were held with the various departments of the Ministry of Fisheries involved in monitoring the Agreement, representatives of 
the private sector in the industrial and artisanal sectors and representatives of the EUD in Abidjan (as well as remotely with the fishery attaché based in 
Kenya DEL).  
• 
3. Preparation of the evaluation study   
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. 

Uncertainty in the analytical results and their robustness are influenced by:  

-  The evaluated period which is by necessity shorter than the full period of the initiative (more than one year of implementation is not evaluated) 

30 

 
 
 
-  The  lack  of  available  information  (such  as  precise  and  accurate  data  distinguishing  landings  and  transhipments  of  EU  catches  in  Abidjan, 
discrepancies between different data sources, or confidential economic information such as selling prices or precise costs structure per individual 
companies).  

-  Use of aggregated data. 

31 

 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX 

The evaluation matrix applied has been the following:  

1 

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

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

Objective 1: To contribute towards resource conservation and environmental sustainability through rational and sustainable exploitation of living 
marine resources of Côte d’Ivoire 

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 Côte d’Ivoire. Côte d’Ivoire 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. 

State of the stocks targeted under the 
Protocol (scientific advice analysis that 
Côte d’Ivoire conducted, meetings, 
regional scientific reports and data, 
RFMO/RFO and national scientific 
institutes); All fleets catches and fishing 
effort in Côte d’Ivoire and in the region; 
possible impact on the environment of all 
the fleets operating in these waters. All 
considering that the target is tuna like 
migratory species  

32 

 
 
 
 
Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

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? 

The EU and Côte d’Ivoire adopt management measures to reduce by-catches 
and discards and reduce the possible impacts on the ecosystem. 

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 Côte d’Ivoire 
actively participate in scientific meetings and RFMO/RFO scientific 
committees. Cooperation between scientific institutes is encouraged and 
supported where appropriate. Joint scientific analysis at regional level at 
RFMO level are taken into account.   

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. Strategies 
aimed at conservation measures for 
protected species such as sharks 

Inclusion of data collection provisions in 
the Agreement and timely availability of 
relevant data at the management and 
scientific operators; 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 meeting between scientists and 
managers at country level. 

1.4 To what extent 
compliance and control 
of EU-fleet activities 
have been ensured 

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). 

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. 

33 

 
Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

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 

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.  

The Agreement and its Protocol offer similar conditions to all foreign fleets 
operating in the fishing zones and management areas in the current Protocol. 

The cost benefit ratio is acceptable and reasonable for the EU ship owners 
and for Côte d’Ivoire. 

Utilisation of fishing licenses; 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) for EU operators; 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. 

Level of fees and technical conditions 
applied to third countries fleets in the 
fishing zones and management areas in the 
current Protocol. Proportion between fees, 
(all) costs and (all) benefits for the EU ship 
owners and for Côte d’Ivoire. 

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 

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 

34 

 
Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

2.3 To ensure supply for 
the EU and for the 
markets of Côte d’Ivoire 
and third countries. 

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 Côte d’Ivoire 
and/or third countries. 

Percentage of landings versus local and 
neighbouring countries market’s needs. 

Trade figures on fish (and composition) 
between the EU and Côte d’Ivoire. 

Commercial balance and relation with Côte 
d’Ivoire and neighbouring countries related 
to fish caught in Côte d’Ivoire waters 

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 
country and reinforcing 
its cooperation with the 
EU. 

2.5 To take into account 
the specific interests of 
the  

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. There are synergies between the implementation of the 
Agreement and the economic and social development of the country. 

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. 

The Agreement covers the specific needs of the EU fleet based in outermost 
region and in the EU by ensuring the continuity of their fishing grounds 

Number of vessels originating from the 
outermost region operating under the 
Agreement and percentage of catches 
comparted to total catches. The same for 

35 

 
Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

−  Union's outermost 
regions located in 
the vicinity 
−  Union’s fleet.  

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 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 
Côte d’Ivoire. 

The sectoral support and the economic activity that the implementation of 
the Agreement creates, contributes to the functioning of the fisheries sector, 
better governance, transparency, inclusiveness and social and economic 
development of the area covered by the current Protocol. Moreover, it 
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 current Protocol). 

Results achieved with sectoral support and 
economic and social impact of the 
implementation of the current Protocol; % 
of the EU contribution to the different 
strategies, policies and value of indicators 
for assessing the social and economic 
impact in the EU and in the areas covered 
by the current Protocol, 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, aquaculture, data 
collection, MCS, food security and policy 
areas. 

36 

 
Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

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.  

3.2 To promote 
employment of local 
fishers, 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. 

Respect of the minimum number of local 
fishers embarked, respect of the standard 
for fair and safe working conditions, 
amount and composition of wages; catches 
(value and volume, including by catches) 
landed, namely in comparison with landing 
obligations, processed and marketed 
locally.  

Quantities of landings and transshipments 
from EU/Non EU fleets in Côte d’Ivoire 
Ports,  

Number of jobs supported in Port and 
Processing facilities related to EU /Non EU 
fleets frequentation and 
landing/transshipments activities 

Social indicators of current work force in 
Côte d’Ivoire (age distribution) and related 
needs for training of young potential 
fishermen 

Employment created directly and indirectly 
in the EU and in Côte d’Ivoire or in the sub 
region/sub region. 

37 

 
 
 
 
Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

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. 

2 

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

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

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? 

All activities included in the sectoral support have been 
properly used and benefited in environmental, social and 
economic terms in the EU and Côte d’Ivoire. 

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

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

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 and all costs and 
estimation of the profitability for each 

38 

 
To what extent is the financial 
compensation for the fishing 
possibilities under the Agreement 
advantageous for the EU and for Côte 
d’Ivoire?  

Côte d’Ivoire benefits from a fair part of the added value of the 
catches and all financial compensation. This financial 
compensation is distributed geographically and socially fairly 
in Côte d’Ivoire. 

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. 

3 

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

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

To what extent is all the EU 
contribution and specifically its sectoral 
support commensurate to the needs of 
Côte d’Ivoire and absorption capacity? 

The total EU contribution is in line with national and local 
needs and absorption capacity. The total amount of sectoral 
support is used according to the foreseen calendar and adapted 
to the needs of the country. In case of modifications of the 
initial programming of the sectoral support, these have helped 
to better use of the financial support and contributed 
successfully to the sustainable development of the country. 

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. 

39 

 
To what extent has the sectoral support 
payments been made yearly time and 
according to the programming defined 
in article 4 of the Protocol? 

Contributions have been paid consistently with the Protocol 
provisions, and so that they could be allocated to the national 
or local budget in compliance with 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 

Absorption capacity of the sectoral 
support; success stories; % 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. 

4 

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

Questions 

Success criteria 

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? 

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,  effective  governance,  and  address  correctly  the 
national and local needs and those of the EU and its fleet. 

Suggested indicators 

Comparison between original 
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. 

40 

 
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? 

For highly migratory species, the Protocol contributes to achieving 
objectives set at RFMOs and other regional organisations24 including 
CECAF25 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 SFPA 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. 

5 

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

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

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)? 

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

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

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

25 Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) 

41 

 
 
Questions 

Success criteria 

To what extent is the Protocol and its 
implementation consistent and coherent 
and complements with the other EU 
policies, such as the Association 
Agreement, the EEAS, -INTPA, 
SANTE, TRADE, EMPL and TAXUD 
policies and legislation?  

The Protocol makes a substantial contribution to other EU policies and 
conversely. The Protocol and its implementation is complementary, 
coherent and cooperates very positively with other EU interventions. 

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 and the EU 
cooperation? 

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 

6 

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

Questions 

Success criteria 

What is the additional value resulting 
from the EU intervention under the 

Financial contribution, in particular sectoral support, successfully used 
to support and develop the national and local fisheries sector. 

Suggested indicators 

Consistency with the main EU 
strategies / policy orientations. 

Implementation of social clauses. 
And contribution to sustainable 
food security. 

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. 

Suggested indicators 

Data on the implementation within 
the current Protocol in economic, 
social and environmental terms 

42 

 
 
Questions 

Success criteria 

Protocol, compared to the absence of 
Agreement/Protocol? 

To what extent would Member States 
have had the ability or possibility to put 
in place appropriate alternative 
measures? 

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.  

To what extent the overall benefits of 
the Agreement and Protocol have an 
added value for the EU? 

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. 

Suggested indicators 

compared to other agreements or 
with no agreement. 

What is the additional 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? 

The Agreement and its implementing Protocol provide substantial 
benefits to the EU and nationally and locally over private agreements. 

Uptake of licenses, 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 

7 

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

Questions 

Success criteria 

To what extent are the EU ship-owners 
satisfied with the Protocol? 

The EU ship-owners are satisfied with the technical and financial 
conditions set up by the Protocol and support its renewal (with 
possible adaptations). 

Suggested indicators and sources 

Result of interviews of ship owners 
and fisheries associations, and fishers 
representatives (embarked in EU 
vessels under the SFPA framework) 

43 

 
 
To what extent is the Protocol is 
developed in consultation, coordination 
and supported by the civil society in the 
EU and nationally and locally? 

Representatives of the civil society are consulted, involved and 
satisfied with the environmental and social conditions set up by the 
SFPA 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? 

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 

To what extent the administration, 
stakeholders and civil society are in 
general satisfied with the 
implementation of the Protocol? 

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

Result of interviews of NGO 
representatives and other 
stakeholders, local population, 
fishers representatives and 
locally/nationally/regionally 

Result of interviews of industry, 
fishing operators and content of 
articles, press, reported incidents 
between fleets. 

Level of compliance with the 
Protocol's obligations in terms of 
seamen embarked, respect of fair and 
safe working condition on board of 
EU vessels, landing obligation, 
observers, data reporting etc, Impact 
of the Agreement’s implementation 
to national/local population in social 
and economic terms, communication 
activities and their impact, 
communication activities, press 
statements, content of articles, etc. 

The answers are presented in the section 5 of the document. Further details are available in the report of the consultant, in its chapter 8. 

44 

 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS  

As the initiative submitted to the evaluation is not applying to EU citizens, and only to a very small number of EU companies, costs and benefits have been 
identified and assessed for those EU companies benefitting from the initiative, and for the partner third country, as well as the EU generally (EU institutions), 
as a partner to the agreement. 

A simplified table accompanied with an explanatory narrative present an overview of these costs and benefits. 
The cost/benefit analysis of the current implementing Protocol, for the EU budget and for the partner country, 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.  

The ratios recommended by the economic evaluation methodology in order to harmonise the elements for comparing the economic performance of the 
various agreements are set out in the tables below. 

As regards the relative cost of access in view of actual catches, it is around EUR 160/tonne of fishery product caught, borne 52 % by the EU (EUR 83/tonne) 
and 48 % by EU arms benefiting from fishing opportunities (EUR 77/tonne). The indicators for sharing the cost of access between the EU public authorities 
and EU shipowners in the case of the current Protocol are different from the planned ex-ante allocation. This is the result of catch levels significantly lower 
than the reference tonnage established by the Protocol for fixing the amount of the flat-rate part of the contribution for access until 2021. For 2022, in which 
catches exceeded the reference tonnage, the distribution of access costs converges to that provided for in the Protocol (EUR 70 per tonne to be borne by 
the EU, EUR 70 to be borne by EU shipowners). 
Tableau 1 : Indicateurs relatifs au coût de l'accord par rapport aux captures obtenues (valeur moyenne 2018-2021) 

Compensation for 
access only 

Total compensation 
(access + sectoral 
support) 

303* 

278 

303* 

380* 

278 

Financial Compensation UE (kEUR) 

Sectoriel Support (kEUR) 

Shipowners contributions (fees) (kEUR) 

45 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Total UE and shipowner contribution (kEUR) 

Total paid in % of turnover 

Paid by the UE in % of turnover 

Paid by shipowner in % of turnover 

Average price per ton of catch (EUR/tonne) 

Average price per ton of catch paid by EU(EUR/tonne) 

Average price per ton of catch paid by shipowner 
(EUR/tonne) 

Percentage paid by shipowner 

581 

11% 

6% 

5% 

160 

83 

77 

48% 

960 

19% 

13% 

5% 

190 

188 

77 

40% 

Source : consultant calculation ; average on 4 years 2018-2022 

EU companies which chose to take advantage of the fishing opportunities offered by the Protocol are facing costs and deriving benefits from their activities 
in the waters of Côte d’Ivoire. These costs and benefits are analysed using a common method applied to all SFPAs, using catch data (ACDR data base) and 
first sell price (Eurostat and EUMOFA database) and data from the annual economic report of STECF to calculate successively: turn-over, direct added 
value and gross operating surplus for the fleet. Indirect added value is also calculated upstream and downstream. Direct, indirect, and total added value 
shares between EU and Côte d’Ivoire are calculated.  

Table2: Estimated distribution of direct and indirect value added between the different beneficiary entities (average 2018-2021) 

(EUR kEUR) 

Average 2018-2021 

Direct 

Indirect 

EU 

Côte d’Ivoire 

Other 

727 

109 

664 

788 

153 

564 

46 

 
 
 
 
EU compensation 

Total VA 

0 

836 

303 * * 

0 

1 755 

717 

Source: Consultant estimates see Annex 5 of the external study report for more details on the methodology used and the results 
Note:  * average value over the first four years 

With regard to value-added  ratios, the main lesson to be taken is that each  euro invested in financial compensation for  access to the  resource 
generated EUR 7,56 of total added value, of which EUR 2,76 for the EU and EUR 4,80 for Côte d’Ivoire. The Protocol therefore  has an important 
leverage effect for Côte d’Ivoire as a result of the direct interaction between EU tuna vessels and the local fishing sector resulting from the majority 
use of the port of Abidjan for port calls and the delivery of part of the catch to Ivorian operators. 

Table3: Cost/benefit indicators on added value generated by EU fleets benefiting from fishing opportunities (average value 2020-2021) 

Ratio Value 

Added on: 

Clearing 

for access 

(EUR/EUR) 

Payments 

Total payments 

shipowners for 

access (EUR/EUR) 

for access 

(EUR/EUR) 

EU 

Côte d’Ivoire 

EU and Côte d’Ivoire 

Direct 

Indirect 

Total 

Direct 

Indirect 

Total 

Direct 

Indirect 

2,40 

0,36 

2,76 

2,20 

2,60 

4,80 

4,60 

2,96 

47 

3,00 

5,21 

1,44 

2,50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ratio Value 

Added on: 

Total 

Clearing 

for access 

(EUR/EUR) 

7,56 

Payments 

Total payments 

shipowners for 

access (EUR/EUR) 

8,22 

for access 

(EUR/EUR) 

3,94 

Source: Consultant elaboration based on the outcome of the previous sections of the report 
(I) The data carried over refer to the average for the years 2019 to 2021 
Note: 
(II) the amount of financial compensation for access shall be considered as direct added value for the benefit of Côte d’Ivoire. The amounts of sectoral support are not 
taken into account in the calculations 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 
different options;     
2. 

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

To obtain stakeholders’ views on the implementation of the ongoing protocol, as well as on the possible renewal of  the protocol, including the 

Results of the stakeholder consultation   
The  views  of  the  15,  out  of  19  organizations  consulted,  are  synthesized  in  the  evaluation  study  by  the  independent  consultant.  The  answers  to  the 
stakeholders’ consultation reflect the interests generally defended by the consulted stakeholder, and reveals some diametrically opposed positions (such as 
related to  the social  clause). Comments  received  also  required some improvements on specific points, none denying the interest  of negotiating  a  new 
Protocol  The following list of entities, in tables 1 and 2, were consulted by the independent consultants for the purposes of the evaluation study.  

49 

 
  
  
Table 1:  Consultation report with stakeholders and civil society in the European Union and 
internationally 
List of entities contacted 

Response 

A- Stakeholders in charge of the implementation of the FPA 

DG MARE (Headquarters and Attaché in Nairobi, responsible for Côte d’Ivoire FPA follow 
up) 

Member States benefiting from fishing opportunities 

Spain 

France 

Portugal 

B- Beneficiaries of the JPA 

OPAGAC (tuna seiners) 

Anabac (tuna seiners) 

Orthongel (tuna seiners) 

ORPAGU (surface longliners) 

OP Lugo (surface longliners) 

C- Stakeholders with an interest in the JPA 

European institutions 

DG MARE B4 

DG INTPA: 

EEAS 

Non Governmental Organisations 

PICE 

Europêche 

International Transport World’s Federeation (ITF)/ European Transport World’s Federation 
(ETF) 

CAPE 

WWF 

Environmental Justice Foundation – EJF 

Oceana 

50 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Table 2: List of organisations consulted in Côte d’Ivoire 

Authorities 

Ministry of Animal Resources and Human Resources 

Office of the Minister 

Directorate of Fisheries 

Fisheries Monitoring Centre 

Directorate for Aquaculture 

Support programme for the management of human resources 

Ministry of Research and Higher Education 

Oceanological Research Centre 

Ministry of Transport 

Directorate-General for Maritime and Portuguese Affairs 

Ministry of Defense 

National Navy 

Various 

Abidjan Port – Fishing Terminal 

Management Board of the Franc Scheme 

EU Delegation to Côte d’Ivoire 

S/Ms Ambassador 

Cooperation Section 

Non-state actors 

Tuna industry 

SCODI (tuna processing) 

AirOne (tuna processing) 

CMB-Abidjan (deposit) 

CFTO (tuna armaments) 

Fisheries and artisanal processing 

FENASCOOP-CI (National Federation of Cooperative Societies and Actors of the Fisheries Pillar of Côte 
d’Ivoire) 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNSCOMAFHA (National Union of Cooperative Societies of Mareyeuse and Actors of the Halieutical Pillar of 
Côte d’Ivoire) 

USCOFEPCI (Union of Cooperative Societies of Fisheries Women and similar in Côte d’Ivoire) 

USCAPACI (Union of Cooperative Societies and Actors of Artisanal Fisheries of Côte d’Ivoire) 

COPAMA (Coopérative des Pêcheurs Artisans Maritimes d’Abidjan) 

CMATPHA (Coopérative des mareyeuse et Transformateurs des Produits Halieuticals in Côte d’Ivoire) 

CPUPME-CI (United Patronale Confederation of SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire) 

Seamen’s unions 

SYMAPECI (Syndicat des Marins Pêcheurs de Côte d’Ivoire) 

UMP-CI (Union des Marins Pêcheurs de Côte d’Ivoire) 

52