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 Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement with the Government of the Cook Islands
Date: 2024-08-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Cook Islands, catch area, fishing agreement, fishing rights, interim agreement (EU), negotiation of an agreement (EU), protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement, sea fishing, sustainable fisheries

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.8.2024  SWD(2024) 209 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 Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement with the Government of the Cook Islands      {COM(2024) 389 final} - {SWD(2024) 211 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1.        INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 6 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation .............................................................................. 6 

Methodology of the evaluation ...................................................................................... 7 

2.        WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION?..................................... 7 

2.1   Description of the intervention and its objectives .................................................... 7 

2.1.1    Sustainable fisheries partnership agreements (SFPAs) ........................................ 7 

2.1.2    SFPA between the EU and the Government of the Cook Islands ......................... 8 

2.2  Point(s) of comparison .......................................................................................... 10 

3.        HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ......................... 11 

3.1.         Utilisation of fishing opportunities ................................................................. 11 

3.2.         Catches ......................................................................................................... 12 

3.3.         Scientific cooperation .................................................................................... 12 

3.4.         Technical measures ....................................................................................... 13 

3.4.1.     Monitoring, control and surveillance .............................................................. 13 

3.4.2.     Embarkation of seamen.................................................................................. 14 

3.4.3.     Observers ...................................................................................................... 14 

3.5.         Sectoral support ............................................................................................ 15 

3.6.         Monitoring of sectoral support ...................................................................... 15 

3.7.         Financial aspects ........................................................................................... 15 

3.8.         Reporting obligations .................................................................................... 16 

4.        EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ............................................................. 17 

4.1.         To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ............................... 17 

4.1.1 Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 17 

4.1.2 Efficiency and economy ...................................................................................... 22 

4.1.3 Coherence .......................................................................................................... 24 

4.1.4 EU added value .................................................................................................. 25 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
4.1.5 Relevance ........................................................................................................... 26 

4.1.6 Acceptability ...................................................................................................... 27 

5.        WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND THE LESSONS LEARNT? ........................................ 27 

5.1.         Conclusions ................................................................................................... 27 

5.2.         Lessons learnt ............................................................................................... 29 

6.        EX ANTE EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 29 

6.1.         Problem analysis and needs assessment ......................................................... 30 

6.2.         Current and future needs of the Cook Islands ................................................ 30 

6.3.         Current and future needs of the EU ............................................................... 30 

6.4.         Current and future needs of both the Cook Islands and the EU ...................... 31 

6.5.         Current and future needs of the EU fleet ....................................................... 31 

6.6.         EU added value ............................................................................................. 32 

6.7.         Policy and management objectives ................................................................. 32 

6.8.         Policy options, including associated risks ....................................................... 34 

6.9.         Results and impacts ....................................................................................... 35 

6.9.1.     Environmental, economic and social impacts .................................................. 35 

6.9.2.     Comparison according to standard evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency and coherence) ............................................................................................ 37 

6.10.      Preferred option............................................................................................. 39 

6.11.      Monitoring of a future implementing Protocol ................................................ 40 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................ 40 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED .............................................. 41 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX ..................................................................................... 43 

1  Effectiveness – The extent to which the objectives of the Implementing Protocol to the 
Agreement were achieved .......................................................................................... 43 

2  Efficiency – The extent to which the desired effects are achieved at a reasonable cost 47 

3  Economy – the extent to which resources are available in due time, of appropriate 
quantity and quality, and at the best price .................................................................... 48 

4  Relevance – the extent to which the objectives of the Protocol match current needs and 
problems .................................................................................................................. 49 

5  Coherence – The extent to which the Agreement and its Protocol do not contradict and 
are coherent with other interventions with similar objectives ......................................... 50 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
6  EU added value – The extent to which the intervention brings EU added value ......... 51 

7  Acceptability – The extent to which stakeholders accept the policy in general and the 
particular instrument proposed or employed ................................................................ 52 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ................................................................ 53 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ........................................... 57 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

ACP 
AIS 
CEFACT 
CFP 
CGRP 
COK 
EEZ 
ENSO 
ERS 
ES 
EU 
EUR 
FAD 
FIP 
FLUX 
FR 
FFA 
Fmsy 
FTE 
GRP 
GVA 
IATTC 
ILO 
IT 
IUU 
MCS 
MMR 
MS 
NSDP 
NZD  
PEUMP 
PNA 
RFMO 
SB 
SDG 
SFPA 
SIOFA 

African, Caribbean and Pacific 
Automatic Identification System 
(UN) Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business 
Common fisheries policy 
Gross profit 
Cook Islands 
Exclusive economic zone 
El Niño southern oscillation  
Electronic Reporting System 
Spain 
European Union 
Euro 
Fishing aggregating devices 
Fisheries improvement plan 
Fisheries Language Universal eXchange 
France 
Forum Fisheries Agency 
Fishing mortality consistent with maximum sustainable yield 
Full-time equivalent 
Gross profit 
Gross value added  
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 
International Labour Organization  
Information technology 
Illegal, unreported and unregulated 
Monitoring control and surveillance  
Ministry of Marine Resources  
EU Member State 
National sustainable development plan 
New-Zealand dollar 
Pacific-European Union Marine Partnership  
Parties to the Nauru Agreement 
Regional fisheries management organisation 
Spawning biomass 
Sustainable Development Goal 
Sustainable fisheries partnership agreement 
Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
SPC 
SPREP 
SPRFMO 
STECF 
TFEU 
TIS 
UNCLOS 
USP 
VDS 
WCPFC 
WCPFC-CA 
WCPO 

Pacific Community 
the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Programme 
South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation 
Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  
Te Ipukarea Society 
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 
University of the South Pacific 
Vessel Day Scheme 
Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 
Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Competence Area 
Western central Pacific Ocean 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.        INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

The evaluation’s purpose is determined by the following pieces of legislation.  

−  Article  31(10)  of  the  Common  Fishery  Policy  Regulation 1  requires  the  European 
Commission to arrange for ex ante and ex post evaluations of each implementing protocol 
to a sustainable fisheries 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 Regulation2 requires the Commission 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 they adopt a Council Decision authorising 
the opening of negotiations on behalf of the EU. 

These evaluations should help to demonstrate how financial instruments have helped to achieve 
the Union’s policy objectives, based on both a performance review and an analysis of the relevance 
and added value of Union involvement.  

The policy objectives pursued by the Union with the SFPA instrument are set out in Section 2.1.  

The  evaluation  draws  upon  an  external  ex  post  and  ex  ante  evaluation  study  of  the  current 
implementing  protocol  for  2021-2024.  This  external  evaluation  study  was  performed  by  an 
external consultant through a specific contract, the final report of which is published in the EU 
bookshop3.  

The ex post evaluation study covers the period of application of the current implementing protocol 
of  the  Agreement,  running  from  17 December 2021  to  March  2024  (the  Protocol  expires  in 
December 2024). The geographical scope of the ex post evaluation study is the Cook Islands, and 
concerned Member States are France and Spain (as per the fishing opportunities allocation4). 

The  evaluation  covers  the  5  criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  relevance  and  EU 
added  value.  It  also  covers  the  economy  and  acceptability  of  the  protocol,  through  specific 
questions and suggested indicators for each criterion. 

The  ex  ante  evaluation  study  analyses  the  relevant  objectives  of  the  Agreement  and  its 
implementing protocol, considering current and future needs. It considers the lessons learnt from 

1 Regulation - 1380/2013 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 
2 Regulation - 2018/1046 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 
3 Ex-post and ex-ante evaluation study of the protocol to the agreement on a sustainable fisheries partnership. 
between the European Union and Cook Islands - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu). 
4 Regulation (EU) 2021/2317 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
previous  implementing  protocols  and  the  results  of  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  current 
implementing protocol.  

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

• 

renewal of the current Protocol – option A (option A1 for maintaining the status quo and 
option A2 with adaptations where necessary); 

•  non-renewal of the Protocol – option B. 

Methodology of the evaluation 

The results of this staff working document are mainly informed by an evaluation study conducted 
by  an  external  consultant.  This  evaluation  study  took  place  from  January  2024  to  March  2024 
under  the  guidance  of  an  interservice  group  set  up  by  different  services  of  the  European 
Commission and under the terms of reference of specific contract number 10 under the framework 
contract MARE/2021/OP/0001.  

The  study’s  methodology  was  to  gather  information  and  data  from:  (i)  research  literature;  (ii) 
Commission databases; (iii) targeted questionnaires; and (iv) semi-directed interviews of a limited 
number  of  stakeholders  (fishing  operators,  fish  processors,  fishery  authorities  in  EU  Member 
States and partner third countries, and civil society representatives). The external consultant then 
wrote  a  synthesis  covering  the  satisfaction  or  dissatisfaction  of  these  stakeholders  with  the 
implementation  of  the  Protocol,  and  added  a  standardised  economic  analysis  setting  out  the 
distribution between stakeholders of the economic added value generated by the Protocol.  

The  Commission  deems  this  methodology  to  be  reasonably  robust.  The  limitations  of  this 
methodology are mainly related to: (i) the time constraint for the evaluation; and (ii) the incomplete 
period of the initiative submitted for evaluation (given the target date for the study’s final report, 
the final 9 months of the implementation period is not covered).  
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 fisheries policy (CFP) empowers the Commission to negotiate and implement 
SFPAs with third countries to create a legal, environmental, economic, and social governance 
framework for fishing activities carried out by Union fishing vessels in third-country waters. 
2  Union  fishing  activities  outside  Union  waters  should  be  based  on  the  same  principles  and 
standards as those applicable under Union Law, and SFPAs should 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 the exchange of relevant information between the Union and third countries. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
4  SFPAsshould ensure: (i) the sustainable exploitation of the marine biological resources of that 
third country; (ii) transparency as regards the determination of the surplus; and therefore (iii) 
management of the resources in a way that is consistent with the objectives of the CFP. SFPAs 
should provide for access to resources commensurate with the interests of the Union fleet in 
exchange for a financial contribution from the Union. 
In  particular,  SFPAs  should  ensure  efficient  data-collection,  monitoring,  control  and 
surveillance measures. 

5  The EU should provide the partner country with financial compensation for access to its waters 
and financial assistance to implement a national strategy for fisheries and the blue economy. 
The EU contribution is complemented by fees payable by EU vessel owners. 

6  With the Cook Islands, the Commission has sought access for the EU industrial purse seine 
fleet targeting tropical tuna.These catches are entering the global food chain as a large-scale 
commodity.  

7  According  to  Article  3(1)(d)  and  3(1)(e)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European 
Union, the EU has exclusive powers to conserve marine biological resources under both the 
CFP  and  the  EU’s  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 Regulation, Union vessels cannot fish in third-country 
waters if there is no protocol implementing an SFPA between the EU and the 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    SFPA between the EU and the Government of the Cook Islands  

The SFPA between the EU and the Government of the Cook Islands and the current implementing 
Protocol of the SFPA:  (i)  provide  fishing  opportunities for Union fishing vessels  to  fish  in  the 
waters of the Cook Islands; and (ii) set out the principles for economic, financial, technical, and 
scientific  cooperation  in  the  fisheries  sector  between  the  EU  and  the  Cook  Islands.  The  SFPA 
promotes responsible fishing in the Cook Islands, and also promotes conservation and sustainable 
exploitation of fisheries resources. Through sectoral support from the EU, the SFPA also helps to 
develop the fisheries sector in the Cook Islands. 

Figure 1: Summary of the main technical and financial features of the SFPA Protocol between the 
EU and the Cook Islands 

Duration of the SFPA 

8 years, automatically renewable 

Date of entry into force of 
SPFA 
Date of entry into force of 
Implementing Protocol 

14 October 2016 

17 December 2021 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Duration of the Protocol 

3 years: 17 December 2021 – 16 December 2024 

Maximum number of EU 
vessels authorised 
Species authorised 

Annual counterpart financed by 
the EU 

•  4 tuna purse seine vessels 

Tropical  tuna  –  Highly  migratory  species  as  listed  in  Annex  1  to  the  United 
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 

•  EUR 350 000 EUR per year for access to the Cook Islands’ fishing 

areas. 
Financial compensation for access corresponds to an effort allocation 
of 100 fishing days in total. Fishing days exceeding this limit are paid 
for by EU shipowners.  

•  EUR 350 000 per year for the support and implementation of the Cook 

Islands’ sectoral fisheries policy.  

Shipowners’ contributions 

For each purse seiner: 

•  annual  non-recoverable  advance  payment  of  EUR  112  500  for  25 
fishing  days  (25  fishing  days @  EUR  4  500).  EUR  8  000  for  each 
additional fishing day. 
special annual contribution of EUR 38 500. 

• 

The  sectoral-support  component  is  used  for  programmed  activities  in  the  following  areas:  (i) 
building  capacity  in  the  Cook  Islands  Ministry  of  Marine  Resources  (MMR);  (ii)  support  to 
artisanal fisheries in the Cook Islands; and (iii) scientific research in the Cook Islands. Building 
capacity in the Cook  Islands  MMR entailed different  activities to  help  fulfil  the Cook  Islands’ 
responsibilities as a coastal State, port State and flag State. 

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

Figure 2. Intervention logic of the SFPA between the EU and the Government of the Cook 
Islands, and its current implementing Protocol  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2  Point(s) of comparison  

The current  Protocol  implements  the SFPA  concluded in  2016 between the two parties for the 
2021-2024 period. The SFPA applies for a period of 8 years and is expected to be renewed for an 
additional period of 8 years starting in October 2024. EU financial commitments under the current 
Protocol are the same as under the previous Protocol, with an annual contribution split into two 
decoupled components: EUR 350 000 for access to the EEZ of the Cook Islands, and EUR 350 000 
for the support and implementation of the Cook Islands’ sectoral fisheries and maritime policy. 

The current Protocol subject to this evaluation introduced three major changes compared to the 
previous Protocol. The main changes are set out in the three paragraphs below. 

1)  The first change is the adoption of fishing days as the reference indicator for regulating 
access and associated payments, instead of the amount of catch obtained in the EEZ of the 
Cook  Islands  (known  as  ‘reference  tonnage’).  This  change  was  recommended  by  the 
evaluation of the previous Protocol to ensure alignment with access-regulation mechanisms 
prevailing for the purse seine fleet (domestic and international) in the EEZ of the Cook 
Islands and in the area of competence of the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 
(WCPFC). 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
2)  The second change is the use of a different balance between EU and EU shipowners for 
payments for access. In the current Protocol, EU payments remained the same as under the 
previous  Protocol  (a  minimum  of  EUR  350  000  per  year)  but  EU  shipowners’  annual 
access  fees  increased  from  EUR  28  000  to  EUR  112  500  minimum  for  each  EU  purse 
seiner,  with  an  additional  special  contribution  of  EUR  38  500  per  year  (this  additional 
special contribution of EUR 38 500 per year was identical between the two Protocols). 
3)  The third change is a convergence of the rules on protection of personal data with the rules 
enacted  by  the  EU  General  Data  Protection  Regulation  instead  of  under  WCPFC  rules 
under the previous Protocol. 

Other provisions on the technical clauses associated with access and the clauses governing the 
management  of  the  implementation  of  sectoral  support  are  largely  similar  to  the  previous 
Protocol. 

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

This  section  reviews  the  main  results  obtained  through  the  implementation  of  the  Protocol  in 
relation  to:  (i) its access component;  and  (ii) its sectoral-support component. In the  paragraphs 
below, Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 cover the access component, while Sections 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 
cover  the  sectoral-support  component.  This  chapter  concludes  with  Section  3.8  on  reporting 
obligations.  

3.1.         Utilisation of fishing opportunities 

On an annual average, 100% of the four available fishing licences for all four EU purse seiners 
were granted in the period 2022-2024. This percentage remained stable throughout the years. Spain 
used  the  four  fishing  authorisations  available.  France,  which  did  not  have  any  flagged  vessels 
operating  in  the  Pacific  Ocean,  transferred  the  fishing  authorisation  allocated  to  it  by  the  EU 
Council to Spain. 

Average annual fishing authorisations granted to EU purse seiners in the SFPA fishing zone  

(number of 
vessels) 

EU purse 
seiners 

Maximum 

2022 

2023 

2024 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

Utilisation rate 

100% 

100% 

100% 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
  
Average annual number of fishing days utilised by EU purse seiners in the SFPA fishing zone 

years 

Number of fishing days 

2022 

2023 

2024 

EU purse seiners (utilisation) 

13 

15 

14 

Minimum available 

100 

100 

100 

Utilisation rate 

13% 

15% 

14% 

3.2.         Catches  

The total catch by EU purse seiners in the EEZ of the Cook Islands under the current Protocol 
amounted to 526 tonnes in 2022 and 803 tonnes in 2023, i.e. 664 a year on average over the 2 years 
(see  table  below).  Catch  composition  included  the  three  major  tropical  tuna  species  (skipjack 
Katsuwonus  pelamis,  bigeye  Thunnus  obesus  and  yellowfin  Thunnus  albacares),  with  skipjack 
dominating the catch composition by weight (81% on average). 

Catch by EU purse seiners in the EEZ of the Cook Islands under the current Protocol 

(tonnes) 
Total 
Of which : 
Skipjack 
Bigeye 
Yellowfin 
Other 

2022 
526 

362 
106 
58 
0 

2023  Average 
803 

664 

717 
48 
37 
0 

540 
77 
48 
0 

3.3.         Scientific cooperation  

The fishery resources targeted by the EU fleet are scientifically evaluated by the relevant regional 
fisheries management organisation (RFMO), namely the WCPFC, of which both the EU and the 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Cook  Islands  are  active  members,  and  which  has  provided  a  sufficient  scientific  base  for  the 
management decisions taken by the Joint Committee5.  

Scientific cooperation between the EU and the Cook Islands takes place within the multilateral 
framework of the WCPFC. 

Tuna and tuna-like species are under the management mandate of the WCPFC. The status of the 
three main targeted stocks (yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna and skipjack tuna) was  recently (2023) 
assessed by the WCPFC as follows: 

•  yellowfin tuna: not overfished, not overexploited; 
•  bigeye tuna: not overfished, not overexploited; 
•  skipjack tuna: not overfished, not overexploited. 

Stock  management  and  conservation  measures  are  decided  and  implemented  within  the 
multilateral  framework  of  the  WCPFC  and  they  apply  to  all  parties.  These  measures  include 
fishing-capacity  limits,  catch  limits,  and  restrictions  on  the  use  of  fishing  aggregating  devices 
(FADs). 

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 the Cook Islands’ fishing zone.  

The  Joint  Committees’  minutes  indicate  a  generally  satisfactory  level  of  compliance  with  the 
relevant  clauses  of  the  Protocol.  The  Cook  Islands  authorities  acknowledged  the  general 
compliance of EU vessels with the rules of the Protocol during the 2022 and 2023 meetings of the 
Joint Committee, in particular for the vessel monitoring system (VMS) and catch reporting. When 
the  need  for  clarification  arose,  cooperation  between  EU  shipowners  and  the  Cook  Islands 
fisheries-control authorities was  reportedly  effective, with  issues  resolved to  the satisfaction of 
both parties. 

The Cook Islands receives EU catch data from the four EU vessels operating in its waters through 
email  transmission  of  copies  of  the  mandatory  FFA/SPC  logbook  from  the  flag  Member  State 
(Spain) based on the electronic reporting system (ERS) mandated by EU legislation. The future 
implementation of an ERS is planned under the Protocol. However, direct electronic reporting to 
the  Cook  Islands  by  EU  vessels  is  still  prevented  by  technical  challenges  affecting  data 

5 Art. 6 of the EU/Cook Islands SFPA. “A Joint Committee made up of appropriate representatives of the 
Union and the Cook Islands shall be set up. It is responsible for the monitoring of the application of this 
Agreement and it may adopt modifications to the Protocol, Annex and Appendices.” […] – OJ L 131 of 
20.05.2016, p.1. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
compatibility  between  the  reporter  and  the  receiver.  DG  MARE  and  the  WCPFC,  through  the 
Pacific Community, are working to develop a technical solution to this problem. The solution aims 
to  adapt  or  create  an  integrated  programming  interface  to  connect  the  Pacific  Community  e-
reporting  application  with  the  standards  developed  by  the  United  Nations  Centre  for  Trade 
Facilitation  and  Electronic  Business  (UN/CEFACT)  Fisheries  Language  Universal  eXchange 
(FLUX). 

According  to  the  Cook  Islands  authorities,  no  infringement  involving  an  EU  vessel  has  been 
detected since the Protocol began. 

3.4.2.     Embarkation of seamen 

None of the four EU purse seiners employed nationals of the Cook Islands as crew. The EU and 
the Cook Islands anticipated this situation, which is due to the lack of trained national fishers. For 
this reason, the EU and the Cook Islands did not include a provision in the Protocol mandating or 
encouraging the employment of nationals of the Cook Islands or nationals of African, Caribbean 
and Pacific (ACP) countries onboard the EU vessels. 
Nonetheless,  Article  3.6  of  the  SFPA  includes  a  provision  mandating  the  application  of  the 
Declaration of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on fundamental principles and rights 
at work to any fisher employed on EU vessels. The provisions of the Protocol are supplemented 
by Council Directive (EU) 2017/159 implementing the ILO Convention C.188 on Work in Fishing 
into EU law. ILO Convention C.188 was ratified by Spain in February 2023. Rules on working 
standards onboard the EU purse seiners apply to all crew members irrespective of their nationality. 
Enforcement of rules governing working standards is the responsibility of the authorities of the 
flag  State  of  the  vessels  (Spain  in  this  case).  Consultation  of  EU  social  partners  and  the  flag 
Member  State  (Spain)  did  not  raise  any  possible  issues  of  non-compliance  with  the  applicable 
social standards. 

3.4.3.     Observers 

According to the protocol, Union vessels in possession of a Cook Islands' fishing authorisation, 
while operating in the Cook Islands' fishing areas shall ensure observer coverage in accordance 
with the relevant WCPFC conservation and management measures and the relevant Cook Islands' 
legislation. Observer placements in 2020 and 2021 were affected by travel restrictions imposed by 
the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the pandemic, the WCPFC issued a derogation excusing 
purse seiners from the usual requirement to have an observer on board at all times. This derogation 
also applied while fishing in the EEZ of the Cook Islands. However, this derogation ceased on 
31 December 2022.  Of  the  4  EU  purse  seiners,  2  experienced  some  difficulties  in  meeting  the 
WCPFC coverage requirements to have an observer on board at all times in early 2023, preventing 
these vessels from fishing in the WCPFC-CA, including the EEZ of the Cook Islands. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
3.5.         Sectoral support 

The  current  implementing  Protocol  has  earmarked  a  budget  of  EUR  350  000  per  year  –  or 
EUR 1.05 million over a period of 3 years – to: (i) contribute to the implementation of the Cook 
Islands’  national  strategy  for  fisheries  and  aquaculture;  and  (ii)  support  the  sustainable 
management of fishery resources and the development of the fisheries sector in the Cook Islands. 

3.6.         Monitoring of sectoral support  

The Joint Committee is  responsible for adopting annual  and multiannual  programming  and  for 
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 MMR of the Cook Islands, which is subject to national rules on public financial management.  

Nevertheless, the effectiveness of sectoral support under the 2022-2024 multiannual programme 
could  not  be  evaluated,  as  the  programme  only  started  in  2023  as  a  result  of  the  delayed 
implementation of the previous 2016-2021 programme. 

The Cook Islands submitted progress reports on the implementation of sectoral support as expected 
by the Protocol (Article 3.4 of the Protocol). As a result of the delayed implementation of the 2016-
2021  multiannual  programme,  the  most  recent  progress  report  available  submitted  to  the  Joint 
Committee  in  2023  refers  to  the  implementation  of  sectoral  support  under  the  2021  work 
programme. The 2022-2024 multiannual programme has just started with its first progress report 
planned for the next meeting of the Joint Committee in 2024. 

3.7.         Financial aspects 

•  The SFPA with the EU generated gross value added for the Cook Islands of EUR 954 000 
for 2022-2023 (this was made up of the EU yearly public contribution and the shipowners’ 
contributions)6. 

•  The turnover for the EU fleet from sales of tuna caught in the Cook Islands in 2022-2023 
is calculated at EUR 1 029 7037, with a direct gross added value (i.e. the amount the fleet 
contributed to the Cook Islands) of EUR 315 8108. 

•  On the level and distribution of the generated added value from the SFPA, it is estimated 
that for each euro of public investment by the EU, EUR 3.75 EUR was generated in added 

6 Ex-post and ex-ante evaluation study of the protocol to the agreement on a sustainable fisheries partnership 
between the European Union and Cook Islands - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu), Table 13. 
7 Ex-post and ex-ante evaluation study of the protocol to the agreement on a sustainable fisheries partnership 
between the European Union and Cook Islands - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu), Table 22. 
8 Ex-post and ex-ante evaluation study of the protocol to the agreement on a sustainable fisheries partnership 
between the European Union and Cook Islands - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu), Table 23. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
value,  broken  down  between  EUR  2.73  for  the  Cook  Islands  and  EUR  1.02  for  other 
entities9. 

•  Direct and indirect employment: estimated 22 full-time equivalents (FTEs) yearly, mostly 

indirect10.  

•  Sectoral-support contribution transferred to Cook Islands: EUR 350 000, corresponding to 

the first tranche11. 

3.8.         Reporting obligations 

The  table  below  provides  an  assessment  of  the  reporting  obligations  that  stem  from  the 
SFPA/Protocol.  The  table  notes  whether  these  obligations  are  additional  either  to  the  previous 
SFPA/Protocol or to other reporting obligations stemming from both other legislation (such as the 
EU  Control  Regulation  and  Cook  Islands  legislation)  and  WCPFC  requirements  (such  as 
requirements on observer coverage and catch reporting). As is evident from the table, the current 
SFPA/Protocol  does  not  entail  any  reporting  obligations  over  and  above  those  which  would 
otherwise be required, or which were required under the previous Protocol. 

Mapping of reporting obligations included in the current Protocol 

Reporting obligation 

EU shipowners 
Reporting of catches through the ERS when it is set up 
(Annex, Chapter III, Section 2) 

EU shipowners 
Reporting  of  fishing  days  /  non-fishing  days  (Annex, 
Chapter III, Section 2) 

EU shipowners 
Notification of entry to or exit from the Cook Islands’ 
EEZ (Annex, Chapter III, Section 3) 

EU shipowners 

Additional  to  other  EU,  Cook  Islands,  or  RFMO 
legislation and requirements? 
No  
(requirements  included  in  –  and  the  same  as  –  the 
previous Protocol (Annex, Chapter III, Section 1), and 
required  by  Control  Regulation  (EU)  1224/2009  and 
Cook Islands legislation) 
No 
(requirement  applicable  in  the  WCPFC  convention 
area  through  CMM  2022-06  in  the  high  seas  and 
through Forum Fisheries Agency minimum terms and 
conditions in the waters of coastal States) 
No 
(requirements  included  in  –  and  the  same  as  –  the 
the 
requirement 
previous  Protocol 
Regulations of the Cook Islands) 
No  

included 

in 

9 Ex-post and ex-ante evaluation study of the protocol to the agreement on a sustainable fisheries partnership 
between the European Union and Cook Islands - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu), page 18. 
10 Idem. 
11 Ex-post and ex-ante evaluation study of the protocol to the agreement on a sustainable fisheries partnership 
between the European Union and Cook Islands - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu), page 19. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Notification  of  landings  in  Cook  Islands’  designated 
ports (Annex, Chapter III, Section 4) 

EU shipowners 
Notification  of 
transhipment 
designated ports (Annex, Chapter III, Section 5) 

in  Cook 

Islands’ 

EU shipowners and EU MS authorities 
Reporting of vessel positions in compliance with FFA 
vessel monitoring system (Annex, Chapter III, Section 
6) 
Cook Islands authorities 
Annual  reporting  on  the  implementation  of  sectoral 
support,  and  preparation  of  a  final  report  before  the 
end of the Protocol 
(Article 3.4 of the Protocol) 

(requirements  included  in  –  and  the  same  as  –  the 
previous Protocol (Annex, Chapter III, Section 2), and 
required  by  Control  Regulation  (EU)  1224/2009  and 
Cook Islands legislation) 
No  
(requirements  included  in  –  and  the  same  as  –  the 
previous Protocol (Annex, Chapter III, Section 4), and 
required  by  Control  Regulation  (EU)  1224/2009  and 
Cook Islands legislation) 
No 
(requirement  applicable  as  a  result  of  WCPFC 
conservation and management measures and Forum 
Fisheries Agency minimum terms and conditions) 
No 
(requirements  included  in  –  and  the  same  as  –  the 
previous Protocol (Article 3.4))  

Source: External consultant’s analysis of the SFPA/Protocol text and other relevant legislation (Table 16) 

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 the Cook Islands’ fisheries resources 

1.3  Fisheries  activities  are  addressed  exclusively  at  surplus  fish  stocks  and  prevent  the 
overfishing of stocks, based on the best scientific advice and improved transparency on 
global fishing efforts in the waters included in the current Protocol. 

Stocks of highly migratory species occurring in the western and central Pacific Ocean are subject 
to the conservation and management measures adopted under the multilateral framework of the 
competent RFMO, the WCPFC, to which the EU and the Cook Islands are contracting parties. The 
Cook Islands has an annual limit of 1 250 purse-seine fishing days granted by the WCPFC, and 
this  annual  limit  is  not  fully  used  by  the  single  purse  seiner  flagged  to  the  Cook  Islands.  The 
remaining days can be granted to foreign purse-seine interests. In other words, the Protocol allows 
EU vessels to use the fishing opportunities granted to the Cook Islands under the WCPFC, but 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
  
does not allow EU vessels to exploit fishing opportunities for local stocks under the responsibility 
of the Cook Islands. 

According to the latest report (2023) of the meeting of the Scientific Committee of the WCPFC, 
the three species targeted by the EU purse fleet in the EEZ of the Cook Islands and in the waters 
of the western central Pacific Ocean are exploited sustainably. The most recent assessment of the 
status of the stock of skipjack tuna (last assessed in 2022), yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna (both 
last assessed in 2023) showed that all three species are neither overexploited nor overfished. 
The previous evaluation of the SFPA between the EU and the Cook Islands also noted that the 
three tuna stocks targeted by the EU purse seine fleet were exploited sustainably. The review of 
the annual reports of the WCPFC Scientific Committee (2023) shows that the three key tuna stocks 
have remained in the green quadrant since 2016 (year of signature of the SFPA), evidencing the 
effectiveness of the conservation and management scheme implemented by the WCPFC. 

1.2 Implementation of principles and standards for fisheries management that are the same as 
those principles and standards applied in EU waters 

The environmental impact of the activities of EU tuna vessels is known and monitored under the 
WCPFC’s multilateral framework. Management measures introduced by the WCPFC, which the 
parties are bound to apply, have sought to limit negative ecosystem impacts of purse-seine fishing 
across  the  whole  distribution  of  exploited  tuna  stocks.  WCPFC  conservation  and  management 
measures include: (i) a limit on the number of FADs; (ii) a landing obligation for target species; 
and (iii) various measures  aimed  at  protecting  endangered, threatened  and protected non-target 
species. 

From December 2021 to March 2024, EU purse-seine shipowners utilising fishing opportunities 
available under the Protocol implemented additional unilateral measures to minimise any negative 
ecosystem  impacts  of  their  activities  through  implementation  of  a  fisheries  improvement  plan 
(FIP) on a voluntary basis. FIP measures, audited by independent third parties, apply to all EU 
purse-seine activities, including those in the Cook Islands’ EEZ, providing additional benefits for 
ecosystem protection beyond the benefits expected from WCPFC measures.  

The Protocol does not derogate from any of the WCPFC rules in force. 

1.3 Improvement of technical and scientific assessment of the fisheries  

EU vessels are subject to the monitoring obligations arising from: (i) the EU Control Regulation, 
most obligations of which are set out in the Protocol; and (ii) the EU Regulation on the collection 
of scientific data. EU vessels are also subject to the WCPFC’s specific obligations. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
EU fishing activities are subject to appropriate monitoring and reporting obligations. As confirmed 
by  the  Cook  Islands,  these  obligations  are  complied  with.  The  Cook  Islands  receive  catch  and 
effort data from the EU fleet according to the procedure laid down by the Protocol based on paper 
logbooks. The implementation of the ERS considered by the Protocol is still undermined by IT 
issues  that  are  being  addressed.  Scientific  information  on  the  activities  of  the  EU  purse-seine 
vessels is reported to the WCPFC according to the relevant obligations. The two parties implement 
scientific  cooperation  under  the  multilateral  framework  of  the  WCPFC,  with  the  EU  further 
supporting  science  through  a  regional  development  programme,  the  Pacific-European  Union 
Marine Partnership (PEUMP), co-funded by Sweden. 

1.4 Ensuring control and compliance with EU fleet rules  

According to the available information, EU purse seiners complied with the technical provisions 
laid  down  by  the  Protocol  and  by  the  relevant  Cook  Islands  regulations.  The  Cook  Islands 
authorities acknowledged the EU fleet’s general compliance with the rules during the 2022 and 
2023 meetings of the Joint Committee, in particular for the VMS and catch reporting. When needs 
for clarification arose, cooperation between EU shipowners and the Cook Islands fisheries-control 
authorities was reportedly effective, with issues solved to the satisfaction of both parties. 

The Cook Islands receives EU catch data through email transmission of copies of the mandatory 
FFA/SPC  logbook.  The  implementation  of  the  ERS  laid  down  by  the  Protocol  (Annex  to  the 
Protocol,  Chapter  III  Section  2.7)  is  still  being  hindered  by  technical  challenges  affecting  data 
compatibility between the reporter and the receiver. DG MARE and the WCPFC are working to 
develop  a  technical  solution  that  can  adapt  or  create  an  integrated  programming  interface  to 
connect the Pacific Community e-reporting application with the standards developed by the United 
Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT) Fisheries Language 
Universal eXchange (FLUX). 

Observer  placements  in  2020  and  2021  were  affected  by  travel  restrictions  imposed  by  the 
COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the pandemic, the WCPFC issued a derogation excusing purse 
seiners from the usual requirement to have an observer on board at all times. This derogation also 
applied  while  fishing  in  the  EEZ  of  the  Cook  Islands.  However,  this  derogation  ceased  on 
31 December 2022. Of the 4 EU purse seiners, 2 experienced some difficulties in meeting WCPFC 
coverage requirements to have an observer on board at all times in early 2023, preventing these 
vessels from fishing in the WCPFC-CA, including the EEZ of the Cook Islands. 

According  to  the  Cook  Islands  authorities,  no  infringement  involving  an  EU  vessel  has  been 
detected since the Protocol began. 

19 

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

 2.1 To seek an appropriate share of the surplus fish resources, fully commensurate with the EU 
fleet’s interests and with the fleet’s regional and sub-regional fishing strategy. 

The protocol provides for access to fishing zones that are important for the EU purse-seine fleet. 
The levels of activity of the EU purse-seine fleet in the Cook Islands in 2022 and 2023 may suggest 
that the fishing opportunities negotiated are in excess of the needs of the EU fleet active in the 
western central Pacific Ocean, as utilisation rates were between 13% and 15% . However, this can 
be  explained  by  the  abnormal  prevalence  of  La  Niña  conditions  during  the  2021-2023  period, 
which  results  in  decreased  abundance  of  tuna  in  the  EEZ  of  the  Cook  Islands  and,  as  a  result, 
undermined the attractiveness of the fishing area for EU and non-EU purse seiners. 

2.2 The level of fees paid by EU vessel owners for their fishing activities is fair and 
proportionate to costs and revenues and non-discriminatory 

The Cook Islands authorities authorise access to the country’s EEZ under different arrangements. 
For tuna purse seiners, arrangements include: (i) the EU-Cook Islands SFPA for EU purse seiners; 
(ii) the USA Multilateral Treaty for US purse seiners; (iii) a bilateral Cook Islands-US arrangement 
supplementing  fishing  opportunities  available  under  the  USA  Multilateral  Treaty;  and  (iv)  a 
‘standard’; arrangement for purse seiners flying flags other than those of the EU and the USA. 

From a technical perspective, a level playing field is supported by the fact that technical conditions 
applying to EU fishing operations are strictly identical to technical conditions applying to other 
foreign fleets in accordance with the WCPFC’s conservation and management measures and the 
Marae Moana Act (2017) which includes, amongst other measures, a prohibition on fishing within 
a 50 nautical-mile limit around the 15 islands within the Cook Islands’ EEZ. The Protocol does 
not include technical rules that give selective dispensation from rules applicable to all other purse 
seiners while fishing in the Cook Islands’ EEZ. 

To sum up, technical conditions governing fishing activities in the Cook Islands’ EEZ are the same 
for any purse seiner, underpinning non-discriminatory treatment for all purse seiners while fishing 
the Cook Islands’ EEZ. Financial-access conditions laid down by the Protocol for EU shipowners 
are  different  from  those  applying  to  other  foreign  purse-seine  operators,  with  a  comparative 
economic advantage for EU shipowners as a result. 

2.3 Ensuring supply for the EU market 

Catches obtained by EU purse seiners in the EEZ of the Cook Islands are transshipped in American 
Samoa or in Kiribati (since 2023) for further processing in Ecuador, which is the largest supplier 
to the EU of processed tuna products, with 122 703 tonnes of processed tuna products imported to 
the EU in 2023, worth a total of EUR 640 million. The catch obtained by EU purse seiners in the 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
EEZ of the Cook Islands (≈ 664 tonnes per year on average between 2022 and 202312) made a 
small contribution to both: (i) the estimated 300 000 tonnes of tuna processed in Ecuador for export 
to the EU; and (ii) total fish supplies to the EU market and apparent consumption of around 10.6 
million tonnes of fish in 2021. EU purse seiners do not use the port of Rarotonga due to its location 
at 21°12’S being relatively distant from the prime purse-seine fishing latitudes of 5°-10°N and S 
latitudes corresponding to the northern part of the EEZ of the Cook Islands. EU vessels do not sell 
tuna on the Cook Islands market due to the limited size of the market (population of 14 600 in 
2023 according to the Cook Islands Statistics Office) and the potential competition these landings 
could create with local fisheries. 

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

There are arguably few investment opportunities in the Cook Islands for EU shipowners. This is 
mostly  due  to:  (i)  the  small  size  of  the  Cook  Islands’  market;  (ii)  the  economic  disadvantages 
stemming from the remoteness of the archipelago from major markets and commercial routes; and 
(iii) the economic disadvantages stemming from the absence of the Cook Islands from the list of 
countries  authorised  to  export  fisheries  products  to  the  EU.  Understandably,  the  provisions  of 
Article 7 of the SFPA (promoting cooperation among businesses and civil society) have not been 
considered by the two parties. 

Objective 3: Supporting the development of a sustainable fisheries sector in partner 
countries (sectoral support) 

3.1 Contribute to capacity building and social, environmental and economic development in the 
Cook Islands 

The sectoral-support programmes implemented between 2021 and 2023 included: (i) activities to 
support  MMR  capacities  (hiring  of  consultants,  strengthening  of  the  observer  programme, 
development  of  the  MMR  information  system,  logistical  support);  (ii)  activities  supporting  the 
development  and  monitoring  of  local  artisanal  fisheries,  including  in  the  outer  islands 
(deployments of anchored FADs, a subsidies scheme to encourage the submission of catch data, 
measures to promote safety at sea); and (iii) marine research (contribution to  the renovation of 
research stations,  promoting a better  understanding and mitigation of algae blooms in  lagoons, 
recruitment of researchers). The sectoral-support programme contributes to capacity building and 
social, environmental and economic development in the Cook Islands. 

12 Ex-post and ex-ante evaluation study of the protocol to the agreement on a sustainable fisheries partnership 
between the European Union and Cook Islands - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu), Table 7. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Cook  Islands  submitted  progress  reports  on  the  implementation  of  the  sectoral  support  as 
expected by the Protocol (Article 3.4 of the Protocol). As a result of the delayed implementation 
of the 2016-2021 multiannual programme, the most recent progress report available submitted to 
the Joint Committee in 2023 refers to the implementation of the 2021 work programme.  

The  effectiveness  of  the  2022-2024  multiannual  programme  cannot  be  evaluated,  as  the 
programme only started in 2023 as a result of the delayed implementation of the previous 2016-
2021 programme. The 2022-2024 multiannual programme has therefore just started with its first 
progress report expected by the next meeting of the Joint Committee in 2024. 

Qualitatively, the progress reports submitted by the Cook Islands are comprehensive and provide 
sufficient information to support the assessment of the results obtained. 

3.2 To promote the employment of local seamen, improve infrastructures, and encourage 
landings. To help the third country to develop local fisheries and a local processing industry to 
serve markets in the EU and the markets of certain developing countries. To create employment 
directly and indirectly. 

No purse seiners of any nationality use the port of Rarotonga to support their activities (landings, 
transshipments, technical stops) given the small size of the port and its distance from prime purse 
seine fishing latitudes. Because of this, and taking into account the small population of the Cook 
Islands (≈ 14 600 residents, which means a small domestic market and a small potential pool of 
workers), there was little scope to develop economic interactions between the Cook Islands and 
EU fishing sector through the employment of crew and supply of tuna to the local market.  

The lack of opportunities to develop economic interactions was acknowledged by both the EU and 
the Cook Islands,  which  did  not  include any specific clause in  the Protocol  to  this  end (i.e. no 
clauses were included that would oblige EU vessels to hire Cook Islands  crew members or that 
would  incentivise  or  oblige  EU  shipowners  to  land  part  of  their  catches  in  the  Cook  Islands). 
Working standards onboard EU vessels applying to nationals of any country are governed by the 
social clause enshrined in Article 3.6 of the SFPA.  

Working conditions onboard EU purse seiners, all flying the flag of Spain, are further governed 
by a number of EU legal acts, including Council Directive (EU) 2017/159 55 implementing the 
ILO Convention C.188 on Work in Fishing into EU law. ILO Convention C.188 was ratified by 
Spain in February 2023. Consultations with EU social partners and the flag Member State did not 
raise any issues regarding non-compliance with the applicable social standards. 

4.1.2 Efficiency and economy 

Efficiency: 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Objective 
The Protocol should be cost-
effective for the EU 
SFPAs should provide good value for 
money for EU shipowners 
The financial compensation for fishing 
opportunities should be beneficial for the 
EU and the Cook Islands  
The sectoral-support and cooperation 
measures in the blue economy, small-
scale fisheries and food security approved 
in the initial programming matrix should 
be carried out at reasonable cost 

Success criterion/criteria 
The EU financial contribution is proportionate to the fishing 
opportunities made available in the Protocol and by category  
Shipowners’ contributions are proportionate to their actual catches and 
benefits compared with their operational costs and total revenues  
The Cook Islands 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 the Cook Islands in environmental, social and economic 
terms 

The  evaluation  finds  that  the  Protocol  was  only  moderately  efficient.  Although  the  fishing 
opportunities negotiated were fully utilised with respect to the number of EU vessels authorised 
(four fishing opportunities were available and four fishing authorisations were issued), the number 
of fishing days deployed in the Cook Islands’ EEZ was significantly below the minimum number 
of available days identified by the Protocol. The main reason for this apparent discrepancy is that 
the western central Pacific Ocean experienced nearly 3 years of La Niña conditions from July 2020 
to March 2023, a duration unprecedented in recent decades. As a result of the underutilisation of 
fishing  days,  the  SFPA  Protocol  generated  a  modest  return  on  investment  with  a  value-added 
multiplier of EUR 3.75 for every EUR 1 invested in access from the EU budget for 2022, with no 
value-added accruing to the EU. The operations of EU purse seiners in the EEZ of the Cook Islands 
were not profitable because income from fishing was insufficient to cover access costs and other 
operating expenses  (access  costs  to  the Cook Islands EEZ  represented 77% and 48% of  vessel 
incomes from the Cook Islands EEZ in 2022 and 2023 respectively). Nevertheless, access to the 
Cook Islands EEZ is intended to complement fishing opportunities available to the EU in: (i) the 
international waters of the WCPFC-CA; and (ii) since late 2023, the EEZ of Kiribati as part of the 
existing  SFPA  between  the  EU  and  Kiribati.  EU  purse-seine  operations  in  the  Pacific  Ocean 
remain profitable.  

Economy  

Objective 
The EU contribution, in particular for 
sectoral support, should be 
proportionate to the needs of the Cook 
Islands and its absorption capacity. 
Sectoral-support payments should be 
made within the time limits laid down in 
Articles 3 and 4 of the current Protocol. 

Success criterion/criteria 
The EU contribution for sectoral support is aligned with national 
and local needs and absorption capacity. The total amount of 
sectoral support was used in accordance with the agreed 
schedule and adapted to the needs of the partner country. 
When there were amendments to the initial sectoral-support 
programme, they promoted the use of financial support and 
contributed to the sustainable development of the country. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
On the economy, EU payments for the financial contribution for sectoral support were made based 
on results obtained, as set out in both the Protocol and the rules agreed by the two parties. However, 
only the first tranche (EUR 350 000) of the multiannual programme agreed for 2022-2024 had 
been paid at the time of preparation of this evaluation, suggesting that the budget set out in the 
Protocol is not aligned with the absorption capacity of the MMR, which was not the case under 
the previous Protocol. The main reasons for the low uptake of the budget for sectoral support are: 
(i)  the  impact  of  travel  restrictions  resulting  from  the  COVID-19  pandemic  which  isolated  the 
country from the rest of the world for almost 2.5 years; and (ii) persistent difficulties that the MMR 
has in retaining sufficient staff levels. 

4.1.3 Coherence  

Objective 
There should be coherence between the 
Protocol and: (i) the CFP in general; (ii) 
the CFP’s international dimension; and 
(iii) regional fisheries policy (RFMOs and 
other organisations  
The Protocol and its implementation 
should be consistent and complementary 
with other EU interventions and the work 
of other EU bodies such as the EEAS, 
INTPA, SANTE, TRADE, TAXUD and DG 
MARE B4, B2, B1. 

The Agreement and its implementing 
protocol should be consistent with 
national fisheries policy and well 
coordinated with regional policies. 
The Agreement should contribute to the 
achievement of the United Nations 
Millennium Development Goals. 

Success criterion (s) 
The Protocol is aligned with: (i) 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 (ii) 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 with 
– 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.  

The  SFPA  Protocol  is  highly  coherent  with  the  EU  CFP  in  general  and  with  the  overarching 
conservation  and  management  regime  implemented  under  the  multilateral  framework  of  the 
WCPFC. According to this evaluation, and as confirmed by the Cook Islands’ authorities: (i) the 
basis of the access arrangements for the EU fleet negotiated between the two parties under the 
Protocol  are  compatible  with  the  international  commitments  of  the  Cook  Islands  on  managing 
fishing effort in its waters; and (ii) the EU fleet fully complied with applicable measures while in 
the Cook Islands EEZ. The Protocol is also evaluated as being coherent with the Cook Islands’ 
national development policy. The sectoral-support component of the Agreement is used to address 
the actions identified in the strategic plan of the Cook Islands’ MMR, in a way that is consistent 
with  other  EU  interventions  in  the  region,  in  particular  the  PEUMP  programme  co-funded  by 
Sweden, which pursues a similar objective of sustainably managing marine resources.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
4.1.4 EU added value 

Objective 
The EU intervention under the Protocol 
should add value compared with the 
absence of an agreement/protocol. This 
can be checked by assessing to what 
extent Member States could have put in 
place appropriate alternative measures 
acting without the EU. 
The EU intervention under the Agreement 
and its Protocol should add value 
compared to what could be achieved by 
the EU fleet outside the framework of the 
Agreement 

Success criterion/criteria 
EU intervention adds value compared with Member States’ individual 
interventions  

The Agreement and its Protocol bring substantial benefits at EU, local and 
national level, compared with private agreements  

The  evaluation  found  that  EU  involvement  in  the  intervention  adds  clear  value  compared  with 
private agreements negotiated by EU shipowners. The multiannual access agreement framed by 
the SFPA and its implementing Protocol is both: (i) aligned with the needs of the EU purse-seine 
fleet; and (ii) commensurate with the fishing effort allocated to the Cook Islands by the WCPFC. 
This helps to provide visibility to the Cook Islands in terms of budget income. In addition, the EU 
intervention ensures inclusion in the Agreement of the four key governance principles promoted 
by  the  EU  at  a  global  level  (respect  for  human  rights,  transparency,  a  level  playing  field,  and 
exclusivity of the SFPA over private arrangements).  

It is worth noting that there are two scenarios in which EU tuna vessels would be free to negotiate 
direct  authorisations  for  access  to  the  Cook  Islands’  fishing  zone:  (i)  a  scenario  without  any 
fisheries agreement ever concluded between the EU and the Cook Islands; and (ii) a scenario in 
which the Cook Islands or the EU did not renew the current agreement. In either of these cases, 
the negotiation for access to the Cook Islands EEZ would then be framed, for EU shipowners, by 
Section 3 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 on the sustainable management of external fishing fleets, 
known as the SMEFF Regulation. Given the Cook Islands’ interest in attracting tuna vessels to its 
fishing zone, it is likely that EU tuna vessels would in this scenario be able to get their requests 
for access accepted, where appropriate. In this case, shipowners would not be supported by the EU 
when  negotiating  their  access  conditions,  but  would  nevertheless  have  to  comply  with  the 
WCPFC’s minimum conservation and management rules which apply irrespective of the fishing 
zones. 

Compared  with  this  option,  the  EU  intervention  adds  value  because  of  six  features  of  the 
Agreement, which would have been difficult – if not impossible – to achieve under private access 
arrangements negotiated by EU shipowners. These six features are described in the bullet points 
below. 

•  The multiannual access agreement is aligned with the needs of the EU purse-seine fleet 
and with the fishing effort allocated to the Cook Islands by the WCPFC, providing visibility 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
to the Cook Islands in terms of budget income (private access arrangements are typically 
concluded on an annual basis with real utilisation largely unpredictable). 

•  The Agreement creates an official platform for sectoral dialogue and direct exchanges and 
cooperation  between  the  authorities  of  the  EU  and  the  Cook  Islands.  It  also  sets  up  a 
framework for joint monitoring and control of EU activities. 

•  Embedded  in  the  SFPA  and  its  implementing  Protocol  are  the  four  key  governance 
principles promoted by the EU at global level (respect for human rights, transparency, a 
level playing field, and the exclusivity of the SFPA over private arrangements).  

•  The Agreement is coherent with EU policies in terms of national and regional development. 
•  The  Agreement  ensures  access  to  a  dedicated  SFPA  budget  line  (sectoral  support) 
decoupled from the SFPA access budget line for financial support to help the Cook Islands 
to implement its national fisheries policy. 

•  The EU also ensures that sectoral development is carried out in synergy with the interventions 
of its Member States in the development of the fisheries sector and consistent with those 
carried out in neighbouring coastal states with active FPAs/SFPAs (e.g. Kiribati). 

If the SFPA is terminated, it is true that part of the revenue for the Cook Islands could instead be 
used  as  sectoral  support.  However,  the  amount  of  this  revenue  and  the  objectives  of  the 
intervention would then be at the sole discretion of the Government of the Cook Islands. The EU 
would then no longer be involved. 

 4.1.5 Relevance  

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 should be relevant to the 
objectives of the RFMOs and the EU’s 
regional network of agreements. To what 
extent is the Protocol relevant and does it 
have significant impact? 

Success criterion/criteria 
The implementation of the FPA and its Protocol is aligned with the objectives 
of: (i) resource and environmental sustainability; (ii) support for the 
development of a sustainable fisheries sector at national and local level; (iii) 
facilitating the integration of coastal states into the world economy; (iv) 
improving scientific and technical knowledge; (v) supporting economic 
exchanges and sustainable economic and social development; and (vi) 
appropriately addressing the national and local needs of the EU and its fleet.  
For highly migratory species, the Protocol: (i) contributes to the objectives set 
by RFMOs and other regional organisations, and (ii) maintains a network of 
SFPAs in the region. The Protocol also creates synergies between the EU and 
neighbouring countries in the RFMOs.  

The  Protocol  is  still  relevant  to  address  the  needs  of  the  EU  by  promoting  sustainable  fishing 
practices in external waters. It is also still relevant to address the needs of EU purse-seine operators 
by: (i) giving them access to productive fishing grounds (and their needs have increased compared 
with the period under the previous Protocol); and (ii) rebalancing effort distribution between the 
eastern Pacific Ocean and the western central Pacific Ocean. The Protocol is also still relevant to 
satisfy the needs of the Cook Islands by using its surplus envelope of fishing effort allocated by 
the  WCPFC,  and  securing  external  funding  to  support  implementation  of  its  national  fisheries 
policy. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1.6 Acceptability 

Objective 
EU vessel owners should be satisfied with 
the Protocol 
Local, national and EU civil society 
should be satisfied with the Protocol 

The national and local fishing sector 
should be satisfied with the Protocol 

Success criterion (s) 
EU vessel owners are satisfied with the technical and financial conditions of 
the Protocol and support its renewal (with possible adaptations) 
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 and local fishing operators and processors in São Tomé and Príncipe 
do not compete with the EU fishing fleet and fish processors. They benefit from 
purchasing opportunities and support the renewal of the Protocol (with 
possible adjustments). 

Fish processors in the EU should be 
satisfied with the Protocol 

The needs of fish processors in the EU are met by the technical and financial 
conditions of the Protocol and these processors support its renewal (with 
possible adaptations) 

The local and national administration 
should be satisfied with the Protocol 

The local and national partner administration is satisfied with the 
implementation of the Protocol and supports its renewal 

In  terms  of  acceptability,  EU  shipowners  utilising  the  fishing  opportunities  negotiated  are 
generally satisfied with the conditions set out in the Protocol and support its renewal. The Cook 
Islands  authorities  also  expressed  their  satisfaction,  and  there  was  no  perceived  reticence  from 
authorities regarding the principle of negotiations to renew the Protocol after 2024.  

The acceptance of the EU SFPA by civil society in the Cook Islands became less adversarial than 
under  the  previous  Protocol  thanks  to  increased  awareness  of  Protocol  outcomes  and  the  final 
judgement in 2022 by the country’s Privy Council, validating the legality of the SFPA13. 

Representatives of the Cook Islands fisheries sector did not raise any concerns about the EU SFPA. 
There are no direct interactions between fishers based in the Cook Islands and EU purse seiners in 
fishing grounds, and the lack of interactions with the EU fleet is not seen as a problem given the 
small size of the domestic market. 
5.        WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND THE LESSONS LEARNT? 

5.1.         Conclusions 

After almost 2 years of implementation, the current 3-year Protocol (November 2021 to November 
2024) has succeeded in achieving its main objectives. The fishing opportunities negotiated for the 
EU fleet in the Cook Islands’ EEZ are aligned with limits imposed by the WCPFC.  

13 Ex-post and ex-ante evaluation study of the protocol to the agreement on a sustainable fisheries partnership 
between the European Union and Cook Islands - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu), Summary of the 
evaluation study. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
The activities of the EU tuna fleet in the Cook Islands’ EEZ are monitored through the reporting 
requirements set out in the Protocol in conformity with the standards of the EU’s CFP and WCPFC, 
which include, in particular, 100% observer coverage on all fishing vessels at all times. 

On the objective of protecting the interests of the EU long-distance fleet, the evaluation reveals 
that the effectiveness of the Protocol is good overall. The Protocol provides fishing opportunities 
in waters from which the EU purse seine fleet may obtain a significant proportion of its catch in 
the western central Pacific Ocean. The benefit of the Protocol is further evidenced by the fact that 
the four EU purse seiners active in the western central Pacific Ocean applied for the four fishing 
licences available as expected by the Protocol (100% utilisation of available fishing licences). 

However,  the  number  of  fishing  days  deployed  in  the  EEZ  of  the  Cook  Islands  has  been 
significantly  below  the  minimum  number  of  days  identified  by  the  Protocol  to  determine  the 
volume  of  financial  compensation.  The  main  reason  for  this  apparent  discrepancy  between  all 
fishing licences being taken up (100% fishing licence utilisation rate) but very few fishing days 
per purse seiner is that the WCPO experienced nearly 3 years of La Niña conditions from July 
2020 to March 2023, a duration unheralded in recent decades. 

The SFPA Protocol is coherent with the EU CFP in general and with the overarching conservation 
and  management  regime  implemented  under  the  multilateral  framework  of  the  WCPFC  in 
particular.  

The EU shipowners utilising the fishing opportunities as negotiated are generally satisfied with 
the conditions set by the Protocol and clearly support its renewal. The Cook Islands authorities 
also expressed their satisfaction with the Protocol, and there was no perceived reticence from the 
country’s authorities regarding the principle of negotiations to renew the Protocol after 2024. 

The  Protocol  is  still  relevant  to  address  the  needs  of  the  EU  by  promoting  sustainable  fishing 
practices  in  external  waters.  It  is  also  still  relevant  to  address  the  needs  of  EU  purse-seine 
shipowners by giving them access to productive fishing grounds. The Protocol is also still relevant 
to satisfy the needs of the Cook Islands by using its surplus envelope of fishing effort allocated by 
the WCPFC, and securing external funding to support implementation of the country’s national 
fisheries policy. 

Based on the evaluation, among all options considered, the renewal of the Protocol at the end of 
its implementation period (16 December 2024) clearly appears to be in the interest of both parties 
and would be the most beneficial policy option. The option of not renewing the Protocol would 
not be beneficial for any of the parties14.  

On access conditions, for the future Protocol, the number of fishing days reserved to the EU fleet 
is  recommended  to  be  set  taking  into  consideration  the  level  of  utilisation  of  the  current 
implementing Protocol. 

14 Ex-post and ex-ante evaluation study of the protocol to the agreement on a sustainable fisheries partnership 
between the European Union and Cook Islands - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu), page 55. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
On technical measures, all current provisions could be maintained. 

On  the  sectoral-support  component,  the  future  Protocol  should  pay  particular  attention  to  the 
efficient  programming  of  sectoral-support  activities,  by  seeking,  where  appropriate,  external 
technical expertise when necessary. The programming of sectoral support should also be guided 
by the activities identified by the Cook Islands’  national sectoral policy for the coming period, 
while the possibilities for supporting the implementation of this national policy will depend on 
budget availability, which will be the result of the negotiation process.  

5.2.         Lessons learnt  

The ex post evaluation of the Protocol implementing the SFPA for the period 2021-2024 shows 
that the Protocol has generally succeeded in achieving its main objectives.  

There are three main lessons stemming from this ex post evaluation. The bullet points below set 
out these lessons in more detail. 

•  The  main  shortcoming  identified  is  an  apparent  imbalance  between  the  fishing 
opportunities negotiated in terms of the minimum number of fishing days and the actual 
uptake  of  these  fishing  opportunities  by  the  EU  purse-seine  fleet.  This  low  utilisation, 
attributable to exceptional climatic events that could not be foreseen when the Protocol was 
negotiated, decreases the performance of the Protocol in relation to the efficiency of the 
EU intervention for its access component.  

•  The implementation of the activities funded under sectoral support by the Cook Islands has 
been  subject  to  noticeable  delays  despite  the  relatively  modest  annual  budgets  (around 
EUR 350 000 per year). The delayed implementation of the sectoral-support component is 
therefore a shortcoming that undermines the effectiveness of the EU intervention to support 
the development of a sustainable fisheries sector in the Cook Islands. While some of the 
reasons explaining the delays are understandable and out of the control of the Cook Islands’ 
authorities  (the  impacts  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic),  other  reasons  lie  in  the  structural 
difficulties encountered by the MMR in retaining experienced staff. 

•  The limited duration of the Protocol means it is not flexible enough for adjustments to be 
made to the implementation of sectoral support. The next protocol could be an occasion to 
address  the  issue  of  the  funds  of  the  previous  protocol  that  have  remained  unspent. 
Furthermore,  the  limited  duration  creates  an  administrative  burden,  taking  into 
consideration the need to provide an ex post and ex ante evaluation, in line with Article 31 
of the CFP, even if these evaluations cover only a limited period of implementation. 

6.        EX ANTE EVALUATION 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
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 
learnt  and  outlines  the  possible  ways  forward  through  a  set  of  available  policy  options  to 
implement the SFPA between the EU and Cook Islands. 

6.1.         Problem analysis and needs assessment   

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

6.2.         Current and future needs of the Cook Islands 

The Cook Islands’ fishing zone is attractive, as the country has a large EEZ in which tuna stocks 
are present, the abundance of which is correlated with oceanic conditions. Access agreements with 
foreign  interests  enable  the  country  to  exploit  its  fishing  potential  through  a  surplus  of  fishing 
opportunities from which the country needs to derive income to support its budget given its poorly 
diversified national economy. 

The  Cook  Islands  adopted  an  ambitious  national  development  roadmap  through  the  national 
sustainable  development  plan  for  the  2019-2024  period.  The  2019-2024  national  sustainable 
development plan includes development goals for the fisheries sector, with a strategic plan by the 
MMR  designed  to  help  achieve  these  goals  for  the  2022-2027  period.  Implementation  of  the 
MMR’s strategic plan requires funding that the country cannot provide in full due to other national 
spending  priorities.  The  Cook  Islands  needs  to  secure  extra-budgetary,  multiannual  sources  of 
funding to address priorities for the sector. 

The Cook Islands has responsibilities both as a flag State and as a coastal State. Its responsibilities 
include:  (i)  promoting  responsible  fishing  practices  to  support  the  development  of  the  national 
fisheries  sector;  and  (ii)  ensuring  compliance  with  international  obligations  stemming  from  its 
membership  of  the  WCPFC,  South  Pacific  Regional  Fisheries  Management  Organisation 
(SPRFMO), Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA), the Forum Fisheries Agency 
(FFA) and any other regional agreement that the Cook Islands may choose to join in the future. 

6.3.         Current and future needs of the EU  

For the EU, the Agreement creates a framework for cooperation on improving ocean governance 
and developing the country’s fisheries sector and blue economy. 

The  EU  is  committed  to  improving  ocean  governance.  In  addition  to  its  actions  with  relevant 
RFMOs, such as the WCPFC, the EU can encourage coherent measures to preserve and conserve 
stocks exploited through its network of fisheries agreements accompanied by a protocol in force. 
The EU also aims to promote: (i) management based on scientific advice; (ii) transparency; and 
(iii) due regard for fair treatment between the different fishing fleets. The SFPA between the EU 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
  
and the Cook Islands complements the current Protocol between the EU and Kiribati, as well as 
the fishing opportunities granted by the WCPFC to the EU in the high seas. 

As part of its efforts to improve ocean governance, the EU considers the international fight against 
illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing as one of its priorities. It engages in this fight in 
particular  through  Regulation  (EU)  No  1005/2008  and  support  for  numerous  development 
programmes to strengthen the capacity of developing coastal states to combat this scourge. To this 
end,  EU  vessels  must  behave  in  an  exemplary  fashion,  regardless  of  their  fishing  zone.  This 
requires setting up oversight mechanisms to enable the EU and the Member States concerned to 
assume  their  responsibilities  as  flag  States.  For  example,  the  EU  needs  to  have  framework 
mechanisms  in  place  to  supervise  the  activity  of  fleets  in  waters  covered  by  a  possible  future 
protocol,  while  respecting  international  law  and  the  objectives  of  the  EU’s  CFP.  By  means  of 
sectoral support for a possible future protocol, the EU’s objective is thus to contribute in particular 
to the fight against IUU fishing. 

In its external action, the EU committed to the international community to play a leading role in 
implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations in 
2015. The EU therefore needs to be able to put in place an instrument that helps to achieve the 
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, in particular the objectives relating to life below 
water (SDG 14) in São Tomé and Príncipe waters, in synergy with other interventions by the EU 
and its Member States. 

6.4.         Current and future needs of both the Cook Islands and the EU  

The creation of a framework for sectoral policy dialogue with dedicated funding in synergy with 
other EU interventions is a positive development. It enables both parties to exchange and jointly 
implement  initiatives  to  promote  the  sustainable  development  of  the  fisheries  sector,  including 
through initiatives to: (i) cooperate in the fight against IUU fishing; and (ii) strengthen fisheries 
research. 

6.5.         Current and future needs of the EU fleet 

For EU shipowners, there is a need for stable access agreements for multiannual periods, allowing 
vessels  to  plan  their  regional  fishing  strategies  over  several  seasons.  Fleets  also  need  access 
conditions framed by a robust legal instrument, which clearly sets out the rights and obligations of 
each  party  (vessels  and  coastal  States),  with  opportunities  for  fair  arbitration  in  the  event  of  a 
presumption of non-compliance by one of the two parties. 

EU purse-seine shipowners carry out some of their fishing activities in the western central Pacific 
Ocean. EU purse seiners have fishing opportunities granted to them by the WCPFC on the high 
seas,  but  they  still  need  to  secure  additional  access  opportunities  to  fishing  areas  under  the 
jurisdiction of coastal States to follow tuna stocks as they migrate. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
6.6.         EU added value   

Should the Protocol be renewed, only the EU is competent to negotiate in accordance with the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

Beyond this obligation stemming from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 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. Some areas in which the EU adds value in this 
regard are set out in the bullet points below.  

•  The EU can protect the benefits achieved by the Protocol, given that a failure to agree a 
new Protocol would result in: (i) no fishing activity in the EEZ of the Cook Islands by EU 
vessels as a result of the exclusivity clause featuring in the SFPA; and (ii) a cessation of 
financial compensation received by the Cook Islands for access, in return for which the 
Cook Islands has received support in implementing its national sectoral  fisheries policy 
and maritime policy. 

•  The  EU  ensures  that  the  Protocol  and  its implementation  comply  with:  (i)  international 
applicable legal instruments (in particular, the United Nations Convention on the Law of 
the Sea-UNCLOS); and (ii) the guiding principles enshrined in Articles 31 and 32 of the 
EU  CFP  Regulation,  including  the  inclusion  in  the  instrument  of  the  four  governance 
principles applicable to EU fisheries agreements. 
It  is  possible  for  the  EU  to  promote  responsible  fishing  practices  at  sub-regional  level 
through leverage effects associated with a network of coherent fisheries agreements in the 
western central Pacific Ocean. 

• 

•  The EU ensures that the Protocol and its implementation comply with the measures adopted 
through  regional  governance  instruments  (e.g.  WCPFC  conservation  and  management 
measures, and the FFA Minimum Terms and Conditions for access). 

•  The  EU  provides  a  stable  and  multiannual  legal  framework  for  EU  vessel  access,  thus 

supporting the exploitation strategies of these vessels in a transparent manner. 

•  The EU provides a legal mandate to the EU for monitoring EU fishing-vessel activities in 
the EEZ of the Cook Islands (i.e. by giving the role of ‘super flag State’ to the European 
Commission). 

•  The EU provides a tailored bilateral instrument for: (i) cooperation in the fisheries sector 
with the Cook Islands; and (ii) support for implementation of the Cook Islands’ sectoral 
fisheries  policy. This  instrument  is additional to  other EU regional  initiatives  aiming  at 
strengthening  the  fisheries  governance  framework  and  the  development  of  the  blue 
economy. 

6.7.         Policy and management objectives   

The objectives of fisheries agreements are guided by Articles 31 and 32 of the Basic Regulation 
on the CFP, taking into account the 2012 Council conclusions on the external dimension of the 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
CFP. In line with EU policy on fisheries agreements, the objectives of future intervention under 
the  SFPA  concluded  between  the  EU  and  the  Cook  Islands  must  be  based  on  the  general  and 
specific objectives which guide the EU’s intervention logic for all FPAs and SFPAs. These general 
and specific objectives are set out in the paragraphs below. 

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

•  SO 1.1: Ensure the conservation of tuna stocks through the application of conservation and 

management measures adopted within the WCPFC multilateral framework; 

•  SO 1.2: 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  the waters of the 
Cook  Islands,  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’s distant fishing fleets and the maintenance 
of  employment  linked  to  the  activities  of  these  vessels,  with  the  following  specific  objectives 
(SOs): 

•  SO2.1: Seeking an appropriate share of surplus resources, fully commensurate with the EU 

fleet’s interests; 

•  SO2.2: Ensuring that the level of fees payable by EU shipowners for their fishing activities 
is fair, non-discriminatory and commensurate to the benefits provided through the access 
conditions,  while  avoiding  any  discriminatory  treatment  towards  EU  vessels  and 
promoting a level playing field among the different fleets; 

•  SO2.3: Ensuring supply for the EU and for the markets of certain developing countries; 
•  SO2.4:  Encouraging  the  creation  of  a  secure  environment  that  is  favourable  to  private 

investment and economic activities; 

General  objective  3:  support  for  the  development  of  a  sustainable  fisheries  sector  in  the  Cook 
Islands, with the following specific objectives (SOs): 

•  SO3.1: contributing to  capacity building  in the Cook Islands (notably  by improving  the 

fisheries legal framework; control and surveillance; and science); 

•  SO3.2:  supporting  the  Cook  Islands  in  developing  local  fisheries,  including  artisanal 

fisheries in the outer islands. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.8.         Policy options, including associated risks   

Two options are available for the future: 

• 

renewal of the current Protocol – option A (option A1 for maintaining the status quo and 
option A2 for making some adaptations where necessary); 

•  non-renewal of the Protocol – option B. 

The  information  obtained  from  meetings  of  the  Joint  Committee  and  collected  during  the 
evaluation shows that both parties are willing to identify ways to improve the overall effectiveness 
of the Protocol.  

Option A.1 (status quo with identical terms) 

In the event of renewal under the same terms under option A1, discussions by the various parties 
on mechanisms to improve the implementation of the Protocol would not take place. In particular, 
there would be no discussions on improving: (i) the duration of the Protocol; (ii) the level of fishing 
opportunities; (iii) the minimum number of fishing days; (iv) the level of fishing authorisation fees 
for the EU shipowners; or (v) the technical conditions and support for the Cook Islands’ sectoral 
policy. 

Option A.2 (status quo with some improvements) 

The main conclusions of the ex post evaluation and the lessons learnt suggest that there are areas 
for improvement in the conditions of the current implementing Protocol. The proposed adjustments 
would many address the following issues. 

•  Duration  of  the  Protocol:  a  renewed  Protocol  should  last  around  5-6  years  to  ensure 

minimum short- and medium-term planning for the EU shipowners. 

•  Fishing opportunities: in a renewed Protocol these would be the same as in the current 
Protocol  (which gives access  to  four EU purse seiners) in  accordance with  the capacity 
limit imposed by the WCPFC on the EU. 

•  Minimum  number  of  fishing  days:  a  renewed  Protocol  would  decrease  the  minimum 
number of fishing days compared with the current Protocol, and the maximum number of 
days available for purchase would be increased. In summary, the fixed and variable parts 
of the EU financial compensation for access would be rebalanced. 

•  Fishing  authorisation  fees:  in  a  renewed  Protocol,  there  would  be  alignment  between 
fishing authorisation fees and the minimum number of days comprised in the EU financial 
compensation for access, with an opportunity to purchase additional days. 

•  Period of validity of licences: a mechanism is needed in a renewed Protocol to apply a 
licence pro rata temporis, when the validity of a licence is less than one year (365 days).  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
•  Review mechanism: a renewed Protocol would introduce a mechanism to review access 
conditions  if  the  Cook  Islands  become  a  party  or  an  associated  party  to  the  Palau 
Arrangement, to allow alignment with the rules governing this international agreement. 
•  Technical  conditions:  in  a  renewed  Protocol,  monitoring,  control  and  surveillance 
requirements  would  all  remain  the  same  as  under  the  current  Protocol  (with  continued 
efforts to implement the electronic reporting system as soon as possible).  

•  Sectoral  support:  in  a  renewed  Protocol,  the  specific  contribution  for  the  support  and 
implementation of the Cook Islands’ sectoral policy provides funding for a  5- or 6-year 
sectoral programme, with payments conditional on the achievement of the expected results.  

Option B (non-renewal of Protocol) 

Without the conclusion of a new protocol, the EU fishing fleet  will no longer be able to access 
fishery  resources  in  the  fishing  zone  covered  by  the  FPA  as  of  16 December 2024  under  the 
exclusivity clause of the SFPA.  

In the absence of a protocol, access to these resources for the EU fleet requires the termination of 
the SFPA by one of the two parties. The termination of the Agreement would allow EU vessels to 
negotiate direct fishing authorisations with the authorities of the Cook Islands. The issuance of 
these authorisations would be subject to the rules set out by Regulation (EU) 2017/2403, which 
provides the European Commission with a mandate to oversee the process. Allowing the SFPA to 
lapse  would  allow  access  for  EU  vessels  but  would  not  provide  them  with  the  stable  and 
multiannual legal framework of a fisheries agreement. However,  allowing the SFPA to lapse is 
highly unlikely, as the absence of a Protocol is not one of the reasons for termination of the SFPA 
laid down in Article 14 of the Agreement. Furthermore, allowing the SFPA to lapse would send a 
negative signal that could affect the quality of the political dialogue between the Cook Islands and 
the EU. 

6.9.         Results and impacts   

6.9.1.     Environmental, economic and social impacts 

The following table compares the different options in terms of environmental, economic and social 
impacts  and  the  associated  risks.  At  this  stage,  the  impacts  remain  essentially  qualitative.  To 
measure these impacts, it would be necessary to know: (i) the main features of a future Protocol 
that will be the result of the negotiation; and (ii) changes  in  the fishing opportunities available 
under EU fisheries agreements with other countries in the sub-region. 

Criteria / 
Option 

Option A1: renewed, 
unchanged 
Protocol(status quo) 

Option A2: modified and 
renewed Protocol with 
some adaptations 

Option B: no Protocol 
implementing the SFPA 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
Environmenta
l impacts 

Economic 
impacts 

•  Availability  over  a  3-year 
period 
fisheries-
of 
dependent scientific data in 
relation  to  EU  purse-seine 
activities  in  the  EEZ  of  the 
Cook  Islands  of  relevance 
to 
stock 
assessment and ecosystem 
considerations 

support 

•  Availability over a 5/6-year 
period 
fisheries-
of 
dependent scientific data in 
relation  to  EU  purse-seine 
activities  in  the  EEZ  of  the 
Cook Islands of relevance to 
support  stock  assessment 
and 
ecosystem 
considerations 

•  Less 

fisheries-dependent 

scientific data available 

•  Less  funds  available  to  the 
MMR to implement research 
activities  and  to  monitor 
and control fishing activities 
taking place in the EEZ 

activities 

•  Availability  of  multiannual 
sources of funding (sectoral 
support)  over  a  3-year 
period  to:  (i)  implement 
research 
to 
fishing 
monitor  artisanal 
research 
activities 
activities 
the  outer 
islands;  and  (ii)  protect 
sensitive  habitats  in  the 
Cook Islands 

and 
in 

activities 

•  Availability  of  multiannual 
sources of funding (sectoral 
support)  over  a  5/6-year 
period  to:  (i)  implement 
to 
research 
fishing 
monitor  artisanal 
research 
activities 
activities 
the  outer 
islands;  and  (ii)  protect 
sensitive  habitats  in  the 
Cook Islands 

and 
in 

Availability  of  multiannual 
sources  of  funding  (sectoral 
support)  to  support  national 
capacities 
for  monitoring, 
control  and  surveillance  and 
for  the  fight  against  IUU 
fishing over a 3-year period 

•  Availability  of  multiannual 
sources of funding (sectoral 
support) to support national 
capacities  for  monitoring, 
control and surveillance and 
for  the  fight  against  IUU 
fishing over a longer period 
of  time  compared  than  in 
option A1 

the 

EU 
•  Economy for the EU budget 
(≈  EUR  700  000  /  year 
under the current Protocol) 
•  Possible  negative  impacts 
economic 
on 
performance  of 
the  EU 
purse-seine  fleet  if  fishing 
opportunities  lost  in  the 
EEZ  of  the  Cook  Islands 
replaced  by 
cannot  be 
opportunities 
fishing 
elsewhere 

Cook Islands 
•  Loss of multiannual budget 
income  stream  from  EU 
payments 
(EU  and  EU 
shipowners) 

EU 
•  Payment  of  a 

financial 
contribution  to  the  Cook 
Islands from the EU budget 
(amount  dependent  on  the 
outcomes 
the 
negotiations;  it  was  EUR 
700 000 per year under the 
current Protocol) 

of 

•  Economic 

value 

added 
benefiting the EU as a result 
of  the  activities  of  the  EU 
purse seiners in the EEZ of 
Cook  Islands  (value  will 
depend on catch obtained) 

EU 
•  Payment  of  a 

financial 
contribution  to  the  Cook 
Islands from the EU budget 
(amount  dependent  on  the 
outcomes 
the 
negotiations)  

of 

•  Economic 

value 

added 
benefiting the EU as a result 
of  the  activities  of  the  EU 
purse seiners in the EEZ of 
Cook  Islands  (value  will 
depend on catch obtained) 

Cook Islands 
•  Multiannual  budget  income 
stream  from  EU  payments 
(EU  and  EU  shipowners)  – 
amounts  depend  on  the 
outcome of the negotiation 
•  EU  financial  compensation 
to  support  and  implement 
the  national  sectoral  policy 
available 
the 
economic  development  of 
the  fisheries  sector  over  a 
3-year period 

foster 

to 

Cook Islands 
•  Multiannual  budget  income 
from  EU  access 
stream 
payments 
(EU  and  EU 
shipowners)  –  amounts 
more difficult to forecast as 
larger 
a 
proportion 
variable 
payments  dependent  on 
activities  of  the  EU  purse 
seiners in the EEZ 

result  of  a 

of 

•  EU  financial  compensation 
to  support  and  implement 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
to 

foster 

fisheries 

the  national  sectoral  policy 
available 
the 
economic  development  of 
the 
sector. 
Compared  with  option  A1, 
the  longer  period  of  time 
greater 
provides 
programming 
flexibility, 
and  opens  the  opportunity 
to  consider  activities  that 
take  more 
to 
implement,  such  as  public 
investment  in  fisheries  or 
research infrastructures. 

time 

EU 
•  Employment of EU nationals 
onboard  EU  purse  seiners 
secured  by  availability  of 
fishing  opportunities  but 
with 
increased  visibility 
compared with option A1 

Cook Islands 
•  Social benefits underpinned 
by activities of the sectoral-
support 
programme 
benefiting  artisanal  fishers 
over a longer period of time 
compared with option A1 

EU 
•  Possible  negative  impacts 
on  employment  onboard 
the  EU  purse  seine  fleet  if 
fishing opportunities lost in 
the EEZ of the Cook Islands 
replaced  by 
cannot  be 
fishing 
opportunities 
elsewhere 
Cook Islands 
•  Less  funding  available  for 
activities  supporting 
the 
development  of  artisanal 
the  Cook 
fisheries 
Islands 

in 

EU 
•  Employment 

of 

EU 
nationals onboard EU purse 
seiners 
by 
fishing 
availability 
opportunities 

secured 
of 

Social impacts 

Cook Islands 
•  Social benefits underpinned 
by activities of the sectoral-
support 
programme 
benefiting artisanal fishers 

6.9.2.     Comparison according to standard evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency and coherence) 

The table on this page compares the different options in terms of relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency, coherence, EU added value and acceptability. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Criterion/Option  No new protocol 

Relevance 

Option B 

Protocol renewed 
unchanged (status quo) 
Option A1 

Conclusion of an adapted 
protocol 

Option A2 

Option B does not meet 
the identified needs 

Option A1 partly meets the 
needs identified for both 
parties 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

EU-Cook Islands 
cooperation in the 
fisheries sector will be 
possible only under the 
general framework of EU-
ACP cooperation dialogue 
and instruments 
(essentially deployed at 
regional level for fisheries 
issues in the Pacific), and 
within the multilateral 
WCPFC framework. 
Not applicable 
(no specific EU budget 
commitment in this case) 

Without a Protocol, the EU will 
have fewer resources to 
implement the sub-regional 
strategy according to the 
principles of the CFP. 
The general principles guiding 
the development policy will 
nevertheless continue to 
apply to the EU-Cook Islands 
cooperation framework 

EU added value 

For the EU, not implementing 
the SFPA signed in 2016 
through a new Protocol does 
not add value in the context of 
the Cook Islands 

A new Protocol will be 
conducive to achieving the 
objectives through its 
decoupled access and 
sectoral components. 
However, the short 
duration of a new Protocol 
could be challenging for 
ensuring the effectiveness 
of the sectoral-support 
component. 

Cannot be evaluated ex 
ante 
The efficiency of the 
intervention depends on 
the relationship between 
the budgets identified 
under the next Protocol 
and the actual levels of 
activity of the EU fleet; as 
well as the results obtained 
through implementation of 
the sectoral-support 
component 
A Protocol makes it possible to 
coherently implement both the 
objectives of the CFP and the 
objectives of the EU’s 
development policy. However, 
coherence will be undermined 
by the lack of flexibility of the 
Protocol that means it cannot 
align with international 
obligations stemming from new 
regional agreements that the 
Cook Islands is considering 
joining (i.e. the PNA) 

The involvement of the EU in a 
renewed Protocol is an 
obligation resulting from the 
existence of the SFPA 
concluded in 2016 and of its 
exclusive competence in 
fisheries management 

38 

The renewal of the Protocol 
(option A2) meets the needs 
identified for both parties: 
desired improvements on the 
access and sectoral-support 
components 

A new Protocol will be 
conducive to achieving the 
objectives through its 
decoupled access and sectoral 
components 

Cannot be evaluated ex ante 
The efficiency of the 
intervention depends on the 
relationship between the 
budgets identified under the 
next Protocol and the actual 
levels of activity of the EU fleet; 
as well as the results obtained 
through implementation of the 
sectoral-support component 

A Protocol makes it possible to 
coherently implement both the 
objectives of the CFP and those of 
EU development policy while 
enabling the Cook Islands to 
implement its national and regional 
priorities 

The involvement of the EU in a 
renewed Protocol is an obligation 
resulting from the existence of the 
SFPA concluded in 2016 and of its 
exclusive competence in fisheries 
management 

 
 
 
 
 
                               
  
  
  
 
 
 
Acceptability 

The non-renewal of the 
Protocol is likely to be 
unacceptable to the 
concerned EU shipowners 
and EU Member States, as it 
would deprive the fleet of 
access to the EEZ of the 
Cook Islands 

The relevant authorities of the Cook 
Islands support the principle of 
negotiating a new Protocol. 
EU shipowners support the renewal 
of the Protocol.  
The position of non-State actors in 
the Cook Islands on the EU SFPA 
has become less adversarial. 
Concerns have shifted away from 
concerns about extraction (through 
fishing activities) to the impacts of 
fishing on the environment 
(stranding of FADs) to which the EU 
probably makes a low contribution 
(EU vessels represented less than 
2% of the Pacific purse-seine fleet in 
2022). 

The relevant authorities of the 
Cook Islands support the 
principle of negotiating a new 
Protocol. 

EU shipowners support the 
renewal of the Protocol.  

The position of non-State 
actors in the Cook Islands on 
the EU SFPA has become less 
adversarial. Concerns have 
shifted away from concerns 
about extraction (through 
fishing activities) to the impacts 
of fishing on the environment 
(stranding of FADs) to which 
the EU probably makes a low 
contribution (EU vessels 
represented less than 2% of 
the Pacific purse-seine fleet in 
2022). 

Acceptability may be 
weakened if the Protocol 
undermines the Cook Islands’ 
adaptation to rules stemming 
from new regional agreements 
that the country is considering 
joining. 

6.10.      Preferred option  

A  comparison  of  the  options  indicates  that  sub-option  A2  (negotiation  of  a  new  implementing 
protocol  with  some  adjustments)  is  the  preferred  option.  Adjustments  to  ensure  greater 
proportionality  between  the  fishing  opportunities  negotiated  and  the  effective  use  of  these 
opportunities will improve the efficiency of the EU’s investment in the financial contribution for 
access. 

Compared  with  sub-option  A2,  sub-option  A1,  which  considers  a  renegotiation  of  the  current 
implementing Protocol, has three main weaknesses: (i) it could maintain fishing opportunities in 
excess of needs, (ii) it could continue the slow absorption of sectoral-support funds; and (iii) it 
would be of limited duration (3 years). 

The sub-options A1 and A2 will allow the EU to mobilise specific EU funding for sectoral support, 
decoupled from the EU compensation for access. The performance of sectoral support will depend 
on the conditions for implementing this sectoral support (available budget, programming, technical 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
   
and  financial  management  of  planned  activities,  monitoring  and  evaluation).  By  comparison, 
option B – non-renewal of the Protocol – does not meet any of the needs of both parties.  

6.11.      Monitoring of a future implementing Protocol  

Following its entry into force, a renewed SFPA and Protocol between the EU and the Cook Islands 
should be subject to continuous monitoring and evaluation through a technical dialogue between 
the  MMR  and  DG  MARE.  This  technical  dialogue  should  in  particular  be  supported  by  a  DG 
MARE fisheries attaché in charge of the monitoring of the SFPA. 

Given  the  difficulties  encountered  during  the  current  Protocol  in  relation  to  the  timely 
implementation of the multiannual sectoral programme, DG MARE should consider: (i) specific 
arrangements  for  the  organisation  of  technical  visits  between  the  annual  meetings  of  the  Joint 
Committee for closer monitoring of the results obtained; and (ii) timely identification of relevant 
solutions to foster implementation of the multiannual sectoral programme if there is any significant 
departure from the agreed implementation calendar.  

Potential indicators of relevance to future monitoring and evaluation could include: 

the amount (EUR per year) of EU budget payments for access; 

• 
•  authorisation fees paid by shipowners (EUR per year); 
•  authorisation fees paid by shipowners relative to the value of catches (%); 
•  utilisation rates (% per year) of fishing opportunities available; 
• 
•  value of catches made by EU vessels (EUR per year); 
• 
•  updated  log  frame  for  the  intervention  (values  of  performance  indicators  selected  and 

infringements (number per year) by EU vessels fishing in the EEZ of the Cook Islands; 

rate (% per year) of disbursement of sectoral-support funds; 

targets). 

The Protocol will have to be subject to an independent  ex post evaluation according to the EU 
Financial Regulation and the CFP. It should be completed no later than one year before the expiry 
date of the Protocol, which will allow the EU institutions to prepare for its possible renewal by 
following the ordinary legislative procedure, without interrupting possibilities of access. 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Ocean 
PLAN/2023/2531 – EU-Cook Islands Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement – negotiation 
mandate for a new protocol  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
1.  Organisation and timing of the evaluation study on which the Staff Working Document 

was mainly based 

Tasks   
Signature of the contract    
Kick-off meeting   
Report of the kick-off meeting   
Submission of the inception report    
Comments to the inception report   
Submission of the draft final report   
Meeting to discuss draft final report    
Submission of the final report    

2.  Derogations granted   

Time   
20 December 2023   
18 January 2024  
19 January 2024   
29 January 2024   
25 March 2024  
3 April 2024   
25 April 2024  
3 May 2024   

This initiative does not require an impact assessment as it sets out a general policy approach 
and does not commit to any action. However, a retrospective and forward-looking evaluation 
will be carried out. For the retrospective evaluation, the questions look at the effectiveness, 
efficiency, economy, relevance, coherence, EU added value and acceptance of the Protocol.  
For the prospective evaluation, the questions focus on: (i) identifying problems and needs; 
(ii)  the  objectives  to  be  achieved;  (iii)  the  options  available  (conclusion  or  not  of  a  new 
Protocol) and the associated risks; and (iv) lessons learnt.  

3.  Evidence, sources and quality 

The  results  of  this  staff  working  document  are  mainly  informed  by  an  evaluation  study 
conducted by an independent consultant. This evaluation study took place from January to 
April 2024 under the guidance of an interservice steering group set up by different services 
of the European Commission and under the terms of reference of specific contract number 10 
under the framework contract MARE/2021/OP/0001. The evidence base for this evaluation 
study  consisted  of  two  main  components:  analysis  of  available  documentation  and 
consultations with stakeholders.  

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

Information presented in this staff working document is mainly taken from the above-mentioned 
evaluation study conducted by an independent consultant.  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
The methodology used in the independent evaluation study is based on data collection, targeted 
consultations, data analysis and synthesis of this analysis and consultation outputs. In the sections 
below, we look at each of these bases in turn. 

1. 

Data collection 

The external study had to collect information on the: 

fishing sector in the Cook Islands; 

− 
−  activities of EU and other fleets in the partner country; 
−  stock assessments for the main concerned species; 
− 
institutional set up relevant to fisheries issues; 
− 
trade figures and data collected on the spot for 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; 
−  structured  interviews  with  stakeholders:  representatives  from  administrations,  fishery 

sector, Cook Islands society.  

− 

The information was then analysed and fed into an evaluation which had two goals:  

− 

− 

to conduct a critical review of the appropriateness and performance of the use of EU funds 
under the sectoral-support component; 
to conduct a critical review of compliance with the binding provisions of the Protocol for 
each Party. 

Data used were provided by: (i) the Commission (based on both a database fed by Member States 
for authorisations and catches; and a Commission database on payment amounts and timing), (ii) 
the Cook Islands; (iii) companies in the EU or in third countries (economic results); or (iv) other 
public sources (COMEXT data, EUMOFA selling price database, RFMO reports).  

2. Consultations  
Consultations were carried out for the purposes of this evaluation study, with the assistance of the 
independent  consultants  according  to  a  strategy  validated  by  the  Commission  inter-services 
steering group. There were two types of consultations, and a short description of both are set out 
in the bullet points below.  

•  Consultation of stakeholders in the EU: (i) administrations of the flag Member States of 
EU  vessels  benefiting  from  fishing  opportunities;  (ii)  the  professional  associations 
grouping EU operators using the negotiated fishing opportunities; and (iii) EU civil society.  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
•  Consultation of stakeholders in the Cook Islands: a visit took place to the Cook Islands 
in  February  2024.  During  the  visit,  face-to-face  discussion  sessions  were  held  with  the 
various  departments  of  the  Cook  Islands’  authorities  involved  in  monitoring  the 
Agreement; representatives of the private sector in the industrial and artisanal sectors; and 
civil society. 

 3. Preparation of the evaluation study 
The preparation of this evaluation study took 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 CFP, 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 
(around 1 year of implementation is not evaluated); 
the lack of available information (such as precise and accurate data distinguishing landings 
and  transshipments  of  EU  catches,  discrepancies  between  different  data  sources,  or 
confidential economic information such as selling prices or the structure of precise costs 
per individual company);  
the use of aggregated data.  

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX 

The evaluation matrix applied is set out in the pages below. 

Effectiveness – The extent to which the objectives of the Implementing Protocol to the 

1 
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 Cook Islands 

1.1 To what extent fisheries activities 
were  addressed  exclusively  at 
surplus  resources  and  preventing 
the  overfishing  of  stocks,  on  the 
basis of the best scientific advice and 
improved transparency on the global 

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 set 
or  recommended  by  the  relevant 
RFMO  or  RFO.  The  Protocol  takes 

43 

that 

State  of  the  stocks  targeted  under 
(scientific  advice, 
the  Protocol 
Islands 
analysis 
Cook 
regional 
conducted,  meetings, 
data, 
scientific 
RFMO/RFO advice, and advice from 
institutes);  all 
national  scientific 

reports 

and 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
fishing efforts in the waters included 
in the current Protocol. 

To 

what 

extent 
followed 

the 
1.2 
implementation  has 
the 
same  principle  and  promoted  the 
fisheries 
same 
standards 
management  as  applied 
in  EU 
waters. 

for 

1.3 To what extent the scientific and 
technical evaluation  of  the  fisheries 
concerned have improved 

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

the  management 
into  account 
strategies expressed by the RFMOs 
and  the  Cook  Islands.  The  Cook 
Islands  take  part  in  the  relevant 
RFMOs/RFOs  and  provide  data  on 
activities  carried  out  by  vessels 
flagging its flag and by other foreign 
fleets operating in its waters. 

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

(logbook, 

is  sent 
and 

EU fishing activities are subject to an 
obligation 
reporting 
appropriate 
framework 
VMS, 
observers  etc.)  in  the  Agreement 
and  a  scientific  data-collection 
framework  (size  composition  of  the 
catches, biological parameters etc.). 
This 
the 
information 
to 
national 
relevant  RFMO 
research  institutes.  EU  scientists 
and scientists from the Cook Islands 
in  scientific 
actively  participate 
meetings and RFMO/RFO scientific 
committees.  Cooperation  between 
scientific  institutes  is  encouraged 
and  supported  where  appropriate. 
Joint  scientific  analysis  at  regional 
level  and  at  RFMO  level  are  taken 
into account. 

(VMS,  ERS, 

The activity of the EU fleet is properly 
monitored 
etc.); 
reporting,  monitoring  and  control 
takes  place  as  stipulated  in  the 
Protocol and as legislation requires. 
adequate 
Moreover, 
monitoring,  reporting  and  control  of 
all  catches  and  catch  composition. 

there 

is 

44 

fleets’  catches  and  fishing  effort  in 
Cook  Islands  and  in  the  region; 
possible impact on the environment 
of  all  the  fleets  operating  in  these 
waters.  All  considering 
the 
target  is  tuna,  which  is  a  migratory 
species. 

that 

State of the stocks taken as by-catch 
by  EU 
vessels;  management 
measures  adopted  at  the  regional, 
national  or  EU  level  or  under  the 
Protocol.  Strategies  aimed  at 
conservation measures for protected 
species such as sharks. 

of 

Inclusion 
data-collection 
provisions  in  the  Agreement  and 
timely availability of relevant data for 
the  management  and  scientific 
operators;  amount  and  quality  of 
data collected; number of reports to 
institutes; 
RFMOs  and  scientific 
participation 
in  RFMO/RFO 
rate 
results 
committees; 
scientific 
achieved  with  sectoral  support; 
number  of  meetings  between 
scientists  and  managers  at  country 
level. 

in 

implementation  of 

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

 
 
 
 
 
Possible  infractions  are  sanctioned 
and  sectoral  support  is  used  to 
strengthen  monitoring,  control  and 
surveillance (MCS). 

Objective 2: To contribute to continuing the fishing activity of the EU’s long-distance fleet and the employment linked 
to the fleet operating within the Agreement and its Protocol 

surplus 

resources, 

2.1 To seek an appropriate share of 
the 
fully 
commensurate  with  the  EU  fleet’s 
interests and their regional and sub-
regional fishing strategy 

is 

2.2 To ensure that the level of fees 
payable by EU shipowners for their 
fishing  activities:  (i) 
fair  and 
the 
proportional 
revenues  and  costs:  (ii)  is  non-
discriminatory;  and  (iii)  promotes  a 
the 
level  playing 
different fleets 

field  among 

considering 

2.3 To ensure supply for the EU and 
for the markets of the Cook Islands 
and third countries. 

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 
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 
and 
national, 
regional level.  

sub-regional 

to 

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 
the  EU 
reasonable 
and 
shipowners  and 
the  Cook 
Islands. 

for 
for 

The Agreement offers a reasonable 
framework  to  foster  landings  and 
thus supply local markets and trade 
with third countries. The Agreement 
fosters 
fisheries 
cooperation between the EU and the 
Cook Islands and/or third countries. 

trade 

on 

fishing 

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

vessels 

the 

in 

the 

Level  of 
technical 
fees  and 
conditions applied to third countries’ 
fleets 
fishing  zones  and 
management  areas  in  the  current 
Protocol.  Proportion  between  fees, 
(all)  costs  and  (all)  benefits  for  the 
EU  shipowners  and  for  the  Cook 
Islands. 

Percentage  of 
market 
needs 
neighbouring countries. 

landings  versus 
and 
local 
in 

on 

figures 

Trade 
(and 
composition)  between  the  EU  and 
Cook Islands. 

fish 

Commercial  balance  and  relation 
with Cook Islands and neighbouring 
countries  related  to  fish  caught  in 
Cook Islands’ waters. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
that 

2.4  To  encourage the  creation  of  a 
secure 
is 
environment 
favourable to private investment and 
economic  activities  contributing  to 
the  sustainable  development  of  the 
country  and 
its 
cooperation with the EU. 

strengthening 

2.5 To take into account the specific 
interests of: 

− 

− 

the EU's outermost regions 
located in the vicinity; 
the EU’s fleet.  

Some  of  the  fish  caught  under  the 
Agreement supplies the local market 
and  the  local  processing  industry; 
fishing  supports  port  and 
EU 
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. 

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

the  continuity  of 

to  ensure 
initiatives 
Number  of 
cooperation between EU businesses 
and  local  businesses.  Benefits  that 
such activities brought to the EU, the 
country  and 
the 
country.  Number  of  initiatives  that 
have  had  a 
local,  national  and 
regional benefit. 

local  areas 

in 

the 

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

Objective  3:  To  support  the  development  of  a  sustainable  fisheries  sector  in  partner  countries  (through:  (i)  the 
governance framework that the Agreement creates; (ii) sectoral support; (iii) cooperation on the blue economy, (iv) 
small-scale and artisanal fisheries; (v) direct and indirect job creation; (vi) the development of 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  the Cook 
Islands. 

(i) 

to: 

that 

the 
The  sectoral  support  and 
the 
activity 
economic 
implementation  of  the  Agreement 
creates  contributes 
the 
functioning of the fisheries sector; (ii) 
better governance; (iii) transparency; 
(iv) inclusiveness; and (v) social and 
economic  development  of  the  area 
covered  by  the  current  Protocol. 
Moreover, it provides for appropriate 
training, 
and 
infrastructure, especially in the areas 
of  science  and  MCS.  Utilisation  of 
the  sectoral  support  has  been  duly 
reported 
on 
expected  economic  and  social 

equipment 

(detailed 

results 

to 

Results  achieved  with  sectoral 
support  and  economic  and  social 
impact of the implementation of the 
current  Protocol;  percentage  of  the 
EU  contribution 
the  different 
strategies, policies and indicators for 
assessing  the  social  and  economic 
impact  in  the  EU  and  in  the  areas 
covered  by  the  current  Protocol; 
budget  of 
fisheries 
the  national 
strategy;  comprehensiveness  and 
level of detail of the sectoral support 
the  blue 
and  cooperation  on 
economy,  small-scale  and  artisanal 
fisheries, 
data 
collection,  MCS,  food  security  and 
policy areas. 

aquaculture, 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
(ii) 

(iii) 

fishers; 

3.2 To: (i) promote the employment 
improve 
local 
of 
infrastructures; 
encourage 
landings;  and  (iv)  support  the  third 
country in developing local fisheries, 
a local processing industry, and local 
markets.  To  create  employment 
directly and indirectly. 

benefits within the geographic scope 
of the current Protocol). 

they  benefit 

EU vessels recruit some of their staff 
from  good 
locally: 
working  conditions  and  appropriate 
training, equivalent to ILO standards. 
Some  of  the  catch  is  landed  and 
processed locally. 

neighbouring 

Catches  landed  are  traded  in  local 
markets. 
and 
Successful 
are 
trade 
generated.  Elements  that  facilitate 
the trade relation and elements that 
discourage it are identified.  

flows 

Compliance  with  the  rules  for  the 
minimum  number  of  local  fishers 
embarked,  compliance  with 
the 
standards 
fair  and  safe 
for:  (i) 
working  conditions;  (ii)  the  amount 
(iii) 
and  composition  of  wages; 
volume, 
(value 
catches 
including 
landed 
by 
(namely in comparison with landing 
obligations);  (iv)  catches  processed 
and marketed locally.  

and 
catches) 

landings 

Quantities 
of 
transshipments 
fleets in Cook Islands ports.  

and 
from  EU/non-EU 

Number  of  jobs  supported  in  ports 
and  processing  facilities  related  to 
and 
frequentation 
landing/transshipment  activities  by 
EU /non-EU fleets 

Islands 

in  Cook 

Social  indicators  of  current  work 
force 
(age 
distribution)  and  related  needs  for 
training 
potential 
fishermen. 

young 

of 

Employment  created  directly  and 
indirectly in the EU and in the Cook 
Islands or in the region/sub-region. 

Percentage of supplies to local and 
neighbouring  markets.  Percentage 
of the fish caught by the EU fleet that 
supplies 
and 
comparison with other sources. 

these  markets 

2 

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

47 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
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,  small-
scale and artisanal fisheries, food 
security, etc. agreed in the initial 
programming,  been  achieved  at 
reasonable cost? 

in 

included 

All  activities 
the 
sectoral  support  have  been 
properly  used  and  have  given 
benefits  in  environmental,  social 
and  economic  terms  in  the  EU 
and in the Cook Islands. 

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

The  EU  shipowners’  contribution 
is  commensurate  with  effective 
catches  and  profits  compared 
with total costs and benefits.  

the 

To  what  extent  is  the  financial 
compensation 
fishing 
for 
possibilities under the Agreement 
advantageous for the EU and for 
the Cook Islands?  

and 

The  Cook  Islands  benefit  from  a 
fair part of the added value of the 
financial 
all 
catches 
financial 
compensation.  This 
compensation 
distributed 
geographically  and  in  a  socially 
fair way in the Cook Islands. 

is 

the 

Degree  of  completion  of 
initial 
programming;  percentage  of  sectoral-
support  activities  and  projects  compared 
with:  (i)  overall  EU  contribution;  (ii)  the 
national  budget  for  fisheries, marine  and 
maritime  issues;  and  (iii)  other  donor 
the 
contributions.  Contribution 
sustainable development of the country. 

to 

Volume  of  catches;  changes  in  first  sale 
prices,  operating  and  all  costs  and 
estimation  of  the  profitability  for  each 
segment of the EU fleet, category, vessel, 
gear type and country (if applicable). 

Ratio of overall EU contribution to added 
value generated by the activity of the EU 
fleet in the fishing zone. 

Ratio  of  the  benefits  of  all  financial 
concerned 
compensation 
fishing 
the 
population  proportional 
activities. 

the 
to 

to 

Ratio  of 
indicators. 

the  economic  and  social 

Economy – the extent to which resources are available in due time, of appropriate 

3 
quantity and quality, and at the best price 

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

To  what  extent  is  the  EU 
contribution  (and  specifically 
support) 
its 
sectoral 
the 
commensurate  with 

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 calendar set out and adapted 

of 

Consumption 
the  EU 
contribution for sectoral support 
and  geographical  distribution 
compared  with  the  local  and 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
needs  of  the  Cook  Islands 
and its absorption capacity? 

to  the  needs  of  the  country.  When  there  are 
modifications of  the initial  programming  of  the 
sectoral  support,  these  have  helped  to  make 
financial  support  and 
better  use  of 
contributed  successfully  to  the  sustainable 
development of the country. 

the 

the 
To  what  extent  have 
payments 
sectoral-support 
yearly  and 
been  made 
according to the programming 
laid  down  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 
Protocol. 

the  engagements  of 

the  criteria, 

reports  and 
Achievement  of 
procedures,  budget,  financial  indicators  and 
methods of control and audit. 

Achievements  of  annual  and  multi-year 
objectives 

national  needs  in  the  related 
policy area. 

Geographical 
distribution 
benefits 
of 
compensation. 

and 
impacts, 
all 

social 
and 
financial 

the 
Absorption  capacity  of 
sectoral 
success 
support; 
stories;  percentage  of  sectoral 
the 
support  compared  with 
national  and  local  budget  for 
fisheries  and  with  other  donor 
contributions. 

Calendar  of  payments  and 
considered allocations. 

Results  of 
the  budget  and 
financial indicators and methods 
of control and audit. 

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

4 
problems  

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

the 
To  what  extent  do 
objectives  set  out 
the 
in 
Agreement  and  the  Protocol 
still correspond  to  the  needs 
of the EU, its Member States, 
and its shipowners in the area 
covered  by 
current 
Protocol? 

the 

implementation  of 

the  Agreement  and 

its 
The 
Protocol are in line with the objectives of: (i) resource 
and  environmental  sustainability;  (ii)  supporting  the 
development  of  a  sustainable  fisheries  sector  at 
national and local level; (iii) facilitating the integration 
of  coastal  states  into  the  global  economy;  (iv) 
improving  scientific  and  technical  knowledge;  (v) 
supporting  economic  exchanges;  (vi)  strengthening 
sustainable  economic  and  social  development;  (vii) 

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

49 

 
 
 
 
 
there  have  been 

Should 
different objectives? 

(viii) 
strengthening  effective  governance;  and 
addressing correctly national and local needs and the 
needs of the EU and its fleet. 

the 

the  Agreement 
is 
How 
relevant 
policy 
to 
objectives  of  RFMOs  and  to 
the  EU’s  regional  network  of 
fisheries  agreements?  To 
what extent is it relevant and 
to what extent does it have a 
significant impact? 

For highly migratory species, the Protocol contributes 
to: (i) achieving objectives set by RFMOs and other 
regional organisations; and (ii) maintaining a network 
of SFPAs in the region on fisheries management and 
scientific issues. The Protocol creates synergies with 
the EU and neighbouring countries in RFMOs.  

of 

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

Coherence – The extent to which the Agreement and its Protocol do not contradict and 

5 
are coherent with other interventions with similar objectives 

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

How coherent is the Protocol 
with  the  CFP  in  general  and 
with  its  external  dimension 
and  with  regional  fisheries 
policy  (RFMOs  and  other 
organisations and network of 
SFPAs  at  national,  sub-
regional and regional scale)? 

The Protocol: (i) is in line with the CFP in general; (ii) 
contributes  to  achieving  EU  objectives  at  regional 
level - including the creation of a regional network of 
SFPAs;  (iii)  is  consistent  with  other  SFPAs  in  the 
region;  and  (iv)  is  consistent  with  the  objectives  of 
RFMOs and other organisations.  

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

50 

 
 
 
 
 
The  Protocol  makes  a  substantial  contribution  to 
other  EU  policies.  The  Protocol  and 
its 
implementation  are  mutually  complementary  and 
coherent,  and  contribute  positively  to  other  EU 
interventions. 

and 

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

In  what  ways  are 
the 
Agreement  and  Protocol:  (i) 
national 
consistent  with 
fisheries  policy  and  other 
related  policies;  and  (ii)  well 
regional 
coordinated  with 
fisheries policies and with EU 
cooperation? 

The Protocol helps to achieve the priorities identified 
nationally, 
regionally.  Authorities, 
stakeholders and society are aware and informed of 
the contribution. 

locally  and 

the  sustainable 
The  Protocol  contributes 
management  of  fisheries  at  local,  national  and 
regional level. 

to 

Consistency with the main 
EU  strategies 
/  policy 
orientations. 

Implementation  of  social 
clauses and contribution to 
sustainable food security. 

of 
with 

the 
Coherence 
Agreement 
EU 
policies  in  the  region  and 
the country. 

Consistency  with  marine 
and  maritime  policies  and 
the 
in 
sectoral  policies 
country 
region. 
and 
Benefits to the governance 
of  the  country;  to  society; 
and  to  the  protection  and 
sustainable  management 
of natural resources. 

6 

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

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

What  is  the  additional  value 
the  EU 
resulting 
from 
intervention 
the 
Protocol,  compared  with  the 
absence 
the 
Agreement/Protocol? 

under 

of 

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

To  what  extent  have 
of 
overall 

benefits 

the 
the 

Data 
(economic,  social 
and  environmental)  on 
implementation  within  the 
current Protocol compared 
with  what  would  have 
happened  with 
other 
agreements  or  with  no 
agreement 

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

Evidence of the need for – and usefulness of – the 
benefits arising from the Agreement. In particular, this 
evidence should focus on: good governance; natural 
resources  conservation;  sound  implementation  of 
sectoral  policies;  infrastructure;  social  services;  the 
setting  up  of  businesses;  vocational  training;  and 
programmes to develop and modernise the fisheries 
sector. These benefits should be distributed in a way 
that  benefits  the  country,  its  natural  resources  and 
the population.  

The fishing species included in the Agreement are of 
interest  for  the  EU  fleet  considering  the  species 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
Agreement and Protocol been 
of added value for the EU? 

available  and 
operating in the same area. 

fishing  possibilities 

for  all 

fleets 

implementing  Protocol 
its 
The  Agreement  and 
provide substantial  benefits to the EU  – and  to the 
country and its local areas – over private agreements. 

under 

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

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

Acceptability – The extent to which stakeholders accept the policy in general and the 

7 
particular instrument proposed or employed 

Questions 

Success criteria 

To  what  extent  are  the  EU 
shipowners satisfied with the 
Protocol? 

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

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

To what extent is the Protocol 
the  sector 
supported  by 
(shipowners and processors) 
in the EU and in the partner 
and 
country, 
locally? 

nationally 

To  what  extent  are 
the 
administration,  stakeholders 
and  civil  society  in  general 

Representatives  of  civil  society  are  consulted, 
involved in, and satisfied with the environmental and 
social conditions set by the SFPA and its Protocol 
and 
(with  possible 
support 
adaptations). 

renewal 

their 

The national and local shipowners do not experience 
competition  from the EU fleet, and fish processors 
benefit  from  purchase  opportunities  generated  by 
the Protocol and support its renewal 

The administration, stakeholders and civil society in 
general are satisfied with the implementation of the 

52 

Suggested indicators and 
sources 

Interviews  of  shipowners 
and  fisheries  associations, 
and  fishers'  representatives 
(embarked  in  EU  vessels 
under the SFPA framework) 

of 

NGO 
Interviews 
representatives  and  other 
local 
stakeholders, 
fishers’ 
population, 
and 
representatives 
locally/nationally/regionally 

fishing 

Interviews 
with 
representatives  of  industry 
and 
operators; 
content of articles and press 
reports;  reported  incidents 
between fleets 

Level of compliance with the 
in 
Protocol’s  obligations 
terms of seamen embarked; 

 
 
 
 
 
with 

satisfied 
implementation 
Protocol? 

of 

the 
the 

Protocol's  obligations  and  seek  its  renewal;  they 
praise the benefits of the fisheries partnership. 

of 

Impact 

adherence  to  fair  and  safe 
working  condition  on  board 
EU vessels; compliance with 
landing obligation; presence 
of observers; data reporting, 
etc. 
the 
Agreement’s 
on 
implementation 
national/local  population  in 
social  and economic terms; 
activities 
communication 
impact; 
and 
their 
communication 
activities; 
press statements, content of 
articles, etc. 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS  

Because the initiative submitted to the evaluation does not apply to EU citizens, and only applies 
to a very small number of EU companies, costs and benefits have been identified and assessed for: 
(i) those EU companies benefiting from the initiative; (ii) the partner third country; and (iii) the 
EU generally (EU institutions), as a partner to the Agreement. 

A simplified table accompanied by 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 was not possible within the framework of the external 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. 

The tables show cost and benefits compared with no SFPA/Protocol. In most cases, EU fleets and 
EU Member States would have the same obligations/costs associated with control and enforcement 
of  vessel  activity  either  in  the  Cook  Islands  waters  or  in  the  broader  competence  area  of  the 
WCPFC.  In  most  cases,  the  Cook  Islands  authorities  would  also  have  similar  control  and 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
enforcement costs if they allowed EU vessels to access their waters. Recurrent costs are annual. 
Sources of information are shown in brackets. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
EU citizens/ 
consumers 

one-off / 
recurrent 

COK citizens/ consumers 

EU businesses 

COK businesses 

MS administrations 

COK administration 

EU Commission 
services 

Monetary value, ranges and/or qualitative comment 

one-off 

 n/a 

one-off 

 n/a  

  n/a 

  n/a 

  n/a 

  n/a 

 n/a  

  n/a 

 n/a 

Some staff time, but not quantifiable 

2 person-months’ FTE 
estimated (DG MARE) 

  n/a 

Some staff time, but not quantifiable 

 n/a  

recurrent 

 n/a  

 n/a  

  n/a 

 n/a  

  n/a 

1 FTE/year estimated (consultants*) 

1/8 FTE/year estimated 
(DG MARE) 

recurrent 

  n/a 

  n/a 

 n/a  

 n/a  

1/8 FTE/year 
estimated 

1/8 FTE/year estimated 

1/8 FTE/year estimated 
(DG MARE) 

Costs 
Direct 
compliance 
costs 

Negotiation 
of Protocol 
Design of 
sectoral-
support 
component 
Enforcement 
costs 
Sectoral 
support 
oversight 
Data 
management 
and vessel 
oversight  

* Sectoral-support funding covers this cost 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
EU citizens/ 
consumers 

COK citizens/ 
consumers 

EU businesses 

COK businesses 

MS adminis-
trations 

COK administration 

EU Commission 
services 

Monetary value, ranges and/or qualitative comment 

Benefits 

Direct 

Financial compensation for 
access (EU and shipowners) 
Sectoral support for 
admin/management, MCS, and 
research/science 

one-off / 
recurrent 

recurrent 

recurrent 

EU catches in COK to 
consumers (after processing) 

recurrent 

n/a 

n/a 

≈ 660 tonnes tuna 
raw material 
translating into 
310 tonnes 
canned tuna 
(average 2022 
2023 Table 7) 

Direct value added to EU fleet 

recurrent 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Crewing/employment (FTE) 

recurrent 

2 (employment 
analysis for 2022) 

0 (employment 
analysis for 2022) 

Indirect 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

< 0 (crew wages and profits 
from economic model for 2022) 
n/a 

None (no nationals 
employed) 
n/a 

Indirect value added 

recurrent 

n/a 

n/a 

EUR 7 040 in 2022 (Table 13) 

0 (Table 13) – no 
economic 
interactions 

Upstream/downstream 
employment (FTE) 

recurrent 

None 
(employment 
analysis) 

None 

n/a 

n/a 

* Assuming full disbursement of the sectoral-support envelope set out by the Protocol 

56 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

EUR 2 808 000 (2021-
2024 Table 9) 

EUR 1 050 000 (2021-
2024 Protocol)* 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

Background 
In line with the terms of reference and the better-regulation ‘toolbox’, a consultation strategy was 
drawn  up  by  the  independent  consultant  to  obtain  evidence  from  relevant  stakeholders.  The 
strategy set out the best means of consulting relevant stakeholders both in the EU and in the partner 
country concerned. 

Objectives 
The aims of the consultation were: 

1.  to obtain stakeholders’ views on the implementation of the ongoing Protocol, as well as on 

the possible renewal of the Protocol, including the different options; 

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

Consulted stakeholders in the Cook Islands 

Organisation visited 

Position 

National authorities 

Secretary and Head of Ministry 
Director,  Inshore  and  Aquaculture  Fisheries 
Division 
Manager, Anchored FAD Programme 

Information Technology (IT) Manager 

Acting Director, Offshore Fisheries Division 

Senior  Fisheries  Officer  –  MCS  and 
Licensing, Offshore Fisheries Division 
Senior  Fisheries  Officer  –  Data  Manager, 
Offshore Fisheries Division 
Fisheries Officer – Observer Field Specialist, 
Offshore Fisheries Division 
Fisheries  Officer  –  Data  Analyst,  Offshore 
Fisheries Division 
Fisheries Legal Analyst, Offshore Division 
Administration  and  Finance  Officer  – 
Corporate Services Division 
Director  –  Development  Programme  – 
Development Coordination Division 

Ministry of Marine Resources 

Ministry  of  Finance  and  Economic 
Management 

Ocean Fresh Ltd. 

Non-State actors 

Director 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
Blue Pacific 
Cook Islands Fishing Club 
Cook  Islands 
Seabed Resources Limited 

Investment  Company 

Te Ipukarea Society (eNGO) 

Korero O te ’Orau (eNGO) 

EU consulted stakeholders 

Director 
5 random members 
Board Director 

Technical Director 
Director 

Expert  on  Fisheries  Management  and 
Consultant 

A- Stakeholders in charge of the implementation of the SFPA 
DG MARE B3 (HQ and Attaché) 
Member States that received an allocation of fishing opportunities 
Spain 
France 

B- Stakeholders – direct beneficiaries of fishing opportunity 
OPAGAC (Spain) 
ANABAC (Spain) 
ORTHONGEL (France) 

C- Stakeholders with an interest in the SFPA 
European Institutions 
Other DGs / MARE Units (through the Steering Committee) 
Civil society organisations 
Europêche 
European Transport Federation 
CFFA 
WWF 
Environmental Justice Foundation 
OCEANA 
Long-Distance Advisory Committee (LDAC) 

Contribution 

Provided 

Provided 
Provided 

Provided 
Provided 
Provided 

Provided 

Not provided 
Provided 
Provided 
Provided 
Provided 
Provided 
Informed* 

Note: * The LDAC was contacted to inform its members about the evaluation. A formal position 
from the LDAC was not requested. 

 Summary of feedback received from EU stakeholders 

The  association  representing  the  owners  of  Spanish  purse  seiners  (OPAGAC)  benefiting  from 
fishing opportunities under the current Protocol confirmed the interest of its members in access to 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the EEZ of the Cook Islands to complement fishing opportunities available on the high seas and 
in the EEZ of Kiribati. The low levels of activities during 2021-2023 are the result of the La Niña 
event which led to decreased abundance of tuna in this region of the western and central Pacific 
Ocean. The other association representing owners of Spanish purse seiners (ANABAC) did not 
comment on the SFPA due to the absence of interest of its members (no member fishing within 
the framework of the SFPA). 

The implementation of the Protocol did not raise major issues, and administrative cooperation with 
the  Cook  Islands  is  assessed  as  good.  However,  Spain  and  OPAGAC  reported  that  delayed 
issuances of fishing authorisations were undermining the deployment strategies of vessels. The 
delayed  issuance  of  fishing  authorisations  should  be  compensated  for  by  pro-rata  temporis 
adjustments  of  access  fees.  OPAGAC  also  raised  the  issue  of  technical  problems  in  effective 
electronic reporting of catches, and said it needed to be better informed as to the situation in terms 
of uptake of fishing days and non-fishing days in the EEZ of the Cook Islands. 

The association representing the owners of French purse seiners (ORTHONGEL) reported a need 
for fishing authorisations to access the EEZ of the Cook Islands in the near future to deploy two 
vessels currently active in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. The timeframe for this deployment has 
not been detailed. The French authorities did not comment on the SFPA. 

Two  EU-based  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  said  they  did  not  have  sufficient 
knowledge of the instrument and its context to comment on the EU-Cook Islands SFPA, which is 
in  the margins  of the geographical  focus  of their interventions (the Coalition for Fair Fisheries 
Agreements  (CFFA)  and  the  Environmental  Justice  Foundation  (EJF)).  A  joint  contribution 
submitted by the WWF and OCEANA suggested that the wording of the non-discrimination clause 
should be strengthened to align it with the clause featuring in the SFPA with the Seychelles and 
Gambia. Similarly, this joint contribution suggested an improved transparency clause to ensure 
that  parties  publish:  (i)  all  their  bilateral  and  multilateral  access  agreements,  including  direct 
authorisations  with  individual  vessels,  pertaining  to  the  use  of  the  resources  subject  to  the 
Agreement and Protocol; and (ii) licences for fishing opportunities and catch data for each of those 
agreements.  The  WWF  and  OCEANA  further  said  that  SFPAs  should  be  more  proactive  in 
promoting transparency through provisions on the regular submission of information to the FAO 
for the establishment of the Global Record of Fishing Vessels, Refrigerated Transport Vessels and 
Supply Vessels (‘The Global Record’). 

The European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) acknowledged that the SFPA does not require 
the hiring of local or ACP seamen, unlike other SFPAs, and that it therefore could not comment 
on the application of the SFPA’s social clauses. However, the ETF recalled the still-unresolved 
issues noted under the SFPA with Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal, and said that one of the four EU 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
purse seiners involved in the SFPA with the Cook Islands was previously involved in the SFPA 
with Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal. WWF-OCEANA further stated that failure to comply with the 
social clauses should be considered as a serious event entailing suspension of the SFPA. 

All  NGOs  and  social  partners  having  contributed  to  the  evaluation  required  publication  of 
information  on  the  implementation  of  the  sectoral-support  programme  by  the  Cook  Islands. 
According to their feedback, information on sectoral-support spending, as well as the reports and 
minutes of the Joint Committee, should be published on regular basis and made easily accessible 
to all stakeholders to ensure that the funds are spent correctly. 

60