COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION on the Implementing Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius accompanying the document Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the European Union for the conclusion of a Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement and its Implementing Protocol between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius
Date: 2026-03-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, Mauritius, catch area, fishing agreement, fishing rights, negotiation of an agreement (EU), powers of the institutions (EU), protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement, sea fishing, sustainable fisheries

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 3.3.2026  SWD(2026) 68 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  on the Implementing Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius accompanying the document Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the European Union for the conclusion of a Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement and its Implementing Protocol between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius {COM(2026) 95 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

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

1.1. 

1.2. 

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

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

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

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ....................................... 3 

2.1 

Description of the intervention and its objectives ......................................................... 3 

2.1.1  Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs) ............................................... 3 

2.1.2  Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) between the EU and the Republic of  

Mauritius ........................................................................................................................ 5 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ......................... 9 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

3.6. 

3.7. 

3.8. 

Current state of play ....................................................................................................... 9 

Utilisation of fishing opportunities ................................................................................ 9 

Catches ......................................................................................................................... 10 

Scientific cooperation .................................................................................................. 10 

Technical measures ...................................................................................................... 11 

Sectoral support component......................................................................................... 13 

Financial aspects .......................................................................................................... 14 

Reporting obligations ................................................................................................... 14 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ....................................................................... 16 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.5. 

4.6. 

Effectiveness: To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ................... 16 

Efficiency: the desired effects are achieved at reasonable costs .................................. 22 

Coherence: the alignment of the Protocol’s intervention logic with other EU 
interventions with similar objectives ........................................................................... 24 

Acceptability ................................................................................................................ 27 

Relevance: Is the intervention still relevant? ............................................................... 28 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................................. 29 

5.1.  Main conclusions ......................................................................................................... 29 

6. 

EX ANTE EVALUATION .................................................................................................................. 31 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

Problem analysis and needs assessment ...................................................................... 31 

Current and future needs of Mauritius ......................................................................... 31 

Current and future need for the European Union......................................................... 32 

Current and future needs for Mauritius and the European Union ................................ 33 

 
 
 
 
6.5. 

6.6. 

6.7. 

6.8. 

The EU added value ..................................................................................................... 33 

Policy and management objectives .............................................................................. 34 

Policy options, including associated risks ................................................................... 35 

Results and impacts ..................................................................................................... 39 

6.8.1.  Environmental-Economic-Social impacts ............................................................... 39 

7. 

COMPARISON  ACCORDING  TO  STANDARD  EVALUATION  CRITERIA 
(RELEVANCE, EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY AND COHERENCE) ...................................... 44 

7.5. 

Preferred option ........................................................................................................... 47 

7.6.  Monitoring of a future Implementing Protocol ............................................................ 47 

ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION............................................................................................. 49 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ................................................... 51 

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

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ......................................... 53 

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

a. 
cost  59 

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

b. 
appropriate quantity and quality at the best price ........................................................... 60 

d.  Relevance – the extent to which the objectives of the Protocol match current 
needs and problems ............................................................................................................. 61 

e.  Coherence – The extent to which the Agreement and its Protocol do not 
contradict other interventions with similar objectives ..................................................... 62 

f. 
The EU added value – The extent to which the intervention brings EU added 
value  ..................................................................................................................................... 64 

g.  Acceptability – The extent to which stakeholders accept the policy in general and 
the particular instrument proposed or employed ............................................................. 65 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ........................................................................... 66 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................................. 69 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Definition 

ACP 

CFP 

EDF 

EEZ 

ERS 

EU 

FAO 

FMC 

FTE 

IOTC 

Africa, Caribbean and Pacific 

Common Fisheries Policy 

European Development Fund 

Exclusive economic zone  

Electronic reporting system  

European Union 

Food and Agriculture Organisation 

Fisheries monitoring centre 

Full-time equivalent 

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission 

IUU fishing 

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. 

MCS 

RFMOs 

SFPA 

VMS 

WB 

Monitoring, control and surveillance  

Regional fisheries management organisations 

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement 

Vessel monitoring system 

World Bank 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1.  Purpose of the evaluation 

Under  the  external  dimension  of  the  EU’s  Common  Fishery  Policy  (CFP)1,  the 
Commission negotiates and implements Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements 
(SFPAs) with non-EU countries.  

The SFPAs create a legal, environmental economic and social governance framework 
for fishing activities carried out by Union fishing vessels in non-EU-country waters. In 
exchange,  the  EU  provides  that  non-EU  country  with  financial  compensation  for 
access  to  its  waters  and  financial  assistance  to  implement  a  national  strategy  for 
sustainable fisheries, ocean governance, and the blue economy. The EU contribution is 
complemented by fees payable by EU vessel owners. 

Under Article 3(1)(d) and (e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 
the EU has exclusive powers on the conservation of marine biological resources under 
the  CFP.  The  European  Commission  is  therefore  responsible  for  negotiating  and 
implementing the SFPAs. 

Under  Article 31(10)  of  the  CFP  Basic  Regulation1,  the  European  Commission  must 
also  arrange for  ex post  and ex ante evaluations  of each  Implementing  Protocol  to  an 
SFPA before recommending that the Council authorise the opening of negotiations for 
a  successor  protocol.  These  evaluations  aim  to  inform  decision  makers  before  they 
adopt a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the EU. 

This  obligation  is  complemented  by  Article 34  of  the  Financial  Regulation2,  which 
requires  evaluations  for  all  programmes  and  activities  which  entail  significant 
spending to be subject to ex ante and retrospective evaluations. 

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

1.2. 

Scope of the evaluation 

This  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)  makes  an  ex post  and  an  ex ante  evaluation 
covering  the  application  of  the  current  Implementing  Protocol  of  the  Fisheries 
Partnership concluded between the EU and the Republic of Mauritius Agreement (the 

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

28.12.2013, p. 22) 

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

1 

 
 
 
Agreement).  These  evaluations  are  primarily  informed  by  an  evaluation  study 
conducted by an independent consultant. 

The  ex post  evaluation  covers  most  of  the  period  of  application  of  the  current 
Implementing Protocol of the Agreement (from December 2022 to November 2025). It 
provides an overall assessment of the Implementing Protocol, drawing conclusions in 
terms  of  its  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence,  acceptance,  and  the  EU 
added  value  of  the  intervention.  The  detailed  evaluation  questions  corresponding  to 
these evaluation criteria can be found in Annex III and are further addressed in Section 
4. 

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

Finally,  the  ex ante  evaluation  considers  the  possible  impacts  of  the  following  three 
scenarios: 

•  No negotiation with a view to concluding a new Implementing Protocol; 
•  No change to the current Agreement and Protocol (status quo); 
•  Negotiation of a new Agreement with a revised Implementing Protocol. 

1.3.  Methodology of the evaluation 

The  results  of  this  SWD  are  mainly  informed  by  an  evaluation  conducted  by  an 
independent  consultant.  This  evaluation  study  took  place  from  August 2025  to 
November 2025  under  the  guidance  of  an  interservice  group  established  by  different 
services  of  the  European  Commission  and  under  the  terms  of  reference  of  specific 
contract  number 14  under the framework contract MARE/2021/OP/0001. It  consisted 
of:  (i) analysis  of  available  information;  (ii) consultations;  and  (iii) preparation  of  an 
evaluation report. 

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

On the consultation, the independent consultant consulted stakeholders in the EU and 
Mauritius  (EU  stakeholders  between  October  and  November  2025;  Mauritius 
stakeholders  during  the  consultant’s  visit  to  Mauritius  in  October  2025).  A  ‘call  for 
evidence’ document for feedback for the period September-November 20253 was also 
published on the Commission’s Have Your Say Portal. For more detailed information 
about the stakeholder consultations, see Annex V ‘Synopsis Report’. 

The  independent  consultant  sent  the  evaluation  to  the  European  Commission  in 
December  2025  and  the  overall  level  and  quality  of  findings  gathered  is  robust. 
Nevertheless,  this  SWD  and  the  evaluation  on  which  it  is  based  consider  all 

3  EU-Mauritius fisheries agreement – negotiation mandate for a new protocol 

2 

 
 
information available as of November 2025. They do not consider information beyond 
this date, because the evaluation must be finalised at least a year before the expiry of 
the  Implementing  Protocol  to  obtain  a  mandate  for  negotiation  and  subsequently 
negotiate a successor protocol. 

See  Annex II  for  detailed  information  on  the  methodology,  including  information  on 
how the supporting evaluation study was conducted. 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

2.1.1 

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs) 

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

The SFPAs establish a legal, environmental economic and social governance framework 
for  fishing  activities  carried  out  by  Union  fishing  vessels  in  non-EU-country  waters. 
Under  the  framework  of  the  SFPAs,  Union  vessels  may  only  catch  surplus  of  the 
allowable catch, as  provided  in  Article 62(2) and (3) of the  United Nations Convention 
on  the  Law  of  the  Sea4.  This  surplus  must  be  identified,  in  a  clear  and  transparent 
manner,  on  the  basis  of  the  best  available  scientific  advice.  In  addition,  to  ensure  the 
sustainable  exploitation  of  surpluses  of  marine  biological  resources,  the  EU  must 
endeavour to ensure that the SFPAs are mutually beneficial to the EU and to the non-EU 
country concerned, including its local population and fishing industry. 

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

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

through 

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

3 

 
 
 
 
The implementation of an SFPA and its Implementing Protocol is monitored by a Joint 
Committee  composed  of  representatives  from  both  the  EU  and  the  SFPA  partner 
country. 

In July 2011, the Commission adopted a Communication on the external dimension of 
the  CFP5  and  proposed  several  actions  to  reform  SFPAs.  The  Council  adopted 
Conclusions regarding the External Dimension of the CFP on 19 March 20126 and the 
European Parliament expressed its views in a report adopted in November 20127. 

General and specific objectives of Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements 

The  overarching  objective  of  the  external  dimension  of  the  CFP  is  to  promote  high 
standards in fisheries management at international and regional levels and under bilateral 
agreements in order to ensure a level playing field.  
SFPAs have the following objectives5: 

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

a.  directing  fisheries  to  exclusively  target  surplus  resources  and  preventing  the 
overfishing of stocks, on the basis of the best scientific advice and more transparency 
on the global fishing efforts in non-EU countries’ waters; 

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

management applied in EU waters; 

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

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

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

linked to the fleets operating within SFPAs by: 

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

EU fleets’ interests; 

b.  ensuring that the level of fees payable by Union shipowners for their fishing activities 
is fair, non-discriminatory and commensurate with the benefits provided through the 
access conditions while avoiding any discriminatory treatment towards Union vessels 
and promoting a level playing field among the different fleets; 

c.  ensuring supply for the EU and for the markets of certain developing countries; 
d.  encouraging  the  creation  of  a  secure  environment  that  is  favourable  to  private 

investment and economic activities; and 

e.  taking into account the specific interests of the EU’s outermost regions located in the 

vicinity. 

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

countries by: 

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

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

5  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  the  External  Dimension  of  the  Common 
Fisheries Policy, COM(2011) 424 final, 13.7.2011. 

6  Council 

conclusions 

on 

the 

external 

dimension 

of 

the  CFP, 

19.3.2012, 

7086/12 

(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/129052.pdf) 

7  European Parliament’s report on the External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy, 22.11.2012. 

4 

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

sustainable fishing activities; 

c.  assessing  the  results  obtained  in  terms  of  impacts  and  budgetary  and  financial 

requirements; and 

d.  promoting 

the  employment  of 

infrastructures  and 
local  fishers, 
encouraging  landings,  supporting  the  non-EU  country  in  developing  local  fisheries 
and processing industry. 

improving 

2.1.2 

Fisheries  Partnership  Agreement  (FPA)  between  the  EU  and  the 
Republic of Mauritius 

The FPA between the EU and the Republic of Mauritius and its current Implementing 
Protocol  provide  fishing  opportunities  to  fish  for  Union  fishing  vessels  in  Mauritius’ 
waters and provides significant sectoral support for the sustainable development of the 
national fisheries and blue economy sectors. 

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

The EU and Mauritius concluded a Fisheries Partnership Agreement on 21 December 
2013,  for  six  years  and  automatically  renews  for  three-year  period.  The  current 
Implementing  Protocol  covers  the  period  from  21 December  2022  to  20 December 
2026. 

The  agreement  with  Mauritius  is  a  bilateral  agreement  for  highly  migratory  species. 
Species  covered  under  the  current  Protocol  are  highly  migratory  species  listed  in 
Annex I  to  the  United  Nations  Convention  on  the  Laws  of  the  Sea.  The  current 
Protocol  provides  fishing  opportunities  for  a  maximum  of  40  EU  tuna  purse  seiners 
and  45  EU  surface  longliners.  The  Protocol  allows  EU  vessels  from  France,  Italy, 
Portugal and Spain to fish in Mauritius’ exclusive economic zone. 

The  current  Protocol  includes  an  annual  EU  financial  contribution  for  access  – 
EUR 275 000 – plus a separate contribution for sectoral support – EUR 450 000. The 
EU  contribution  is  complemented  by  fees  payable  by  EU  vessel  owners  on  licences 
and catches. 

The following table sets out  the main features of the Protocol  implementing the EU-
Mauritius FPA for the period 2022-2026. 

5 

 
 
 
Main elements of the current implementing Protocol of the Fisheries Partnership 
Agreement between the EU and Mauritius 
Duration of the FPA  

Six years initially, then tacitly renewed for additional periods of 
three years.  
28 January 2014  

Date of entry into force 
of FPA  
Date of provisional 
application of 
Protocol  
Duration of the 
Protocol  
Maximum number of 
EU vessels authorised  

Species authorised  

Annual counterpart 
finance by the EU  

Vessel 
operator contributions  

21 December 2022 (entry into force: 7 September 2023) *  

Four years – ending on 20 December 2026  

•  40 tuna purse seiners. 
•  45 surface longliners. 
•  Supply vessels with number in line with IOTC rules.  

Tunas and associated species: highly migratory species listed in 
Annex I to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the 
Sea, with the exception of some shark species and other 
species which are protected or prohibited under the laws 
of Mauritius, the framework of the IOTC or other international 
agreements.  

•  EUR 275 000 per year for access to 
the Mauritius fishing zone 
 Financial compensation for access corresponds to a 
reference tonnage of 5 500 tonnes. Catch exceeding the 
reference tonnage is subject to a payment of EUR 50 for 
each additional tonne. 
•  EUR 450 000 per year for the support and 
implementation of the Mauritius’ national fisheries policy 
and related policies.  
For each tuna purse seiner 

•  Annual non-recoverable advance payment of 
EUR 9 360 representing 117 tonnes catch at EUR 80 per 
tonne. 
•  EUR 20 per fishing day contribution to observer 
scheme. 

For each surface longliner 

•  > 100 GT: Annual non-recoverable advance payment of 
EUR 4 560 representing 57 tonnes of catch at EUR 80 per 
tonne. 
•  < 100 GT: Annual non-recoverable advance payment of 
EUR 2 400 representing 30 tonnes of catch at EUR 80 per 
tonne. 

For each supply vessel 

•  Annual authorisation fee of EUR 5 000.  

The  sectoral  support  component  is  used  for  activities  planned  for  (1)  Sustainable 
development of Mauritius’ fisheries policy or (2) Development of the maritime policy 
and ocean economy. 

The following graphic illustrates the intervention logic. It seeks to connect the needs, 
objectives,  activities  and  expected  achievements.  The  expected  achievements  are 
broken down into the impacts, outcomes and outputs of the Implementing Protocol. 

6 

 
Intervention logic of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Mauritius, and its current Implementing Protocol 

7 

 
 
 
2.2.  Point(s) of comparison 

The EU and  Mauritius have a long  history in the area of fisheries. The first fisheries 
agreement  concluded  between  the  EU  and  Mauritius  dates  back  from  1989.  On 
21 December 2013, the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius signed a new 
FPA, initially for six years, then tacitly renewed for additional periods of three years. 

Before  the  current  Protocol,  the  former  Protocol  started  on  8 December  2017  and 
ended  on  7 December  2021.  A  prolongation  of  the  Protocol  was  agreed  and  signed 
through  an  exchange  of  letters  and  started  on  1 January  2022,  for  a  period  of  six 
months8. 

The  most  relevant  and  accessible  point  of  comparison  is  the  previous  Implementing 
Protocol under the Fisheries Partnership Agreement. 

Under the 2017-2021 Protocol (for which the evaluation covered the period 2017-20)9: 
-  EU fleet access to the waters of Mauritius was granted to up to 40 purse seiners, 

- 

45 surface longliners and up to 20 support vessels. 
the  annual  mean  catch  of  tropical  tuna  was  2 843 t  (71%  of  reference  tonnage), 
and the generated income for Mauritius: 

o  EUR 1 million per year (mean catch value per year). 
o  EUR 630 000 per year of implementation (total of contributions from the 

EU and shipowners) 

The  fishery  resource  targeted  by  the  EU  fleet  is  scientifically  assessed  by  the  Indian 
Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), the relevant RFMO. 

-  The status of the three main targeted stocks is as follows. 

o  Yellow fin tuna: not overfished, no overfishing occurring 
o  Big eye tuna: overfished, overfishing occurring 
o  Skipjack: not overfished, no overfishing occurring 

(Indicators  relate  to  biomass  for  overfished  status  and  to  fishing  mortality  for 
overfishing  status).  See  Annex 4  of  the  evaluation  report  for  the  species 
concerned.  

-  The  average  annual  turnover  of  the  EU  fishing  fleet  from  catch  obtained  in 
Mauritian  waters  amounted  to  EUR 5.6  million  between  2018  and  2019.  EU 
fishing activities supported the creation of EUR 2.5 million gross value added and 
EUR 754 000  gross  profit.  Mauritius  received  26%  of  the  total  value  added, 
mainly through payments for access and activities in the fish processing sector. 
-  Level  and  repartition  of  the  generated  added  value:  Considering  cost-benefit 
ratios  in  relation  to  gross  value  added,  the  main  finding  is  that  every  EUR 1 

8 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/2022/614/oj 

9  Reference  pages  in  this  section  are  to  the  evaluation  final  report  of  April  2021  of  SC  No 17  under 
MARE  2015/23  framework  contract  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/be51d65b-
bf5d-11eb-a925-01aa75ed71a1 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
invested by the EU in the compensation payment for access supports the creation 
of  EUR 20.53  in  value  added,  all  entities  included.  For  the  EU,  the  gross  value 
added  multiplier  is  positive,  with  every  EUR 1  invested  by  the  EU  in  the 
compensation payment for access supporting the creation of EUR 10.57 in value 
added. 

-  The Protocol is estimated to support a total of 110 full-time equivalents (through 
both direct and indirect employment). In total, our estimates indicate that almost 
100  full-time  equivalents  are  supported  by  the  Protocol  in  upstream  and 
downstream ancillary industries in the EU and Mauritius, with a large majority of 
them (88%) in the downstream sector (marketing and processing of catch). 

-  The Protocol made provisions for (i) an annual budget of EUR 220 000 to support 
the  implementation  of  Mauritius’  sectoral  fisheries  policy  and  (ii)  an  additional 
(annual) amount of EUR 135 000 to support the development of maritime policy 
and  ocean  economy  (i.e.  EUR 1.42 million  in  total  over  the  duration  of  the 
Protocol). 

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

3.1.  Current state of play 

The current status of the implementation of the Protocol is as follows: 

3.2.  Utilisation of fishing opportunities 

On an annual average, almost 47% of the maximum number of 40 fishing licences for 
all  EU  tuna  purse  seiners  were  granted  in  the  period  2023-2025;  and  39%  of  the 
maximum number of  45 fishing  licences for  all  EU surface longliners over the same 
period,  and  an  annual  average  of  58%  when  considering  both  fishing  categories 
combined.)10. 

Average annual fishing authorisations granted to EU vessels (per vessel category) in 
the FPA fishing zone (as of September 2025) 

2023 

2024 

2025* 

Average 

Tuna purse seiners 
(Maximum 40)  

Surface longliners 
(Maximum 45)  
Both categories 
(Maximum 95)  

60% 

40% 

40% 

47% 

40% 

38% 

38% 

39% 

44% 

35% 

35% 

38% 

10  See report, page 15 

9 

 
 
 
 
3.3.  Catches 

Total catches of all species obtained by EU tuna vessels in the Mauritius fishing zone 
amounted to an annual average of 662 tonnes between 2023 and 2024. 

For  both  2023  and  2024,  EU  catches  were  below  the  reference  tonnage  of  5  500 
tonnes identified by the Protocol to establish the EU financial contribution for access 
(12%  on  average  over  2023-2024,  and  21%  and  4%  in  2023  and  2024  respectively). 
Close to 90% of EU catches in the Mauritius fishing zone were obtained by EU tuna 
purse seiners, with comparatively lower contributions by the EU surface longline fleet. 

Annual catch of EU tuna vessels in the Mauritius fishing zone by fishing category and 
flag Member State (2023 – 2024, tonnes) 

Tuna purse seiners, of which:  
Spain  
France  
Italy  
Surface longliners, of which:  
Spain  
France  
Portugal  
TOTAL  

2023  
1 032  
629  
403  
0  
98  
0  
98  
0  
1 130  

2024*  
167  
83  
84  
0  
27  
0  
27  
0  
194  

Average  
599  
356  
244  
0  
63  
0  
63  
0  
662  

3.4.  Scientific cooperation 

The stocks targeted by the EU fleet are scientifically evaluated by the IOTC, which is 
the relevant RFMO both the EU and Mauritius belong to and which has provided the 
best  available  scientific  advice  for  the  management  decisions  taken  by  Joint 
Committee. 

Scientific  cooperation  between  the  EU  and  Mauritius  takes  place  within  the 
multilateral  framework  of  the  IOTC,  whereas  sectoral  support  is  also  granted  for 
having  contributed  to  the  improving  of  the  statistical  coverage  of  Mauritius  fisheries 
and the participation of Mauritius delegates in the IOTC meetings. 

Tuna and tuna-like species are under the management of the IOTC. The status of the 
three main targeted stock (yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, skipjack tuna) was assessed as 
follows11 (p. 18 Table 7): 

•  Yellowfin  tuna:  not  overfished,  no  overfishing  occurring.  The  yellowfin  tuna 
stock  was  assessed  as  both  overfished  and  subject  to  overfishing  until  2023.  In 
2024,  a  new  stock  assessment  concluded  on  a  level  of  exploitation  within 
sustainable limits, with an 89% probability. EU purse seiners  caught about 16% 
of total yellowfin tuna catch in the Indian Ocean. 

11  Indicators relate to biomass for overfished status and to fishing mortality for overfishing status, for a 

concerned species. 

10 

 
 
 
 
•  Big eye tuna: overfished, overfishing occurring. The situation of the bigeye tuna 
deteriorated, moving from a situation of the stock being subject to overfishing but 
not  overfished  between  2019  and  2021,  to  one  from  2022  where  the  stock  has 
been both overfished and subject to overfishing. A full assessment of the stock is 
ongoing in 2025. Its preliminary findings are available in the online report(s) on 
the  28th  session  of  the  IOTC  scientific  committee  meeting  from  1-5 December 
2025.  EU  purse  seiners  caught  about  9%  of  the  total  bigeye  tuna  catch  in  the 
Indian Ocean. 

•  Skipjack: not overfished, no overfishing occurring. The skipjack stock remained 
within  sustainability  limits  over  the  period  covered  by  the  current  Protocol.  EU 
purse seiners caught about 20% of total skipjack catch in the Indian Ocean. 

Both species targeted by EU surface longliners (swordfish and blue shark) are within 
sustainability  limits.  The  situation  of  the  swordfish  stock  was  assessed  in  2022.  EU 
surface longline catches represented about 10% of the total catch of both species. 

The stocks listed above are exploited by the fishing fleets of the 29 contracting parties 
of the IOTC in all areas of the Indian Ocean, including the high sea and in areas under 
national jurisdictions (including Mauritius), with the EU accounting for between 10% 
and 20% of total catches depending on the species.  

Conservation  and  management  measures  are  adopted  within 
the  multilateral 
framework  of  the  IOTC.  They  include  technical  measures  such  as  capacity  limits, 
catch  limits,  time  closure,  landing  obligation  and  limits  on  the  number  of  fish 
aggregating  devices,  and  monitoring  measures  such  as  vessel  monitoring  systems 
(VMS), catch declarations, observer coverage and port inspections. IOTC conservation 
and  management  measures  apply  to  all  tuna  fishing  activities,  including  those  taking 
place in the Mauritius fishing zone. 

3.5.Technical measures 

3.5.1.  Monitoring, control and surveillance 

Chapter  V  of  the  Annex  to  the  Protocol  lays  down  the  monitoring,  control  and 
inspection  regime  that  applies  to  all  EU  tuna  vessels  operating  in  Mauritius’  fishing 
zone. 

Catch declarations 

During the first years the protocol applied, catch declarations were missing from some 
of the  reporting  of  catches of the EU tuna purse seiners. Both  parties confirmed that 
this  improved  from  October  2024  and  did  not  trigger  a  need  for  further  corrective 
adjustments. To improve catch declarations further, at the last joint committee meeting 
in January 2025 the parties agreed to exchange catch data on a three-month basis and 
establish a small technical working group. 

Electronic Reporting System (ERS) 

11 

 
 
The ERS became operational  in  September 2024 for Mauritian industrial  vessels and 
from October 2024 for EU vessels. It will be obligatory for Mauritian semi-industrial 
vessels from December 2025. 

EU tuna vessels that are authorised to access the Mauritius fishing zone report to their 
flag  Member  State  that  they  have  been  using  ERS  in  line  with  the  EU  Control 
Regulation12  since  2012.  Mauritius’ 
trialled 
implementing  the  ERS  on  the  national  purse  seine  fleet  (13  vessels),  with  financial 
support from the sectoral support programme. 

tuna  vessels  have  successfully 

Since October 2024, catch reporting by EU vessels has improved with the introduction 
of the ERS catch reporting system. All parties to the FPA support(ed) the transition to 
an ERS  because  of the simplification provided by the system.  Implementation of the 
ERS  is  also  simplifying  the  monitoring  of  the  EU  fleet  and  providing  relevant  and 
timely  information.  The  Mauritius’  authorities  cross  check  catch  data  against  a 
summary from the VMS unit for EU vessels in Mauritian waters. 

Surveillance and control 

Sectoral support also includes increased monitoring, control and surveillance. Sectoral 
support  funds  have  enabled  upgrades  to  the  FMC  and  VMS.  Those  upgrades  allow 
multiple  agencies  to  simultaneously  view  automatic  identification  system  (AIS)  and 
VMS  data  on  the  same  platform  or  map,  which  improves  monitoring.  EU  vessels 
generally  complying  with  entry  and  exit  requirements,  and  the  Mauritian  authorities 
have been able to detect instances of non-compliance (one in 2023 and one in 2024). 

3.5.2.  Employment of national fishers on board of EU vessels 

The EU purse seine fleet did not meet the employment target set in the Protocol (of at 
least  14 qualified  Mauritian  fishers  on  each  EU  purse  seiner  when  operating  in  the 
Mauritius fishing zone). Minutes of the Joint Committee report that no seafarers were 
embarked onboard EU vessels during the application of the previous protocol. No list 
was provided for 2024,  so the EU vessels owners will not pay any compensation for 
that year. Mauritius will provide the EU with an updated list for 2025. 

3.5.3.  Observers 

The Protocol’s clauses on embarking observers designated by Mauritius on EU vessels 
were not implemented.  In the minutes of the last  joint  committee  meeting, Mauritius 
detailed actions taken to replace the previous pool of observers, namely the provision 

12  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 1224/2009  of  20 November  2009  establishing  a  Community  control 
system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations 
(EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) 
No 2166/2005,  (EC)  No 388/2006,  (EC)  No 509/2007,  (EC)  No 676/2007,  (EC)  No 1098/2007,  (EC) 
No 1300/2008,  (EC)  No 1342/2008  and  repealing  Regulations  (EEC)  No 2847/93,  (EC)  No 1627/94 
and (EC) No 1966/2006. OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1-50 

12 

 
 
 
for  trainings,  the  organisation  of  workshops,  and  the  upcoming  reciprocal  fishing 
agreement with Seychelles. 

In  addition,  the  sectoral  support  programme  committed  on  activities  supporting 
improved  monitoring  of fishing  fleets  and  control  and  surveillance  activities.  Results 
obtained included training and deployment of observers. 

3.6.  Sectoral support component 

The  current  Implementing  Protocol  has  earmarked  a  budget  of  EUR 450 000  over  a 
period  of  four  years  to  contribute  to  the  implementation  of  the  national  strategy  for 
fisheries  and  maritime  policy  and  the  blue  economy  and  support  the  sustainable 
management  of  fishery  resources  and  the  development  of  the  fisheries  sector  in 
Mauritius. 

3.6.1.  Monitoring of sectoral support 

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

Article 7  of  the  Protocol  to  the  FPA  gives  the  possibility  to  the  Joint  Committee  to 
adopt  recommendations  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  and  reporting  on  the 
sectoral support programme contributing towards Mauritius’s fisheries policy. 

The Mauritian authorities are also required to produce an annual report on the actions 
implemented  and  the  results  achieved  with  sectoral  support.  The  report  must  be 
examined by the Joint Committee (Article 7, point 5 of the Protocol), and for the two 
parties to ensure the visibility of actions implemented through the sectoral support. 

To date, the Joint Committee has held one meeting in Brussels in March 2023 and one 
meeting in Mauritius in January 2025. 

The EU monitors the implementation of the sectoral support on the basis of supporting 
documents supplied by the Ministry of Agro-Industry, Food Security, Blue Economy 
and Fisheries and through technical missions. 

3.6.2.  Payment of sectoral support 

The  current  Implementing  Protocol  has  earmarked  an  EU  financial  contribution  of 
EUR 450 000 per year for sectoral support, i.e. EUR 1.8 million for the total duration 
of the protocol (2022-2026). The current Implementing Protocol provides for the EU to 
suspend payments in whole or in part if the Joint Committee considers that results are 
not in line with programming. 

EU  sectoral  support  payments  have  been  made  on  time  in  keeping  with  the  rules  set 
out  in  the  Protocol  and  in  the  sectoral  support  implementing  guidelines  approved  by 
the Joint Committee. 

13 

 
History of payments of the annual tranches of the sectoral support under the current 
Protocol 

Annual tranches 

Tranche 1/4 

Date  paid 
by the EU 
13/07/2025 

Tranche 2/4 

24/02/2025 

Tranche 3/4 
(expected Q2 2026) 
Tranche 4/4 
(expected Q4 2026) 

Decision basis 

Approval  of  the  multiannual  programme  and  of  the  first 
annual work programme during the joint committee meeting 
Validation  in  the  January  2025  joint  committee  meeting  of 
the  75%  financial  execution  rate  of  the  budget  for  the  first 
annual programme  
Depends on the developments by the end of 2025 

Depends on the developments during 2026 

As  of  December  2025,  Mauritius  had  been  paid  by  two  out  of  four  annual  tranches, 
representing a total payment of EUR 900 000 (50% of the maximum EU contribution 
for the planned sectoral support). 

3.7.  Financial aspects 

•  Average income generated for Mauritius for access: EUR 1.1 million (EU yearly 

public contribution plus shipowners’ contribution). 

•  Every  euro  of  public  investment  is  estimated  to  generate  EUR 4.01  in  added 
value:  EUR 1.43  for  the  EU;  EUR 1.48  for  Mauritius;  and  EUR 1.09  for  other 
entities. 

•  Direct  and  indirect  employment:  the  number  of  full-time  equivalent  (FTE)  jobs 
directly linked to  the protocol  is  close to  21, including  an estimated  5 FTEs for 
Mauritius  national  employee  as  crew.  Estimate  indicates  almost  16  FTEs 
indirectly linked to the protocol in ancillary industries. 

•  Sectoral  support  contribution  transferred  to  Mauritius:  EUR 900 000  up  to 

December 2025. 

3.8.  Reporting obligations 

Reporting  obligations  stem  from  EU  legislation  that  obliges  Member  States’ 
authorities,  private  organisations  and/or  public  organisations  to  periodically  send 
structured or unstructured data (qualitative or quantitative) to competent authorities at 
EU or national level13. 

13  Administrative burden – rationalisation of reporting requirements (europa.eu). The notion of reporting 
requirements  includes  the  provision  of  information  from  businesses  to  other  businesses  or  from 
businesses  to  consumers,  while  certification,  labelling,  permitting,  and  similar  processes  are  not 
included. 

14 

 
 
 
 
With one exception, the current FPA/Protocol does not entail any reporting obligations 
over  and  above  those  which  would  otherwise  be  required,  or  which  were  required 
under  the  previous  Protocol.  The  only  exception  is  the  Protocol  requirement  for 
Mauritius to submit an annual report on the implementation of the sectoral support and 
a final report before the expiry of the Protocol (Article 7, point 5). 

Reporting obligation  

EU shipowners 
Submission  of  an  application  for  fishing 
authorisation (Annex, Chapter II)  

Additional  to  previous  Protocol,  other 
EU,  Mauritius,  or  IOTC  legislation  and 
requirements? 

No 
(requirements  included  in  the  previous 
Protocol,  and  required  by  the  Mauritius 
Marine  Resources  Act,  2007  and  the 
Fisheries Act, 2023)  

EU shipowners 
Notification  of  entering  or  exiting  the 
Mauritius fishing zone, including through 
(Annex, 
the  ERS  when  established 
Chapter V, Article 1)  

No 
(requirement  included  in  the  previous 
Protocol  and  required  by  the  Mauritius 
Marine  Resources  Act,  2007  and  the 
Fisheries Act, 2023)  

No 
(requirements  included  in  the  previous 
Protocol,  and 
required  by  Control 
Regulation (EU) 1224/2009 as amended 
by  Regulation  (EU) 2023/2842,  IOTC 
Resolution 25/05,  and 
the  Mauritius 
Marine  Resources  Act,  2007  and  the 
Fisheries Act, 2023)  
No 
(requirements  included  in  the  previous 
Protocol,  and 
required  by  Control 
Regulation  (EU) 1224/2009 as  amended 
by  Regulation  (EU) 2023/2842,  IOTC 
Resolution 15/01  and 
the  Mauritius 
Marine  Resources  Act,  2007  and  the 
Fisheries Act, 2023)  
No (required by IOTC Resolution 25/06 
and Mauritius Fisheries Act, 2023)  

No  
(required 
(EU) 1224/2009 
Regulation (EU) 2023/2842)  

by  Control  Regulation 
by 

amended 

as 

EU shipowners 
Advance notice of intended landings and 
transshipments 
the  Mauritius 
in 
designated port (Annex, Chapter IV)  

EU shipowners 
Reporting 
using 
electronic  logbooks  once  the  ERS  is 
operational (Annex, Chapter III)  

of catches, 

and 

Observers 
Observer  report  submitted  to  master  of 
vessel and Mauritius authorities  
Mauritius authorities 
Infringements  included  in  an  inspection 
report 
the  Mauritius 
authorities, to vessel owners, and the EU 
(Annex, Chapter IV, paragraph 12) 

to  be  sent  by 

15 

 
shipowners and EU Member 

EU 
State authorities 
Reporting  of  vessel  positions  through 
satellite-based  vessel  tracking  device or 
VMS (Annex, Chapter VI)  

EU DG MARE and Mauritius authorities 
Drawing  up  an  annual  statement  of  fees 
(Annex, Chapter III)  
EU DG MARE and Mauritius authorities 
Mutual  exchange  of  catch  data  every 
quarter 
Chapter III, 
(Annex, 
paragraphs 18 and 19)  
Mauritius authorities 
Annual  reporting  on  the  implementation 
of the sectoral support, and preparation of 
a  final  report  before  the  end  of  the 
the 
Protocol 
Protocol) 

(Article 7,  point 5  of 

No 
(requirement  applicable  as  a  result  of 
Control  Regulation  (EU) 1224/2009  as 
Regulation 
amended 
by 
(EU) 2023/2842, 
IOTC 
the  Mauritius 
Resolution 25/02  and 
Marine  Resources  Act,  2007  and  the 
Fisheries Act, 2023)  
No 
(requirements included in the previous 
Protocol) 
No 
(requirement  included  in  the  previous 
Protocol) 

No 
(requirement  included  in  the  previous 
Protocol) 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

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

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

Objective:  contribute  to  the  conservation  of  resources  and  environmental 
sustainability  through  rational  and  sustainable  exploitation  of  Mauritius’  fisheries 
resources 

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

The Protocol relates to the resources of highly migratory species distributed throughout 
the Indian Ocean. The surplus is therefore calculated through the management measures 
for highly migratory species, subject to the management of the IOTC. 

The  most  recent  scientific  review  of  the  stocks  targeted  by  the  EU  tuna  fleet  in  the 
Mauritius  fishing  zone  shows  that  all  species  are  exploited  within  sustainability  limits, 
except bigeye tuna which is overfished and subject to overfishing and for which the EU 
catches about 9% of total catch in the Indian Ocean. 

The management of stocks targeted by the EU tuna fleet in the Mauritius’ fishing zone is 
under  the  mandate  of  the  IOTC  to  which  both  the  EU  and  Mauritius  are  contracting 
parties. Specific  conservation and management  measures adopted by  IOTC  apply  to  all 

16 

 
RFMO  contracting  parties  fishing  entities,  including  the  EU  and  Mauritius,  wherever 
they operate. The Protocol does not derogate from or conflict with any of these rules, and 
EU  tuna  fleet  fishing  capacity  and  their  supply  vessels  operating  under  the  Agreement 
have not exceeded the limits established by the IOTC and by the Protocol. Other IOTC 
conservation and management measures (such as catch limits and limits on the number of 
fish  aggregating  devices)  apply  at  the  level  of  the  Indian  Ocean,  with  no  specific 
measures applying solely in the Mauritius fishing zone. 

Mauritius takes part in the work of the IOTC, as evidenced by the presence of Mauritian 
delegates  at  plenary  and  technical  meetings.  Based  on  the  reports  of  the  IOTC 
compliance  committee,  Mauritius  reached  a  high  compliance  rate  (see  Table 37  on 
page 75),  above  the  average  performance  of  other  IOTC  contracting  parties  and 
cooperating  non-contracting  parties.  Mauritius  provides  data  in  the  Ministry’s  Annual 
Report on Performance. 

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

Ecosystem  protection  measures  implemented  by  EU  tuna  vessel  operators  in  the 
Mauritius  fishing  zone and in  the broader  Indian Ocean follow  IOTC  conservation and 
management measures. 

The  French  surface  longline  fleet  utilising  fishing  opportunities  do  not  target  shark 
species.  EU  surface  longliners’  catches  are  dominated  by  swordfish  and  tuna  species, 
with smaller catches of other species such as blue marlin (Makaira nigricans). 

The Mauritius Fisheries Act 2023 has as a general principle that an ecosystem approach 
must  be  applied  to  the  management  and  development  of  fisheries  and  aquaculture14. 
Part IV.12.2a  of  the  Act  requires  that  conservation  and  management  measures  include 
management  of  bycatch,  while  Part  IV.22  specifically  deals  with  management  of 
bycatch. 

Furthermore,  EU  purse  seine  operators  using  fishing  opportunities  available  under  the 
Protocol  implemented  unilateral  measures  to  minimise  ecosystem  impacts  of  their 
activities  through  Fisheries  Improvement  Plans.  Those  unilateral  measures  apply  to  all 
activities  of  purse  seiners  (including  those  in  the  Mauritius  fishing  zone)  and  their 
implementation status is publicly available on the internet15. 

Improvement of technical and scientific assessment of the fisheries 

EU  fishing  activities  in  the  Mauritius  fishing  zone  are  subject  to  reporting  obligations 
mandated  by  IOTC  and  the  EU  CFP  for  any  vessels  authorised  to  target  tuna  in  the 
Indian Ocean. Moreover, EU tuna fisheries are included within the scope of the EU Data 

14  (Article 5.f);  and  activities  and  measures  taken  under  the  Act  should  aim  at  protecting  and  enhancing 
biodiversity  to  eliminate  or  minimise:  (i)  waste,  bycatch,  discards,  regulatory  discards,  economic 
discards and catch by lost or abandoned gear; (ii) catch of non-target species; (iii) catch of critically 
endangered species; and (iv) pollution (Article 5.g). 

15  https://fisheryprogress.org/fip-profile/indian-ocean-tuna-purse-seine-sioti 

17 

 
 
Collection  Programme16  aimed  at  collecting  specific  biological  and  economic 
information on EU fishing activities. The Protocol does not impose additional reporting 
or data collection obligations. 

While  the  EU  reporting  of  catches  of  non-target  species  (bycatches)  was  not  up  to 
expectations  during  the  first  years  of  the  Protocol,  with  declarations  missing  or  not 
fulfilling  IOTC  standards,  the  quality  of  the  declaration  has  satisfied  IOTC  standards 
since 2024 and the introduction of the ERS. 

EU fishing activities are reported as evidenced by the EU annual reports to the IOTC and 
used by EU scientific institutes and the IOTC scientific committee for stock assessment 
and evaluation of ecosystem impacts. Data supplied by EU operators to IOTC go beyond 
the  minimum  requirements,  in  particular  as  a  result  of  the  voluntary  100%  observer 
coverage implemented by EU operators to ensure full transparency of their operations. 

Records of IOTC meetings available from its website show that both EU and Mauritius’ 
delegates  attended  the  meetings  of  the  IOTC  scientific  committee  over  the  past  few 
years.  Data  collected  on  the  EU  purse  seine  fleet  form  an  essential  part  of  fisheries-
dependent-information used by the IOTC scientific committee for the assessment of the 
status of key tuna stocks in the Indian Ocean. 

Ensuring control and compliance with EU fleet rules 

The Protocol considered specific provisions for the monitoring of the EU fleet authorised 
to  access  the  Mauritius  fishing  zone.  Provisions  included  monitoring  of  vessel  position 
through  satellites  (using  VMS),  timely  submission  of  logbooks  and  observer  reports  to 
Mauritius, quarterly monitoring of total catch, and entry-exit notifications. The Protocol 
complemented monitoring obligations imposed on flag States by the  IOTC and general 
monitoring and control  provisions set  out  by the EU control system17  applicable to  EU 
vessels wherever they operate. 

One  of  the  objectives  of  the  Protocol  was  to  implement  an  ERS  aligned  with  the  ERS 
implemented  by  the  EU  since  2012  for  the  monitoring  of  EU  vessels  wherever  they 
operate.  This  was  achieved  during  the  Protocol,  with  the  ERS  becoming operational  in 
October  2024;  since  then,  catch  reporting  by  EU  vessels  has  improved  with  the 
introduction  of  the  ERS  catch  reporting  system.  All  parties  to  the  FPA  support(ed)  the 
transition  to  an  ERS  because  of  the  simplification  provided  by  the  system.  The 
Mauritius’ authorities cross check catch data with a summary from the VMS unit for EU 
vessels in Mauritian waters. 

The  review  of  the  minutes  of  the  JC  confirms  that  the  EU  tuna  fleet  has  been  broadly 
compliant  with  the  different  monitoring  and  surveillance  measures  enacted  by  the 
Protocol,  with  some  shortcomings  raised  by  Mauritius  subsequently  successfully 
addressed by the EU party over time. 

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

17  Link to a detailed presentation of the EU Control system 

18 

 
 
The sectoral support programme has committed about 36% of its planned expenditure to 
improved  monitoring  and  surveillance  activities.  Upgrades  to  the  FMC  and  VMS  have 
been  enabled  with  sectoral  support  funds  and  allows  viewing  of  AIS  and  VMS  data 
simultaneously on the same platform/map by multiple agencies for better monitoring. EU 
vessels are generally complying with entry and exit requirements, and where not the case 
this was detected by the Mauritius authorities. 

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

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

The Protocol provides access to a fishing zone of complementary importance for the EU 
tuna  purse-seine  fleet  operating  in  the  Indian  Ocean.  While  Mauritian  waters  are  not 
among the main fishing areas for the fleet, access to this zone allows target species to be 
caught there and, importantly, supports operations alongside adjacent fishing zones (such 
as  Seychelles  and  Madagascar)  and  nearby  high  seas  areas.  For  EU  surface  longliners, 
the available data also point to relatively limited use of the fishing opportunities on offer, 
suggesting that access plays a supporting rather than primary role in their overall fishing 
strategy in the region. 

Moreover,  the  reference  tonnage  remains  poorly  aligned  with  the  actual  catch  levels 
recorded  in  Mauritian  waters,  and  the  maximum  number  of  fishing  authorisations 
provided by the Protocol appears higher than necessary in light of recent utilisation rates. 
Nevertheless,  the  Protocol  is  effective  in  contributing  to  the  wider  regional  network  of 
fishing opportunities and routing options for the EU fleet operating in the Indian Ocean. 

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

Mauritius authorises access to its fishing zone under different arrangements including a 
bilateral  government-to-government  fishing  agreement  with  Seychelles,  and  through 
fishing  agreements  or  direct  authorisations  concluded  with  foreign  fishing  associations 
and  vessels  from  China,  Taiwan  and  South  Korea.  Over  2023  and  2024  however  only 
China utilised the longline opportunities to make catches of 137 tonnes in 2024. All other 
catches  in  Mauritian  waters  (apart  from  those  made  by  EU  vessels)  were  made  by 
Mauritian purse or longline vessels. 

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  line  with  the  IOTC  conservation  and  management 
measures. The Protocol does not include technical rules that give selective dispensation 
from  rules  applicable  to  all  other  industrial  tuna  vessels  while  fishing  in  the  Mauritius 
fishing zone. 

While  the  financial  access  conditions  provided  by  the  Protocol  for  EU  operators  are 
different  from  those  applying  to  other  foreign  operators  of  industrial  tuna  vessels,  it 

19 

 
resulted  in  average  access  fees  paid  by  EU  purse  seiners  being  broadly  aligned  with 
access fees paid by other foreign operators. 

Ensuring supply for the EU market 

Port  Louis  in  Mauritius  is  a  port  where  mainly  EU  vessels  conduct  vessel  repairs  and 
maintenance at the CNOI shipyard. When they do so, they make direct landings of catch 
for processing by the Princes Tuna company, generating activity in offloading and cold 
storage as well as in the cannery. EU longline vessels utilising the agreement do not land 
catches in Mauritius, but their catches are sold in Réunion and the EU market. 

EU purse seine tuna catches in the Indian are used as raw material for the preparation of 
canned  tuna  after  processing  in  non-EU  countries  (e.g.  Mauritius,  Seychelles, 
Madagascar) and in the EU. They satisfy about 15% of the needs of the EU market for 
tuna species, estimated at 1 355 667 tonnes in 2022 by the European Market Observatory 
for  fisheries  and  aquaculture  products  (EUMOFA)18.  According  to  the COMEXT  trade 
database,  Mauritius  represented  8%  of  total  EU  imports  of  prepared  tuna  products  on 
average  between  2020  and  2023  (Seychelles  9%  and  Madagascar  2%).  Of  the  c.a. 
200 000  tonnes  a  year  of  purse  seine  catch  in  the  Indian  Ocean  made  by  EU  vessels, 
Princes Tuna Mauritius purchases around 90 000 tonnes from EU vessels. 

According  to  the  economic  analysis,  Mauritius  derives  about  EUR 150 000  per  year  of 
indirect  value  added  in  the  upstream  and  downstream  ancillary  local  industries, 
supporting about 16 FTE jobs for Mauritian residents. 

The enabling environment supported by the FPA and its predecessors contributed to the 
establishment  of  economic  links  between  the  EU  and  the  Mauritius  seafood  sector.  As 
examples,  a  company  registered  in  Italy  recently  bought  a  significant  share  in  Princes 
Tuna from the Mitsubishi Corporation, and a fishing company registered in Spain has a 
subsidiary that operates the three Mauritius-flagged purse seiners. 

taking into account specific interests: the nearby outermost regions of the EU and 
the EU fleet 

The  Protocol  included  fishing  opportunities  for  the  small-scale  French  surface  longline 
fleet based in Réunion. The Mauritius fishing zone is close enough from their home ports 
to  interest  them  in  its  fishing  opportunities.  An  annual  average  of  15 <100 GT surface 
longliners  and  two >100 GT  surface  longliners  applied  for  an  authorisation,  but  catch 
volumes have been low (the annual average over 2023 and 2024 was 63 tonnes). 

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

3.1  Contribute  to  social,  environmental,  and  economic  development  in  Mauritius. 
To  what  extent  have  the  FPA  and  the  activities  implemented  with  the  EU 

18  EUMOFA (2024) – The EU fish market 2024 edition Link 

20 

 
 
contribution  for  sectoral  support  generated  significant  positive  /  unintended  / 
longer-term / broader effects? 

The  sectoral  support  funding  represents  a  small  part  of  the  overall  expenditure  by  the 
Mauritian government to support the functioning  of fisheries  and blue economy sectors 
and  better  governance  (EUR 450 000  per  year,  compared  to  around  EUR 16  million  of 
the Ministry’s budget for fisheries and the blue economy in 2024/25).  It is nevertheless 
important,  given  the  large  proportion  of  Ministry’s  budget  taken  up  by  salaries  rather 
than by projects. 

The  multiannual  matrix  over  four  years  envisaged  sectoral  support  of  EUR 2  million, 
structured around two main priorities: 

-  Priority area 1: sustainable fisheries (EUR 1.31 million) 

-  Priority area 2: the blue economy (EUR 0.7 million). 

Within  these  priorities,  projects/activities  related  to  one  (improved  monitoring  and 
surveillance) of seven objectives accounts for 36% of the total budget. 

The first joint committee meeting (in January 2023) noted that 97% of the budget of the 
2017 – 2021 Protocol had been executed based on the implementation report provided.  

The second joint committee meeting (in January 2025) reported 75% overall execution of 
the first instalment under the current Protocol.  

When  considering  the total sectoral  support  funding,  the execution rate  for most of the 
seven objectives has been low and the total execution rate at the time of writing stands at 
44%, with 75% of the Protocol period completed. Nevertheless, there has been progress 
and  achievement  in  the  specific  projects/activities  under  the  different  priorities  and 
objectives. 

Under the sustainable fisheries priority, sectoral support has boosted monitoring, control 
and surveillance capacity through (i) the upgrading of the VMS, (ii) the implementation 
and maintenance of an electronic reporting system (ERS), (iii) support to the Competent 
Authority Seafood Hub. Funding has also helped improve safety and working conditions 
for  artisanal  fishers  (for  example  through  safety  equipment  and  facilities,  fencing  and 
platforms for ice-making  machines, and financial  assistance to  fishers’ relatives via the 
Fishermen  Welfare  Fund).  Some  planned  activities,  such  as  training  observers  for 
deployment on Mauritian vessels and inspection missions to Seychelles, have progressed 
more slowly than anticipated. 

Under  the  blue  economy  priority,  the  programme  has  supported  awareness-raising  and 
national  dialogue  on  the  blue  economy  and  has  facilitated  Mauritian  participation  in 
regional  and  international  meetings,  seminars  and  workshops  related  to  sustainable 
fisheries management and marine biodiversity.  Other activities in  this area, such as the 
development of aquaculture initiatives, the Balaclava Marine Park Centre, sign-marking 
and beacons along coral reef breaks, and a blue economy strategy, are at earlier stages of 
implementation or have not yet fully materialised. 

Consultations with stakeholders and a review of programme documentation indicate that 
sectoral support has funded a relatively large number of small-scale activities, which may 

21 

 
increase  administrative  workload  and  make  outcomes  less  visible.  Stakeholders  also 
pointed to scope for more structured reporting against targets and greater involvement of 
sector actors in identifying and following up priorities.  

While  there  is  room  to  improve  prioritisation,  communication,  and  the  pace  of 
implementation,  the  sectoral  support  programme  has  nonetheless  delivered  a  range  of 
useful benefits for the fisheries, aquaculture and blue economy sectors in Mauritius. 

Promote the employment of local seafarers, improve infrastructure and encourage 
landings,  support  the  non-EU  country  in  the  development  of  local  fisheries  and 
processing  industry  in  the  EU,  domestic  markets  and  those  of  certain  non-EU 
countries. Creating employment directly and indirectly. 

The Protocol  helps  sustain  Mauritius’ role as  a regional tuna processing  hub. Although 
catch  volumes  under  the  Protocol  have  been  relatively  low,  they  have  contributed  to 
landings  for  the  ‘Princes  Tuna’  company  and  to  supplies  from  Seychelles  and  other 
countries.  By  providing  raw  material  that  complies  with  the  rules  of  origin  under  the 
interim Economic Partnership Agreement19 – namely, within a shared 8 000-tonne quota 
for  non-originating  tuna  for  Mauritius,  Seychelles  and  Madagascar  –  the  Protocol 
supports  employment  for  around  3 500  cannery  workers  in  Mauritius,  about  half  of 
whom  are  women.  Use  of  Port  Louis,  local  purchases,  and  sales  to  the  cannery  are 
estimated to generate the equivalent of around five full-time jobs. 

in  Mauritian  waters. 

The Protocol also provides for potential direct employment of Mauritian crew, with EU 
purse seiners expected to try to embark 14 qualified Mauritian seafarers per vessel when 
operating 
limited 
In  practice, 
implementation, due to difficulties in providing suitable lists of qualified crew, perceived 
skill  gaps  and  logistical  constraints  linked  to  landings  in  Seychelles.  In  such  cases, 
shipowners have instead paid a lump sum equivalent to the wages of the non-embarked 
crew, as provided in the Protocol. 

this  provision  has  seen 

Working  and  living  conditions  are  framed  by  a  social  clause  referring  to  relevant  ILO 
conventions,  notably  ILO Convention C.188  and  by  the  implementation  of  Directive 
(EU) 2017/159. However, compliance with these standards is not systematically checked 
in  Mauritius  and  the  social  clause  has  not  yet  been  updated  to  reflect  more  recent  EU 
rules on private labour market services. 

4.2.  Efficiency: the desired effects are achieved at reasonable costs 

Success  criteria  for  each  component  (access  and  sectoral  support)  have  been  proposed 
and evaluated, for efficiency. 

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

19  Interim  Agreement  establishing  a  framework  for  an  Economic  Partnership  Agreement  between  the 
Eastern  and  Southern  Africa  States,  on  the  one  part,  and  the  European  Community  and  its  Member 
States, on the other part. OJ L 111, 24.4.2012, p. 1-1172 

22 

 
 
To what extent does the FPA offer the EU value for money? 

EU  annual  catches  in  the  Mauritius  fishing  zone  were  poorly  aligned  with  the  annual 
reference tonnage of 5  500 tonnes identified by the Protocol to set the amount of the EU 
financial  compensation  for  access.  EU  tuna  vessels  averaged  an  annual  catch  of 
662 tonnes between 2023 and 2024. 

As  a  result  of  EU  tuna  vessel  catch  performance  in  the  Mauritius  fishing  zone,  the 
average  cost  of  access  paid  by  the  EU  (EUR 843  per  tonne,  from  the  EU  budget  and 
shipowners) was a lot higher than the EUR 130 per tonne fixed ex ante. A similar pattern 
was  observed  under  the  previous  Protocol,  albeit  not  as  significant,  with  misalignment 
with the reference tonnage. 

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

The  economic  and  social  analysis  of  the  access  component  provided  in  the  evaluation 
report  (p. 20)  concludes  that  EU  tuna  vessel  operations  in  the  Mauritius  fishing  zone 
have generated a positive gross profit of EUR 1.47 million over 2023  and 2024. About 
74% of the total income originated from the activities of EU tuna purse seiners, with EU 
surface longliners accounting for 26% on average. 

EU  vessels  paid  access  fees  that  corresponded  to  31%  of  their  income  (39%  for  purse 
seine vessels and 17% for surface longliners) from the aggregated catches over the 2023 - 
2024 period, and 85% (105% for purse seine vessels and 38% for surface longliners) as a 
percentage of value added over 2023 - 2024. Both indicators are considered high, and are 
due to the low catches obtained and the non-refundable advance payments made. 

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

The analysis of the economic impacts of the Protocol shows that the EU received 28% of 
the total value added, Mauritius 50% of value added (the largest share), and other  non-
EU countries 22%. The share of value added accruing to the different parties was almost 
identical to those under the previous Protocol. The economic value added that benefited 
Mauritius is almost entirely composed of EU access payments (87%), due to low levels 
of  economic  interactions  between  the  EU  and  Mauritius  fishing  sectors.  Other  items 
include  upstream  value  added  resulting  from  using  the  shipyard  for  maintenance  and 
repairs, and downstream value added from processing catches made by EU purse seiners 
in the local cannery, which are attributable to EU catches under the Protocol (rather than 
in other areas of the Indian Ocean). 

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

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

23 

 
With annual sectoral support payments of EUR 450 000 envisaged, the contribution the 
Protocol  provides  for  supporting  and  implementing  Mauritius’  fisheries  and  blue 
economy policy represents less than 1% of the annual budget of the relevant  Mauritian 
Ministry. Nevertheless, the funding reflects needs in Mauritius for project-based funding, 
because a significant proportion of the government’s regular budget is spent on salaries. 

Date  included  in  the  joint  committee  minutes  show  that  execution  of  funding  from  the 
previous  Protocol  was  91%  at  the  time  of  the  meeting  in  May  2023.  The  second  joint 
committee meeting was delayed, in part because of a low execution rate of the first year’s 
tranche of funding under the current Protocol so that the meeting could be held when the 
execution  rate had  reached 75%. Total  execution of sectoral support funds was 44%  at 
the time of writing with 75% of the Protocol period have expired. The capacity to absorb 
funds has been challenged by some procurement delays, and the need to include sectoral 
support projects as items in the government-approved budget for the following financial 
year. 

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

The  Protocol  does  not  specify  deadlines  for  payment  of  sectoral  support  funding,  with 
funds provided based on needs identified as part of the agreed programming and on the 
basis  of  an  analysis  by  the  JC  of  the  results  achieved.  As  shown  in  Table  21,  the  EU 
made sectoral support payments to Mauritius rapidly following each of the JC meetings 
which approved the tranches of funding. 

The  JC  meetings  have  considered  the  achievement  of  criteria  and  objectives,  based  on 
implementation  reports  prepared  by  Mauritius,  as  required.  DG  MARE  does  not  verify 
expenses, but there is the possibility for the EU to conduct audits on the use of sectoral 
support payments to Mauritius. 

4.3.  Coherence:  the  alignment  of  the  Protocol’s  intervention  logic  with  other 
EU interventions with similar objectives 

For  each  component  (access  and  sectoral  support)  success  criteria  have  been  proposed 
and evaluated. 

How  coherent  is  the  Protocol  with  the  CFP  in  general  and  with  its  external 
dimension and the regional fisheries policy? 

The  FPA  between  the  EU  and  Mauritius  and  its  current  Implementing  Protocol  are 
consistent  with  the Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP),  particularly  Articles  31  and  32  of 
the EU CFP Regulation20. The FPA and its Protocol: 

• 

Include the fundamental principles of governance of fisheries agreements (respect 
for  democratic  principles  and  human  rights,  transparency,  non-discrimination 

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

24 

 
 
between  fleets,  and  the  exclusivity  clause).  Some  of  the  relevant  clauses  are 
contained  in  the  Protocol  rather  than  in  the  head  agreement,  because  the  head 
agreement dates from 2014. 

• 

Identify  fishing  opportunities  that  are  aligned  with  the  conservation  and 
management measures adopted by the IOTC. 

•  Provide  specific  financial  support  for  the  support  and  implementation  of 
Mauritius’s  fisheries  aquaculture  and  blue  economy  sectoral  policy,  which 
includes  enhanced  national  capacities  for  monitoring  and  surveillance  (the 
sectoral support component). 

•  Contribute  to  maintaining  the  activity  of  the  EU  tuna  purse  seiner  fleet  in  the 
region through a network of agreements that allow vessels of different categories 
to access a continuum of fishing zones including the fishing zones of Mauritius, 
Seychelles, Madagascar, and the adjacent high sea areas. 

The FPA and its Implementing Protocol with Mauritius are part of a regional network of 
agreements effectively used by the EU tuna purse seine and surface longline fleet active 
in the Indian Ocean. 

However,  social  provisions  governing  employment  onboard  EU  tuna  purse  seiners  (the 
social clause) do not reflect recent progress achieved through social dialogue at EU level. 
The social clause needs to be updated. 

To  what  extent  is  the  Protocol  and  its  implementation  consistent  and  coherent  with 
and complementary to the other EU policies and legislation? 

Several other EU interventions benefited the Mauritius’ fisheries and aquaculture sectors: 

•  Support  for  the implementation  of the Economic Partnership  Agreement  funded 
by  the  11th  European  Development  Fund  (EDF).  Activities  implemented  under 
this  programme  contributed  to  strengthening  governance,  and  to  improve  the 
performance of Mauritius in export markets. 

•  Activities  implemented  under  the  Ecofish  EU  regional  programme  (budget  of 
EUR 28  million)  funded  under  the  11th  EDF.  Mauritius  benefited  from 
interventions under the national Chapter including support to Monitoring Control 
and Surveillance capacities. 

•  The  recently  approved  Sustainable  West  Indian  Ocean  Programme  (SWIOP) 
(EUR 58  million  for  nine  countries),  which  will  run  from  2025  to  2030.  The 
programme  will  support:  i)  international  ocean  governance;  ii)  sustainable 
fisheries and blue economy; and iii) coastal conservation and restoration. 

These activities complement and are coherent with those implemented under the sectoral 
support programme, without duplication. 

25 

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

Mauritius’ national sectoral policy for the fisheries sector and blue economy is framed by 
its  three-year  strategic  plan  for  2018/19  –  2021/22,  the  address  by  the  President  of  the 
Republic of Mauritius on Friday 24 January 2025 on the Government Programme 2025-
2029,  the  Ministry  for  Ocean  Economy  and  Fisheries’  2023/2024  Annual  Report,  and 
relevant legislation such as the Fisheries Act 2023 and recent regulations. 

The Ministry for Ocean Economy and Fisheries identified priority areas  and activities – 
in line with national priorities - for the multiannual sectoral programme. 

The  Protocol’s  activities  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  United  Nations  Sustainable 
Development Goal (SDG) 14 (life below water) and in particular to the  achievement of 
its targets 14.2 (protect and restore ecosystems), 14.4 (sustainable fishing), 14.7 (increase 
the  economic  benefits  from  sustainable  use  of  marine  resources  –  particularly  to  small 
island  developing  States),  14.8  (increase  scientific  knowledge,  research  and  technology 
for ocean health) and 14.9 (support small-scale fishers and provide access for small-scale 
artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets). 

4.4.  Added value: How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

For  each  component  (access  and  sectoral  support)  success  criteria  have  been  proposed 
and evaluated. 

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

In the absence of a Protocol but with an FPA in force, EU shipowners would have been 
prevented  from  negotiating  direct  access  due  to  the  exclusivity  principle.  Catches, 
revenues, profits, value added and employment for EU stakeholders were thus supported 
by the intervention in the form of the Protocol. In the absence of an FPA (and Protocol), 
Mauritius could have engaged in direct private agreements with EU operators as it does 
with other foreign operators. 

The  EU  intervention  added  value  over  both  these  scenarios  in  terms  of  the  following 
features  of  the  Agreement/Protocol,  which  would  have  been  difficult  or  impossible  to 
achieve without it: 

•  Multiannual access aligned with the needs of the EU fleet. 

•  Dialogue  and  direct  exchanges  of  knowledge  between  EU  and  Mauritian 
authorities,  in  terms  of  scientific  cooperation  and  a  framework  for  joint 
monitoring and control of EU activities. 

26 

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

•  Coherence with EU policies in terms of national and regional development. 

•  Access  to  a  dedicated  budget  line  (sectoral  support)  decoupled  from  the  FPA 
access budget line for financial support to implement Mauritius’ national fisheries 
and blue economy policy. 

Compared to any other mechanism for gaining fisheries access for EU tuna vessels, the 
Agreement has delivered a wide range of valuable benefits to both the EU and Mauritius 
in terms of governance, sustainability and national development. There is a strong added 
value of the EU intervention through FPA mechanisms for access and sectoral support. 

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

The  current  Protocol  provides  stable  and  guaranteed  lawful  access  to  Mauritian  waters 
over  a  four-year  period,  which  is  supportive  of  the  multiannual  deployment  strategy  of 
EU  purse  seine  vessel  operators  in  the  Indian  Ocean.  EU  shipowners  recognise  the 
benefits that the Protocol has in supporting sustainability which ultimately benefits them, 
as  well  as  the  positive  role  that  the  EU  plays  in  negotiating  on  their  behalf.  No 
stakeholders consulted suggested a preference for private agreements over the framework 
provided by the FPA. 

4.5.  Acceptability 

For  each  component  (access  and  sectoral  support)  success  criteria  have  been  proposed 
and evaluated. 

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

Feedback  from  consultations  show  that  EU  shipowners  unambiguously  support  the 
renewal  of the Protocol  with  broadly  similar conditions and would also  prefer a longer 
Protocol.  However,  some  suggested  improvements  like  reduced  licensing  timelines, 
increased  time  for  entry/exit  notifications,  and  more  flexible  and  proportional  crewing 
rules. 

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

Representatives  of  the  civil  society  in  Mauritius  are  critical  of  the  Agreement  overall, 
particularly  in  terms  of  potential  bycatch.  Cooperatives  welcome  the  requirement  for 
Mauritian crew on purse seine vessels. 

For  the  activities  implemented  under  the  sectoral  support,  all  representatives  of  civil 
society consulted in the EU and in Mauritius confirmed an absence of information about 
the sectoral support programme, and a lack of consultations on the design / specification 

27 

 
of  the  multiannual  programme  and  its  implementing  annual  programme.  They  request 
more  transparency  on  this  component  of  the  FPA  is  requested  and  opportunities  for 
consultation and involvement in the implementation of some activities as appropriate. 

No civil society representatives in either the EU or Mauritius suggested that the Protocol 
should not be renewed. All organisations were supportive of a change from an FPA to an 
SFPA. This would allow for moving the governance clauses (human rights, transparency, 
level playing, exclusivity) into the Agreement, thereby strengthening them. 

To  what  extent  is  the  Protocol  supported  by  the  sector  (shipowners  and 
processors) in the EU and nationally and locally in Mauritius? 

Mauritian-based shore-based companies  involved with  the tuna sector (processing, cold 
storage, vessel repairs and maintenance, catch offloading), are all strongly supportive of 
the  FPA/Protocol  due  to  the  access  and  sectoral  support  funding  that  results,  and  the 
economic  linkages  that  do  occur  even  if  limited.  Operators  of  Mauritian-flagged  purse 
seine vessels do not view EU tuna vessels in Mauritian waters as negatively impacting on 
their activities in any way. 

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

Based on the answers to the questions above, administrations in  Mauritius and the EU, 
EU shipowners, and private sector parties in Mauritius are all generally satisfied with the 
Protocol  and  its  implementation  and  seek  its  renewal.  The  Mauritian  government 
expressed a willingness in principle for negotiations for the renewal of the Protocol at the 
end  of  2026.  The  financial  contributions  are  beneficial  for  the  government,  and  the 
sectoral  support  programme  is  valued.  Civil  society  organisations  in  both  the  EU  and 
Mauritius also seek its renewal. 

4.6.  Relevance: Is the intervention still relevant? 

Success  criteria  have  been  proposed  and  evaluated  for  each  component  (access  and 
sectoral support). 

To  what  extent  do  the  objectives  set  out  in  the  Agreement  and  the  Protocol  still 
correspond to the needs of the EU, its shipowners and Mauritius? 

For the EU fleet operating in the Indian Ocean, the Agreement and Protocol are relevant 
as  part  of  their  network  of  fishing  opportunities  and  to  meet  the  needs  of  their  fishing 
strategies.  Relevance  also  stems  from  the  linkages  with  onshore  vessel  support 
businesses and tuna canning in Mauritius.  

The transfer of sovereignty over Chagos from the United Kingdom to Mauritius has not 
yet been finalised and it is not yet known if fishing would be permitted once this transfer 
takes  place.  However,  if  the  transfer  of  sovereignty  was  completed  during  a  future 
Protocol  and  if  fishing  were  allowed  in  the  waters  around  Chagos,  this  could  further 
increase the relevance of the Protocol to EU shipowners. 

For  EU  surface  longliners,  the  continued  relevance  of  the  FPA  is  difficult  to  establish 
because  of  the  low  use  of  the  fishing  opportunities  under  the  current  Protocol  and  the 
previous one. 

28 

 
For  Mauritius,  the  available  surplus  of  tuna  fishing  opportunities  needs  to  be  made  the 
most  of  through  negotiations  of  access  arrangements  with  third  parties.  Compared  to 
private or other bilateral access arrangements which might be possible with other entities, 
the  EU  FPA/Protocol  comes  with  a  dedicated  budget  for  sectoral  support,  decoupled 
from  access  funds,  which  supports  implementation  of  the  national  fisheries  and  blue 
economy  policy.  In  this  respect,  the  Agreement  and  Protocol  are  considered  highly 
relevant  to  the  needs  of  Mauritius  as  confirmed  by  consultations  with  the  Mauritian 
authorities. 

How is the Agreement relevant to the policy objectives of RFMOs? 

The objectives of the Agreement and Protocol are to promote responsible fishing in the 
Mauritius  fishing  zone,  in  keeping  with  the  principles  of  good  economic  and  social 
governance. These objectives are consistent with the objectives of the IOTC, as set out in 
Article 5 of its charter21:  

‘The  Commission  shall  promote  cooperation  among  its  Members  with  a  view  to 
ensuring,  through  appropriate  management,  the  conservation  and  optimum  use  of 
stocks  covered  by  this  Agreement  and  encouraging  sustainable  development  of 
fisheries based on such stocks.’  

For  both  the  EU  and  Mauritius,  the  Protocol  includes  provisions  which  support  the 
objectives of resource and environmental sustainability. In particular, it makes provision 
for  catch  reporting  and  for  strengthening  monitoring,  control  and  surveillance  and  the 
observer scheme. It also requires vessels to comply with the laws of Mauritius on fishing 
activities  and  with  the  conservation  management  measures  adopted  by  the  IOTC.  The 
sectoral support component includes activities contributing to the capacities of Mauritius 
to comply with the obligations stemming from its IOTC membership. 

The bilateral framework of the FPA allows the EU and Mauritius to exchange views on 
specific issues  relating  to regional management  of tuna resources. This  underscores the 
relevance of the FPA and the Protocol to the IOTC’s objectives of promoting cooperation 
amongst  contracting  members  to  ensure  -  through  appropriate  management  -  the 
sustainable use of fishery resources. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  Main conclusions 

This  analysis  confirms  that  continuing  to  implement  the  Agreement  through  the 
conclusion  of  a  new  Implementing  Protocol  is  the  most  appropriate  policy  option.  By 
comparison,  not  negotiating  a  new  protocol  does  not  meet  any  of  the  needs  of  the  two 
parties. 

The  current  Protocol  after  three  years  of  implementation  shows  that  it  met  the  main 
objectives: 

21  Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), http://www.iotc.org/ 

29 

 
 
-  For  objective  1, 

towards  resource 
the  Protocol  contributed  effectively 
conservation and environmental sustainability by ensuring alignment between the 
FPA/Protocol technical  and monitoring measures, the standards of the CFP, and 
the  conservation  and  management  measures  adopted  by  the  competent  regional 
fisheries  management  organisation 
to 
environmental sustainability was amplified by the allocation of 36% of the budget 
of  the  sectoral  support  programme  to  activities  that  help  Mauritius  monitor, 
control  and  surveil  fishing  fleets  supporting  improved  MCS  of  fishing  fleets  by 
Mauritius. 

IOTC).  The  contribution 

(the 

-  For objective 2, the Protocol effectively supported the continued fishing activity 
of  the  EU  long  distance  fleet  in  the  Indian  Ocean,  including  in  the  EU’s 
outermost  regions.  The  agreement  is  effective  in  contributing  to  the  regional 
network  of  fishing  opportunities.  Some  port  calls  are  made  in  Port  Louis  for 
vessel repairs or maintenance and direct  landings to  the Princes  Tuna company. 
Technical  fishing  conditions  imposed  on  EU  vessels  through  the  Protocol  are 
similar to conditions for other vessels, supporting a level playing field. Financial 
conditions have a different basis but result in broadly comparable access costs for 
the tuna vessels from different States. 

-  For objective 3, the sectoral support of the Protocol is an important part of total 
government  spending  on  fisheries  sector  management  and  development.  It 
supported  improvements  in  fisheries  monitoring  and  enforcement,  provided 
activities  of  benefit  to  small-scale  fishers,  helped  with  the  planning  for  blue 
economy developments, and facilitated regional engagement. 

5.2.  Lessons learned 

The  ex post  evaluation  of  the  Protocol  implementing  the  Fisheries  Partnership 
Agreement  for  the  period  from  2022-2026  shows  that  the  Protocol  has  generally 
succeeded in achieving its main objectives. 

In  terms  of  the  lessons  learned,  a  new  protocol  will  nevertheless  have  to  make  some 
adjustments to address the shortcomings, namely: 

•  The  low  use  of  the  maximum  number  of  fishing  opportunities  available,  in 

particular by the EU longline fleet segment; 

•  The low numbers of Mauritian fishers employed onboard EU vessels compared to 

the expectations of the Protocol; 

•  The inefficient use of the sectoral support funds resulting in a low execution rate; 

•  The  communication  and  reporting  of  the  activities  implemented  within  the 
sectoral support programme have not been optimum in highlighting the quality of 
the results obtained;  

30 

 
 
 
•  Lack  of  information  and  involvement  of  civil  society  in  the  activities 

implemented under the sectoral support multiannual programme. 

6.  EX ANTE EVALUATION 

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

6.1.  Problem analysis and needs assessment 

In  the  context  of  the  intervention  logic  shown  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 Mauritius 

Mauritius  has  extensive  maritime  waters22  and  a  need  to  make  the  most  of  tuna 
resources surplus to the requirements of its own domestic tuna fleet - within a context 
of  sustainable  exploitation  -  to  generate  budget  income.  The  Protocol  also  provides 
valuable  employment  for  Mauritian  nationals  as  crew  and  onshore  socio-economic 
benefits generated through some direct landings, transshipments, tuna processing and 
vessel servicing. 

Mauritius  has  ambitious fisheries,  aquaculture, ocean  and blue economy  policies and 
strategies,  with  a  strong  focus  on  regional  collaboration,  investment,  and  growth.  Its 
government  would  struggle  to  meet  all  the funding  needs  to  implement  policy  on  its 
own. Mauritius thus needs to secure extra-budgetary, multiannual sources of funding to 
address priorities for the fisheries, aquaculture and other blue economy sectors.  

It is too early to say definitively or with any detail the potential areas of support that 
may  be  envisaged  for  sectoral  support  from  2027  onwards  under  a  new  Protocol. 
However,  it  can  be  expected  that  priorities  would  remain  broadly  as  in  the  current 
sectoral support matrix, but with a stronger emphasis on blue economy objectives. 

Mauritius has responsibilities as a flag State (fishing vessels flying the national flag), 
as a coastal State (fishing vessels authorised to fish in its waters), and as a port State 
(receiving catches into its ports). Those responsibilities entail having (or building) the 
capacity  to  ensure  promotion  of  responsible  fishing  practices,  to  support  the 
development  of the national  fisheries sector,  and to  ensure compliance  with national, 

22  Its Economic  Exclusive  Zone  (EEZ), without  Chagos  Islands, is  estimated  at  1.3  million  km2,  the 
25th largest  EEZ  in  the  world  according  to Marineregions.org /  the Flanders Marine  Institute VLIZ 
for 
(link and  Lonneville  et  al.,  2021). EEZ: see definition in 
Europe (IATE) here. 

the Interactive  Terminology 

31 

 
 
IOTC,  and  other  international  obligations.  The  Mauritian  government  is  addressing 
challenges  and  weaknesses  in  these  areas,  but  improvements  are  still  needed  and 
sectoral funding could help with these. 

6.3.  Current and future need for the European Union 

The EU needs to secure and/or maintain fishing opportunities for the EU tuna fleet in 
the Indian Ocean, in international waters and in waters under the jurisdiction of coastal 
States, depending on EU fleet interests. 

As a flag State and coastal State, the EU is committed to contributing to the sustainable 
management of fish stocks in the Indian Ocean in its capacity as a contracting party to 
the IOTC. 

As  a  development  partner,  the  EU  needs  to  ensure  that  coastal  States  in  the  Indian 
Ocean,  have  the  capacities  to  sustainably  manage  their  fisheries  and  to  combat  IUU 
fishing,  thereby  contributing  to  the  UN  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs), 
particularly SDG 14: Life below water. 

The  EU  needs  to  conserve  a  legal  instrument  to  monitor  the  activities  of  EU  vessels 
while fishing in the Mauritius fishing zone, and to ensure that the fleet complies with 
applicable  binding  regional  conservation  and  management  measures  adopted  by  the 
IOTC and by Mauritius for fishing activities taking place in the area under its national 
jurisdiction. 

For EU operators of fishing vessels 

EU purse seiners operating in the Indian Ocean have  fishing opportunities granted to 
them  by  the  IOTC,  but  need  to  secure  access  to  fishing  areas  under  coastal  States’ 
jurisdiction to follow tuna stocks as they migrate. EU operators’ deployment strategies 
need therefore to be backed by stable multiannual access arrangements offering legal 
security. 

For EU consumers and processors 

EU fishing fleet activities in the Indian Ocean, including in the Mauritius fishing zone, 
supply  15%  of  EU  consumers’  needs  for  the  supply  of  processed  tuna  products.  EU 
fishing  activities  result  in  a  part  of  the  catch  made  in  the  Indian  Ocean  and  in 
Mauritian  waters  going  to  the  EU  after  processing  in  Mauritius.  Some  of  the  catch 
made in Mauritius but landed or transhipped in Seychelles is also destined for the EU 
market,  following  processing  in  Seychelles  or  in  EU  or  non-EU  countries.  This 
confirms a need in the future for a continued supply of tuna from the Mauritius fishing 
zone caught by the EU fleet in the form of processed tuna products or in the form of 
raw material for processing in the EU. 

32 

 
6.4.  Current and future needs for Mauritius and the European Union 

Both parties need a platform for bilateral sectoral dialogue with dedicated funding to 
promote  responsible  fishing  practices  and  initiatives  to  combat  IUU  fishing  in  the 
Mauritius  fishing  zone,  in  synergy  with  other  EU  interventions  in  the  region.  A 
platform for bilateral sectoral dialogue is also instrumental for cooperating on regional 
matters of common interest, such as those discussed within the multilateral context of 
the IOTC. 

6.5.  The EU added value 

If the Protocol is  renewed, only the EU will be competent to negotiate in accordance 
with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

Beyond  this  obligation  stemming  from  the  TFEU,  the  involvement  of  the  EU  in  the 
negotiation of a new Protocol brings a clear added value similar to that identified in the 
ex post part of the evaluation, namely: 

•  Protecting the benefits achieved by the Protocol, because a failure to agree a new 
Protocol  would  mean  that  EU  vessels  could  no  longer  fish  in  the  Mauritius 
fishing  zone  under  the  exclusivity  principle  (FPA Article 6.1)  and  Mauritius 
would  no  longer  receive  any  financial  contributions  for  access  and  to  help 
implement its national fisheries, aquaculture and blue economy policies. 

•  Ensuring  that  the  Protocol  and  its  implementation  comply  with  international 
applicable legal instruments, in particular the United Nations Convention on the 
Law  of  the  Sea  and  ILO Convention C188  on  work  in  fishing,  and  with  the 
guiding principles enshrined in Articles 31 and 32 of the EU Common Fisheries 
Policy  Regulation,  including  the  inclusion  in  the  instrument  of  the  four 
governance principles applicable to EU fisheries agreements23. 

•  Allowing  the  EU  to  promote  responsible  fishing  practices  at  sub-regional  level 
through  the  leverage  effects  possible  through  a  network  of  coherent  fisheries 
agreements in Indian Ocean24. 

•  Ensuring  that  the  Protocol  and  its  implementation  comply  with  the  measures 
adopted  through  regional  governance  instruments  (e.g.  IOTC  conservation  and 
management measures). 

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

supporting their exploitation strategies in a transparent manner. 

23  Respect  for  human  rights  and  democratic  principles  /  transparency  of  the  fisheries  management 
framework  /  level  playing  field  for  fishing  operators  /  exclusivity  of  the  SFPA  over  private  access 
agreements for EU vessels. 

24  At  the  end  of  2025,  the  EU  had  four  fisheries  agreements:  Madagascar,  Mauritius,  Seychelles, and 

Mozambique, the last one being dormant. 

33 

 
 
•  Giving the EU a legal mandate for monitoring EU fishing vessel activities in the 

Mauritius fishing zone. 

•  Providing  a  tailored  bilateral  instrument  for  cooperation  in  the  fisheries  sector 
with  Mauritius  and  support  for  implementing  Mauritius’  sectoral  fisheries  and 
aquaculture and blue economy policies, which are separate from and additional to 
other  EU  regional  initiatives  aimed  at  strengthening  the  fisheries  governance 
framework and the development of the blue economy. 

The  ex post  evaluation  of  the  current  Protocol  confirmed  the  added  value  of  the  EU 
involvement in the intervention. 

6.6.  Policy and management objectives 

The  objectives  of  fisheries  agreements  are  guided  by  Articles  31  and  32  of  the  CFP 
Regulation,  taking  into  account  the  2012  Council  conclusions25  on  the  external 
dimension of the CFP. In line with EU policy on fisheries agreements, the objectives 
of  future  intervention  under  the  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreement  concluded  between 
the  EU  and  Mauritius  in  2013  must  be  based  on  the  general  and  specific  objectives 
which guide the EU’s intervention logic for all FPAs and SFPAs, namely: 

General  objective  1:  Contributing  to  resource  conservation  and  environmental 
sustainability through rational and sustainable exploitation of living marine resources 
of Mauritius and in the broader Indian Ocean. 

Specific objectives (SO) in support of general objective 1 are: 

✓  SO 1.1:  facilitating  access  for  the  EU  fishing  fleet  to  exploit  fishing 
opportunities granted to  the EU by the  IOTC,  while  improving  transparency 
on all fishing efforts in Mauritian waters. 

✓  SO 1.2:  following  the  same  principles  and  standards  promoting  fisheries 

management as applied in EU waters. 

✓  SO 1.3:  improving  the  scientific  and  technical  evaluation  of  the  fisheries 
concerned (notably by improving data collection and transparency on fishing 
efforts). 

✓  SO 1.4: ensuring compliance and combating IUU fishing. 

General  objective  2:  Contributing  to  the  continued  activity  of  the  EU  fleets  and  the 
employment linked to them operating within SFPAs. 

Specific objectives (SO) in support of general objective 2 are: 

25  Council conclusions on the external dimension of the CFP. 19.3.2012, Doc. 7086/12 PECHE 66. 

34 

 
 
✓  SO 2.1:  providing  fishing  opportunities  for  highly  migratory  resources 
available  in  the  Mauritius  fishing  zone,  fully  commensurate  with  the  EU 
fleets’ interests. 

✓  SO 2.2:  ensuring  the  level  of  fees  payable  by  EU  operators  for  their  fishing 
activities  is  fair,  non-discriminatory  and  commensurate  with  the  benefits 
provided  through  the  access  conditions,  while  avoiding  any  discriminatory 
treatment  towards  EU  vessels  and  promoting  a  level  playing  field  among 
fleets from different countries. 

✓  SO 2.3: ensuring supply for the EU and for the markets of certain developing 

countries. 

✓  SO 2.4:  encouraging  the  creation  of  a  secure  environment  that  is  favourable 

for private investment and economic activities. 

General  objective 3: Supporting the development  of a sustainable fisheries sector in 
Mauritius. 

Specific objectives (SO) in support of general objective 3 are: 

✓  SO 3.1:  helping  Mauritius  build  capacity  (notably  by  improving  monitoring, 

control and surveillance of fishing activities, and scientific research). 

✓  SO 3.2: helping Mauritius develop sustainable national fisheries, aquaculture 

and other blue economy sectors. 

6.7.  Policy options, including associated risks 

Three options are available: 

•  Option 1  No negotiation with a view to concluding a new Implementing Protocol 
•  Option 2  No change to the current Agreement and Protocol (status quo) 
•  Option 3  Negotiation of a new Agreement with a revised Implementing Protocol 

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

Option 1: No negotiation with a view to concluding a new Implementing Protocol 

Under this option, the Protocol would not be renewed: 

• 

If  the  FPA  remained  in  force  but  dormant,  EU  shipowners  would  be  prevented 
from negotiating access due to the exclusivity principle, because Article 6.1 of the 

35 

 
 
FPA  states  that  EU  vessels  can  only  fish  in  Mauritian  waters  if  they  have  an 
authorisation issued under the Protocol to the Agreement. The EU would not give 
Mauritius any sectoral support, so neither the EU nor EU shipowners would pay 
financial contributions to Mauritius 

•  Alternatively, the FPA could be terminated, although this would be less likely as 
the absence of a Protocol is not one of the reasons for termination of the FPA set 
out in Article 12 of the FPA. If the Agreement was terminated, the EU would not 
provide  any  sectoral  support  to  Mauritius.  EU  vessels  could  negotiate  direct 
fishing authorisations with the Mauritian authorities. These authorisations would 
be  issued  subject  to  the  rules  set  out  by  Regulation  (EU)  2017/240349  which 
gives  the  European  Commission  a  mandate  to  oversee  the  process.  They  would 
allow EU vessels access to Mauritian waters, but would not provide them with the 
stable  and  multiannual  legal  framework  of  a  fisheries  agreement.  Furthermore, 
termination would send a negative signal impacting the quality of the cooperation 
between Mauritius and the EU. 

The main risks associated with option 1 are: 

•  Difficulties for the EU fleet to maintain viable operations in the region, although 
the low catch levels in Mauritian waters during the current Protocol suggest that a 
failure  to  negotiate  a  new  agreement  would  have  only  a  limited  effect  on  the 
financial viability of the EU fleet. 

•  An incentive for the EU purse seine fleet to reflag to other countries of the Indian 
Ocean  to  keep  their  access  to  the  Mauritian  fishing  zone.  This  would  make  the 
EU less self-sufficient for tuna products for its market and decrease the influence 
of its MS flag States in the Indian Ocean. 

•  Decreased attractiveness of Port Louis and the ‘CNOI’ Indian Ocean Shipyard as 
a  location  for  vessel  repairs  and  maintenance  due  to  absence  of  fishing 
opportunities in the Mauritian fishing zone and the potential to fish on the way to 
or from the port. 

•  A  reduced  budget  for  the  Mauritian  government,  reducing  its  capacity  to 

implement its national fisheries, aquaculture and blue economy policies. 

•  Damage to EU-Mauritius geo-political relations. 

Option 2: No change to the current Agreement and Protocol (status quo) 

Under  this  option,  all  current  content  of  the  FPA  and  Protocol  would  remain 
unchanged. This option would thus be reflected in a situation in which: 

•  A new Protocol lasts for four years. 

•  Fishing  opportunities  remain  at  40 EU  tuna  purse seiners,  45 surface  longliners, 

and supply vessels in keeping with IOTC rules. 

•  A reference tonnage of 5 500 tonnes a year. 

36 

 
 
•  The  EU  pays  financial  compensation  of  EUR 275 000  a  year  for  EU  vessels  to 

access Mauritian waters. 

•  EU shipowners pay the following fishing authorisation fees:  

•  For each tuna purse seiner: Annual non-recoverable advance payment of 
EUR 9 360 corresponding to 117 tonnes catch at EUR 80 per tonne.  

•  For each surface longliner:  

•  > 100 GT:  Annual  non-recoverable 

advance  payment  of 
EUR 4 560 corresponding  to   57  tonnes  of  catch  at EUR 80  per 
tonne. 

•  < 100 GT:  Annual  non-recoverable 

advance  payment  of 
EUR 2 400  corresponding  to  30 tonnes  of  catch  at  EUR 80  per 
tonne. 

•  For each supply vessel: Annual authorisation fee of EUR 5 000. 

•  Monitoring, control and surveillance requirements (e.g. catch reporting, observer 
and  VMS  requirements,  bycatch  provisions,  etc.)  all  remain  as  per  the  current 
Protocol. 

•  The  specific  contribution  for  the  support  and  implementation  of  Mauritius’ 
sectoral policy (EUR 450 000 per year) provides funding for a four-year sectoral 
programme,  with  payments  conditional  on  the  achievement  of  the  expected 
results as assessed by Joint Committee meetings to take place at least once a year. 

•  The head agreement is a FPA not a SFPA. 

The main risks associated with option 2 are: 

•  Unsatisfactory  alignment  between  the  fishing  opportunities  negotiated  and  their 

actual use by EU vessels. 

•  A failure by parties to agree on the content of the sectoral support matrix, given 
different  views  about  priority  objectives  and  needs,  as  well  as  implementation. 
However,  this  risk  is  not  considered  a  major  one,  especially  as  sectoral  support 
needs may continue broadly in line with those under the current Protocol. 

•  A failure by the Joint Committee to adequately monitor the implementation of the 
Protocol to achieve both its overall objectives as specified above, and the detailed 
arrangements  and  agreements  contained  within  the  Protocol  and  Annexes.  This 
risk  should  be  mitigated  by  ensuring  that  regular  Joint  Committee  meetings  are 
held  as  scheduled, are of sufficient  duration to  adequately consider all issues of 
relevance at  the  time, and by any future ex  post evaluations  carefully  reviewing 
the functioning of the Joint Committee. 

37 

 
Option 3: Negotiation of a new Agreement with a revised Implementing Protocol 

Under  this  option,  differences  between  the  status  quo  and  the  content  of  a  new  and 
amended Protocol are as follows (with other issues not raised below remaining as per 
the current Protocol): 

•  Fishing  opportunities  for  tuna  vessels  adjusted  to  better  reflect  the  number  of 
authorisations  issued  during  recent  years  and  the  number  of  EU  vessels  now 
active  in  the  region  following  some  recent  re-flagging  of  vessels,  while  also 
allowing  some  leeway  in  case  of  an  increase  compared  to  the  most  recent  two 
years. 

•  Corresponding reduction in reference tonnage to reflect the decreasing number of 
EU tuna purse seiners active in the Indian Ocean. This would address the lack of 
efficiency of the EU investment in the financial compensation for access to tuna. 
Improved social provisions on employing non-EU seafarers on board EU vessels, 
with  revised  terms  allowing  for  more  clarity  and  legal  certainty  for  non-EU 
fishers and EU shipowners as regards their rights and obligations26. 

• 

•  A Protocol period of six years. 
•  Agreement  during 

the 

first 

a  more 
streamlined/focused multiannual matrix for sectoral support in order to respond to 
the  sub-optimal  disbursement  rates  during  the  current  Protocol.  This  matrix 
would include well-defined and SMART27 targets and indicators to allow the joint 
committee to monitor progress. 

committee  meeting  of 

joint 

•  Greater levels of consultation by the government in Mauritius in setting priorities, 
objectives  and  activities  to  be  included  in  the  sectoral  support  component,  and 
more transparency over how funds are implemented and their results. 

•  Changing  the  head  agreement  from  a  FPA  to  a  SFPA  (of  a  six-year  period)  to 
better align the terms of Agreement with Articles 31 and 32 of the current CFP. 
This change would have a low impact as the current Protocol is already based on 
these two articles. 

The  main  risks  associated  with  this  option  relate  to:  i)  efficiency;  ii)  administrative 
burden; and iii) levels of socio-economic benefits in Mauritius. They are: 

•  A  continued  misalignment  between  the  financial  compensation  paid  by  the  EU 
with  the  use  of  fishing  opportunities  by  the  EU  fleet,  with  low  uptake  of 
authorisations  and  low  catches  -  even  under  a  situation  of  reduced  fishing 
opportunities.  
This  risk  relates  to  uncertainty  over  EU  vessels’  future  interest  in  fishing  in 
Mauritian waters based on:  

• 
• 

i) the restructuring of the EU tuna fleet;  
ii)  naturally  variable  oceanographic  conditions  in  the  Mauritius  fishing 
zone;  

26 The revised terms are mostly based on the EU Directive 2017/159  about ILO Convention C188 and the 
terminology  is  more  aligned  with  the  ILO  terminology.  They  are  based  on  dialogue  with  social 
partners and  stakeholders in  2022,  and  have  been  being  proposed  by  the  EU  to  non-EU  country 
partners for each new /renewed SFPA and Protocol negotiated since July 2024. 

27 Specific, measurable, agreed, realistic, timebound. 

38 

 
 
• 

iii)  the  location/migration  of  tuna  stocks;  and  iv)  the  fishing  strategy  of 
EU vessels. 

•  Administrative  requirements  which  would  not  increase  in  absolute  terms  but 
which  would  increase  in  terms  relative  to  the  size  of  the  Agreement.  Staff  time 
and  associated  costs  of  administrative  inputs  would  largely  remain  as  per  the 
current  Protocol.  (For  example,  it  would  still  be  necessary  to  hold  Joint 
Committee  meetings  each  year,  for  the  EU  to  report  catches  to  Mauritius  each 
year/quarter, and for the Mauritian authorities to produce annual implementation 
reports.) However, the Protocol would have fewer benefits for the EU, because of 
the  smaller  catches,  and  fewer  benefits  for  Mauritius,  because  of  the  smaller 
financial contributions. 

•  Actual employment of Mauritian fishers onboard EU tuna purse seiners still short 
of the objectives, due to a continuing mismatch between Mauritius’ offer in terms 
of its qualified workforce and the crewing needs of the EU vessels.  

•  A  continued  low  level  of  upstream  and  downstream  value  added  in  Mauritius 
from  low  levels  of  EU  fleet  activity  in  Mauritian  waters  and  landings  primarily 
taking place in Seychelles. 

6.8.  Results and impacts 

6.8.1.  Environmental-Economic-Social impacts 

The following table compares the environmental, economic and social impacts of the 
different options. The impacts remain essentially qualitative.  

In  comparing  the  results  between  options  2  and  3  -  both  of  which  would  ensure 
continued financial contributions and sectoral support from the EU to Mauritius - the 
different benefits would only be revealed following negotiations. They would also be 
based on authorisations taken up by EU vessels and catches made. This in turn would 
depend  on  the  availability  of  tuna  in  the  Mauritian  fishing  zone,  which  previous 
experience has shown is unpredictable from one year to the next. 

39 

 
 
  
Criteria 

1: 
Option 
implementing the SFPA  

No 

Protocol 

Option  2:  Renewed,  unchanged  Protocol 
(status quo)  

Option  3:  Amended  and  renewed 
Protocol with some adaptations  

Shared 

Shared 

Shared 

Environmental 
impacts  

•  Less 

fisheries-dependent 

scientific data available 

Mauritius 

•  Fewer 

funds 

available 

to 
Mauritius to implement relevant 
sectoral  support  activities  and 
to  monitor  and  control  fishing 
activities  taking  place  in  its 
waters  

•  Availability 

of 

fisheries-dependent 
scientific data on EU vessels in Mauritian 
waters  to  support  stock  assessments  and 
ecosystem considerations 

Mauritius 

•  Availability  of  multiannual  sources  of 
funding  (sectoral  support)  to  implement 
research  activities  and  support  national 
capacities  for  monitoring,  control  and 
surveillance and combating IUU fishing  

•  Availability  of  fisheries-dependent 
scientific  data  on  EU  vessels  in 
Mauritian  waters  to  support  stock 
assessments 
ecosystem 
and 
considerations 

Mauritius 

•  Availability  of  multiannual  sources 
of  funding  (sectoral  support) 
to 
implement  research  activities  and 
for 
support  national 
monitoring,  control  and  surveillance 
and combating IUU fishing  

capacities 

EU 

EU 

EU 

Economic 
impacts  

•  Savings  for 

the  EU  budget 
(≈ EUR 725 000  /  year  under 
the current Protocol) 

•  Payment  of  a  financial  contribution  to 
Mauritius  from  the  EU  budget  (amount 
dependent  on 
the 
negotiations,  but  EUR  725  000  per  year 

the  outcomes  of 

40 

•  Payment of a financial contribution to 
the  EU  budget 
Mauritius 
(amount dependent  on the outcomes 
likely 
of 

the  negotiations,  but 

from 

 
 
•  Possible negative impacts on the 
economic  performance  of  the 
EU 
fishing 
fleet 
opportunities  lost  in  Mauritian 
waters  cannot  be  replaced  by 
fishing opportunities elsewhere  

tuna 

if 

under the current Protocol) 

•  Economic  value  added  to  EU  shipowners 
and  processors  benefiting  the  EU  as  a 
result of the activities of the EU vessels in 
Mauritius  (value  depending  on  catches 
obtained)  

reduced from the current Protocol in 
line  with  the  reduced  tuna  fishing 
opportunities). 

•  Economic  value  added 

to  EU 
shipowners 
processors 
and 
benefiting  the  EU  as  a  result  of  the 
the  EU  vessels 
activities  of 
in 
Mauritius 
(value  depending  on 
catches obtained)  

Mauritius 

Mauritius 

Mauritius 

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

•  Multiannual  budget  income  stream  from 
EU  payments  (from  the  EU  and  EU 
shipowners)  –  amounts  dependent  on  the 
outcome of the negotiations and catches. 

to 

encourage 

•  EU  financial  compensation  to  support  the 
implementation  of  the  national  sectoral 
policy 
economic 
development  of  fisheries,  aquaculture  and 
blue economy sectors - amounts dependent 
on  the  outcome  of  the  negotiations  but 
EUR 450 000  per  year  under  the  current 
Protocol)  

the 

41 

•  Multiannual  budget  income  stream 
from EU access  payments  (from  the 
EU  and  EU  shipowners)  –  amounts 
dependent  on  the  outcome  of  the 
negotiations but likely reduced from 
the  current  Protocol  in  line  with  the 
reduced tuna fishing opportunities 

•  EU financial compensation to support 
the  implementation  of  the  national 
sectoral  policy  to  encourage  the 
economic 
the 
development 
fisheries sector - amounts dependent 
on the outcome of the negotiations.  

of 

 
  
•  Likely  reduced  funds,  but  a  more 
focused approach to use of funds and 
better monitoring resulting in greater 
net benefits per euro spent. 

•  Reduced  indirect  economic  benefits 
decreased 
from 
resulting 
attractiveness  of  Port  Louis  for  the 
EU  fleet  (port  services,  reduced 
direct  landings  of  tuna  to  local 
processors)  

EU 

EU 

EU 

•  Possible  negative 

fleet 

(and 

companies) 

impacts  on 
employment  onboard  the  EU 
in  EU 
fishing 
if 
processing 
fishing  opportunities 
in 
Mauritian  waters  cannot  be 
fishing 
replaced 
by 
opportunities 
catches 
elsewhere 

lost 

or 

Mauritius 

•  Employment  of  EU  nationals  onboard  EU 
vessels  fishing  in  Mauritius  (and  in  EU 
processors  having  access  to  EU  vessel 
catches)  secured  by  availability  of  fishing 
opportunities 

Mauritius 

•  Social benefits underpinned by activities of 
the sectoral support programme benefiting 
artisanal fishers in Mauritius 

•  Less 

funding 

available 

activities 

supporting 

for 
the 

•  Employment 

conditions  of  Mauritian 
fishers  and  other  nationals  onboard  EU 

42 

•  Employment 

of  EU 

nationals 
onboard  EU  tuna  vessels  fishing  in 
Mauritius  (and  in  EU  processors 
having  access  to  EU  vessel  catches) 
secured  by  availability  of  fishing 
opportunities 

Mauritius 

•  Social  benefits  underpinned  by 
activities  of  the  sectoral  support 
programme 
artisanal 
fishers.  

benefiting 

Social impacts  

 
of 

artisanal 
development 
fisheries in Mauritius which are 
currently 
the 
included 
sectoral  support  objectives  and 
projects/activities  

in 

vessels framed by the current social clause  

•  Benefits dependent on the outcome of 
the negotiations and funds provided, 
but  a  more  focused  approach  to  use 
funds  and  better  monitoring 
of 
resulting  in  greater  net  benefits  per 
euro spent 

•  Employment  conditions  of  Mauritius 
fishers  and  other  nationals  onboard 
EU  vessels  framed  by  an  improved 
social clause  

43 

 
 
 
 
7.  COMPARISON ACCORDING TO STANDARD EVALUATION CRITERIA (RELEVANCE, EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY AND COHERENCE) 

This table compares the different options in terms of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. 

Option 1 (No SFPA/Protocol)  

Option 2 (Status quo)  

Option 3 (SFPA and revised Protocol)  

Relevance to needs – Low.  

Relevance to needs – Medium.  

Relevance to needs – High.  

Would not meet the needs of either the EU or 
Mauritius  

Meets most needs for most but not all 
stakeholders in the EU and Mauritius  

Meets the needs of stakeholders in the EU 
and Mauritius  

Effectiveness – Low.  

Effectiveness – Medium/High.  

Effectiveness – High.  

Absence of sectoral support has negative 
impacts on sustainable fisheries, and ability 
of Mauritius to implement its sector policy.  

Benefits created in direct and indirect gross 
value added and employment by EU vessels 
in Mauritius disappear.  

EU- Mauritius cooperation in the fisheries 
sector would be only under the general 
framework of EU-ACP cooperation dialogue 
instruments and within the multilateral IOTC 
framework  

A new Protocol would be conducive to 
achieving sustainability for tuna stocks and 
support for Mauritius’ sectoral policy 
implementation, through its decoupled access 
and sectoral components.  

A new Protocol would be conducive to 
achieving sustainability for tuna stocks and 
support Mauritius’ sectoral policy 
implementation, through its decoupled access 
and sectoral components.  

However, the effectiveness of the use of 
sectoral support funds would also be 
undermined by implementation arrangements  

Effectiveness of the use of sectoral support 
funds would be improved through enhanced 
implementation arrangements  

Efficiency - n/a  

Efficiency – Cannot be evaluated ex ante  

Efficiency – Cannot be evaluated ex ante  

No use of EU budget in this case  

The efficiency of the intervention depends on 
the relationship between the budgets 
identified under the next Protocol and the 

The efficiency of the intervention depends on 
the relationship between the budgets 
identified under the next Protocol and the 

44 

 
actual levels of activity of the EU fleet; as 
well as the results obtained through 
implementation of the sectoral support 
component.  

actual levels of activity of the EU fleet; as 
well as the results obtained through 
implementation of the sectoral support 
component. 

However, adaptation of the reference tonnage 
and improved sectoral support performance 
per euro provided may improve performance 
compared to the status quo  

Coherence – Low.  

Coherence – High.  

Coherence – High. 

Without a Protocol, the EU would have less 
resources to implement the sub-regional 
strategy according to the principles of the 
CFP.  

The general principles guiding the 
development policy would  nevertheless 
continue to apply to the EU- Mauritius 
cooperation framework  

Protocol would make  it possible to 
coherently implement both the objectives of 
the CFP and those of the EU development 
policy while enabling Mauritius to implement 
its national and regional priorities.  

Protocol would make it possible to coherently 
implement both the objectives of the CFP and 
those of the EU development policy while 
enabling Mauritius to implement its national 
and regional priorities.  

EU added value – Low.  

EU added value – High.  

EU added value – High.  

For the EU, not implementing the FPA signed 
in 2014 through a new Protocol would not 
add value in the context of Mauritius  

The involvement of the EU is an obligation 
resulting from the existence of the FPA 
concluded in 2014 and of its exclusive 
competence in fisheries management  

The involvement of the EU is an obligation 
resulting from the existence of the FPA 
concluded in 2014 and of its exclusive 
competence in fisheries management  

Acceptability – Low.  

Acceptability – Medium.  

Acceptability – Medium/High.  

45 

 
Not acceptable to EU or (almost all) 
Mauritian stakeholders  

The relevant authorities and private sector 
actors in Mauritius support the principle of 
negotiating a new Protocol, while non-state 
environmental actors would need to view the 
specific contents of a new Protocol and the 
sectoral support contents to determine if they 
support it.  

EU shipowners support the renewal of the 
Protocol.  

EU civil society organisations and social 
partners have concerns over aspects of 
current sectoral support content and its 
implementation, and enforcement of labour 
standards, so would prefer to see 
improvements rather than the status quo.  

The increased length of the Protocol would 
provide more certainty to the Mauritius 
Government and EU fleets and would be 
more acceptable to them than option 254.  

The relevant authorities and private sector 
actors in Mauritius support the principle of 
negotiating a new Protocol, but reduced 
levels of access and thus financial 
compensation would reduce acceptability 
compared to option 2.  

Non-State environmental actors in Mauritius 
would need to view the specific contents of a 
new Protocol to determine if they support it, 
but would be more likely to do so with 
reduced EU access.  

Non-state social partners in the EU would 
find option 3 more acceptable due to 
improved social provisions.  

EU and Mauritian civil society/environmental 
organisations have concerns over aspects of 
current sectoral support and its 
implementation. Improvements in 
specification, implementation and 
transparency arrangements would make these 
aspects more acceptable.  

46 

 
7.5. Preferred option 

Option 3  -  leading  to  the  renewal  of  the  Protocol  of  the  Agreement  between  the  EU 
and  Mauritius,  with  some  amendments  and  a  change  in  the  head  agreement  from  a 
FPA to a SFPA - should be favoured. The revised Protocol set out in option 3 would 
better meet both parties’ needs than the unchanged Protocol set out in option 2.  

The main advantages of option 3 compared to the current Protocol are: 

i) 

improved  proportionality  between  the  number  of  fishing  authorisations 
available and their foreseeable use (relevance of the intervention), and,  

ii)  more  focused  use  of  sectoral  support  funds  and  better  monitoring  (enabled 
through  improved  specification  of  targets  and  indicators)  would  generate 
better results for Mauritius per euro spent. 

The non-renewal of the Protocol (option 1) would deprive the EU of an instrument to 
meet the needs of various stakeholders and its own needs in strengthening global ocean 
governance.  Non-renewal  would  damage  relations  between  the  EU  and  Mauritius, 
reduce  financial  resources  available  to  Mauritius,  and  undermine  the  continued 
strengthening  of  the  capacity  of  the  Mauritius  government  for  effective  and  efficient 
management of its fishery sector. 

7.6. Monitoring of a future Implementing Protocol 

Following  its  entry  into  force,  the  SFPA  and  Implementing  Protocol  with  Mauritius 
should  be  subject  to  continuous  monitoring  and  evaluation  through  a  technical 
dialogue with the Mauritian Ministry of Agro-Industry, Food Security, Blue Economy 
and Fisheries on the Agreement and the Protocol. 

With  respect  to  monitoring  and  evaluation,  the  most  appropriate  method  of 
implementation would be: 

•  Specification  of  a  log  frame  for  the  intervention  with  associated  indicators  and 
means  of  verification,  which  could  be  used  to  monitor  progress  and  results 
achieved over time. 

•  A jointly agreed  multiannual  sectoral  support matrix that includes indicators for 
relevant  SMART28  outputs,  results  and  impacts  (as  appropriate)  and  associated 
targets. 

28  Specific, measurable, agreed, realistic, timebound 

47 

 
 
 
 
•  Monitoring of the financial execution of the EU contribution for sectoral support 
that  includes  consistent  mechanisms  over  the  duration  of  the  multiannual 
programme to monitor the non-executed amounts at the time of reporting to the 
Joint Committee. 

•  A joint committee meeting at least once a year to assess both (i) implementation 
of  the  Protocol  in  light  of  the  log  frame  and  (ii) success  in  implementing  the 
sectoral support matrix, by monitoring progress based on indicators. 

•  Technical bilateral dialogue where necessary (including missions to Mauritius), to 
prepare  the  Joint  Committee  or  follow  up  implementation  of  its  decisions  or 
recommendations. 

The Protocol will need 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, to allow the EU institutions to prepare for 
its possible renewal by following the normal legislative procedures in both the EU and 
Mauritius, without interrupting the possibilities of access. 

48 

 
 
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

PLAN/2024/2074 - EU-Mauritius Fisheries Partnership Agreement and Protocol – negotiation mandate 

1.  Organisation and timing 

Tasks  

Signature of the contract 

Kick-off meeting  

Report from the kick-off meeting  

Submission of the inception report  

Meeting to discuss inception report  

Submission of the draft final report  

Meeting to discuss draft final report  

Submission of the final report  

Time  

22/08/2025 

29/08/2025 

05/09/2025 

19/09/2025 

23/09/2025 

18/11/2025 

26/11/2025 

12/12/2025 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
2.  Derogations granted 

This initiative does not require an impact assessment as it sets out a general policy approach and does not commit to any action. However, both 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  forward-looking  evaluation,  the  questions  focus  on  identifying  problems  and  needs,  the  objectives  to  be  achieved,  the  options 

available (whether or not to conclude a new Protocol) and the associated risks, and lessons learned. 

3.  Evidence, sources and quality 

The results of this SWD are mainly informed by an evaluation study conducted by an independent consultant. This evaluation study took place from 
August 2025 to December 2025 under the guidance of an interservice steering group established by different services of the European Commission 
and  under  the  terms  of  reference  of  specific  contract  number  14  under  the  framework  contract  MARE/2021/OP/0001.  The  evidence  base  of  this 
evaluation study consisted of two main components: (i) analysis of available documentation and (ii) consultations with stakeholders. 

50 

 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

The results of this SWD are mainly informed by an evaluation study conducted by an independent consultant.  The evaluation work was carried out 
between August 2025 and December 2025. Conducted under the guidance of an interservice group (ISG) set up by the European Commission’s DG 
MARE,  the  method  used  for  the  study  can  be  broken  down  into  three  main  components:  analysis  of  available  information;  consultations;  and 
preparation of an evaluation study. 

1. Analysis of available information 

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

•  Data and information from the Joint Committee meetings held since the Protocol became applicable. 
•  Reports from the various DG MARE technical missions to Mauritius 
• 

Information the two parties exchanged on implementing sectoral support: programming and monitoring documents, implementation reports prepared 
by Mauritius, etc. 

•  Data on fishing authorisations and catches by EU vessels in the fishing zone covered by the Protocol (extracted from DG MARE’s aggregated catch 

database) 

•  DG MARE data on the payment of fees due by EU operators for the issue of fishing authorisations; 
•  Amounts paid from the EU budget through the financial contribution identified in Article 6 of the Protocol (DG MARE budget monitoring). 

The  evaluation  study  also  consulted  other  documentary  sources,  including  the  regulatory  texts  applicable  in  the  context  of  the  Agreement  and  the 
reports from the IOTC and ICES scientific working groups and annual meetings. 

2. Consultations 

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

-  Consultation of stakeholders in the EU: from the outset of the evaluation, EU stakeholders were identified and consulted on the basis of a strategy 
validated  by  DG  MARE  at  the  start  of  the  evaluation.  The  consultation  involved  the  Commission  and  EEAS  services  involved  in  relations  with 

51 

 
 
Mauritius, the flag Member States of EU vessels benefiting from fishing opportunities, the professional associations grouping EU operators using the 
negotiated fishing opportunities and civil society. 

-  Consultation  of  stakeholders  in  Mauritius:  a  mission  was  organised  in  Mauritius  in  consultation  with  the  EU  and  Mauritius  parties  in  October 
2025. During the mission, face-to-face discussion sessions were held with the various departments of the Ministry of Agro-Industry, Food Security, 
Blue Economy and Fisheries involved in monitoring the Agreement, representatives of the private sector in the industrial and artisanal sectors, and 
environmental NGOs. Representatives of the EU Delegation in Port Louis were also consulted. 

3. Preparation of the evaluation study 

The EU’s recommended tools and guidelines were taken into account during the evaluation study, along with the methodological elements specific to 
the external dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy (such as those on the methods for evaluating the socio-economic impact of EU SFPAs). 

52 

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

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 Mauritius 

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

1.2 To what extent the 
implementation has followed the 
same principles and promotes the 
same standards for fisheries 
management as applied in EU 
waters? 

Stocks targeted by the EU fleet are not 
overexploited at the regional level or at national 
level, and the EU fishing capacity is within the 
limits established or recommended by the relevant 
RFMOs. 
The Protocol considers the management strategies 
expressed by RFMOs, RFOs and Mauritius. 
Mauritius takes part in the relevant RFMO/RFOs 
and provides data on activities carried out by vessels 
flagged to it and by other foreign fleets operating in 
its waters. 

The EU and Mauritius adopt management measures 
to reduce bycatches and discards and to reduce the 
possible impacts on the ecosystem.  

State of the stocks targeted under the Protocol 
(scientific advice analysis that Mauritius 
conducted, meetings, regional scientific 
reports, and data, RFMO/RFO and national 
scientific institutes). 
All fleets catches and fishing effort in 
Mauritius and in the region; possible impact 
on the environment of all the fleets operating 
in these waters.  
(All of the above considering that the target 
species - mainly tuna - are highly migratory 
species).  

State of the stocks taken as bycatch 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. 

53 

 
Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

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

1.4 To what extent do the 
Agreement and its Protocol help 
ensure compliance and control of 
the EU fleet activities? 

EU fishing activities are subject to an appropriate 
reporting obligation framework (logbooks, VMS, 
observers, etc.) in the Agreement and a scientific 
data collection framework (size composition of the 
catches, biological parameters etc.). This 
information is sent to the relevant RFMOs and 
national research institutes. 
EU scientists and Mauritius scientists actively 
participate in scientific meetings and RFMOs/RFOs 
scientific committees.  

The activity of the EU fleet is properly monitored 
(VMS, AIS, observers, etc.); reporting, monitoring 
and control takes place as stipulated in the Protocol 
and as legislation requires. Moreover, there is 
adequate monitoring, reporting and control of all 
catches and bycatches, and catch composition, 
possible infractions are sanctioned; sectoral support 
is used to improve monitoring, control and 
surveillance (MCS). 

Inclusion of data collection provisions in the 
Agreement and timely availability of relevant 
data at the management and scientific 
operators. 
Amount and quality of data collected.  
Number of reports to RFMOs and scientific 
institutes. 
Participation rate in RFMOs/RFOs scientific 
committees. 
Results achieved with sectoral support.  
Number of meetings between scientists and 
managers at country level. 

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

54 

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

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

Species and quantities covered by the Protocol 
correspond to the fishing patterns of the EU fleet. 
The fishing opportunities allowed are acceptable 
considering the activities of all fleets active in the 
same waters at national, sub-regional and regional 
level.  

2.1 To what extent do the 
Agreement and the Protocol seek 
an appropriate share of the 
surplus resources, commensurate 
with the EU fleet’s interests and 
its regional and sub-regional 
fishing strategy, and considering 
activity of other non-Mauritius 
vessels in its waters (whether or 
not based on access 
Agreements)? 

Use of fishing authorisations. 
Ue of fishing opportunities.  
Catches in waters covered by the current 
Agreement and its Protocol compared to 
overall catches at national, regional and sub-
regional, level if appropriate.  
Employment (direct and indirect jobs). 
Changes in the number of EU vessels in the 
Mauritius waters, in the region. 
Contribution to the supply of the EU market 
and EU processing sector (volume and value) 
and to the local processing sector. 
Use rate of derogations on rules of origin 
provided for in Economic Partnership 
Agreements concluded with the EU in the 
region, and relevance for the Agreement and 
its Protocol.  

55 

 
 
 
2.2 To what extent is the level of 
fees payable by Union 
shipowners for their fishing 
activities fair and proportional 
(considering the revenues and 
costs), non-discriminatory and 
promotes a level playing field 
among the different fleets? 

2.3 To what extent do the 
Agreement and the Protocol 
allow an appropriate supply of 
the EU, Mauritius and its 
neighbouring countries’ 
markets?  

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

The Agreement and its Protocol offer similar 
conditions to all foreign fleets operating in the 
fishing zones and management areas in the current 
Protocol. 
The cost-benefit ratio is acceptable and reasonable 
for the EU shipowners and for Mauritius.  

Level of fees and technical conditions applied 
to non-EU country fleets in the fishing zones 
and management areas in the current Protocol. 
Proportion between fees, (all) costs and (all) 
benefits for the EU shipowners and for 
Mauritius.  

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

2.4 To what extent do the 
Agreement and its Protocol 
encourage the creation of a 
secure environment that is 
favourable to private investment 
and economic activities 
contributing to the sustainable 
development of Mauritius and 
strengthening its cooperation 

Some of the fish caught under the Agreement 
supplies local market and processing industry. 
The EU fishing supports port- and ancillary 
activities and the economic and social development 
in the EU and in the area covered by the current 
Protocol.  
The Agreement has a major impact at regional level.  
There are synergies between the implementation of 
the Agreement and the economic and social 

56 

Percentage of landings versus local and 
neighbouring countries market’s needs. 
Trade figures on fish (and composition) 
between the EU and Mauritius. 
Trade balance and relation with Mauritius and 
neighbouring countries related to fish caught in 
Mauritius waters. 

Number of initiatives to improve Mauritius 
port services standards.  
Number of initiatives to ensure cooperation 
between local and EU economic operators.  
Benefits that such activities brought locally 
and to the EU.  
Number of initiatives with positive outcomes 
at a local, national and regional level.  
Scale of the benefits. 

 
with the EU? 

development of the country. 

To what extent do the Agreement 
and its Protocol consider the 
specific interests of the EU’s 
outermost regions located in the 
vicinity Union’s fleet?  

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

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

Objective 3: To support the development of a sustainable fisheries sector in EU partner countries (through the governance framework 
that the Agreement creates, cooperation on the blue economy, and through the sectoral support for small-scale and artisanal fisheries, 
for job direct and indirect creation, for development of the local and national sectoral policies, etc.) and through analysis of 
geographic, social, environmental, and economic impacts. 

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

3.1 To what extent do the 
Agreement and its Protocol 
contribute to capacity building 
and social, environmental and 
economic sustainable 
development in Mauritius? 

The sectoral support and implementation of the 
Agreement creates economic activity and improves 
(i) the functioning of the fisheries sector, (ii) 
governance, (iii) transparency, (iv) inclusiveness, 
and (v) social and economic development of the area 
covered by the current Protocol. It also provides for 
adequate training, equipment and infrastructures in 
the areas of science and monitoring, control and 

Results achieved with sectoral support and 
environmental, socio-economic impact of the 
implementation of the current Protocol. 
Percentage of the EU contribution to the 
different strategies, policies and value of 
indicators for assessing the socio-economic, 
environmental impact in the EU and in the 
partner country. Comprehensiveness and level 

57 

 
surveillance.  
Due reporting on use of the sectoral support 
(detailed results on expected environmental, 
economic and social benefits). 
Success criteria 

EU  vessels  recruit  some  of  their  staff  locally  and 
make them benefit from decent work, good working 
conditions  including  health,  safety  and  appropriate 
training for both men and women, equivalent to ILO 
core labour standards and ILO Conventions in force.  
Part of the catches are landed and processed locally. 
local  and 
landed, 
Catches  are 
neighbouring markets.  
Trade flows are generated. 
Identification  of  elements  that  facilitate  or 
discourage trade relations. 

traded 

the 

in 

of detail of the sectoral support reporting and 
cooperation on science, MCS, Blue Economy, 
artisanal fisheries, environmental conservation 
and policy areas. 

Suggested indicators 

Respect  of  the  minimum  number  of  local 
fishers embarked. 
Catches  (value  and  volume)  landed,  catches 
processed and catches marketed locally.  
Employment  created  directly  and  indirectly  in 
the EU and in Mauritius or in the (sub)region. 
Fair recruitment for men and women.  
Number of occupational labour accidents. 
Percentage of supplies to the local and 
neighbouring markets.  
Percentage of the fish caught by the EU fleet 
that supplies these markets and comparison 
with other supply sources. 

Questions 

3.2 To what extent do the 
Agreement and its Protocol 
promote employment of local 
fishers, improved infrastructures, 
respect of working conditions, 
including health and safety 
encourage landings, support the 
partner country in developing 
local fisheries (incl. artisanal) 
and the fish processing industry 
to supply the domestic, regional 
and/or EU market? To what 
extent do they contribute to 
(direct and indirect) to decent job 
creation? 

58 

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

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

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

All activities included in the sectoral support have been 
properly used and of environmental, social, and economic 
benefit to Mauritius and possibly the EU. 

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

To what extent have the sectoral 
support and cooperation on blue 
economy actions, policy area, 
small-scale and artisanal fisheries, 
food security, etc. agreed in the 
initial programming, been 
achieved at reasonable cost? 

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

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

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

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

Use of the fishing opportunities and positive cost-
benefit ratio per category and overall.  

Degree of completion of the initial programming. 
Percentage of sectoral support activities and 
projects compared to overall EU contribution, to 
the national budget for fisheries, marine and 
maritime issues and to other donor contributions. 
Contribution to the sustainable development of 
the country. 

Volume of catches. 
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 (if applicable). 

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

59 

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

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

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

The total EU contribution is in line with national and 
local needs and absorption capacity.  
The total amount of sectoral support is used as planned in 
the calendar and adapted to the needs of the country.  
Any modifications to the initial programming of the 
sectoral support have helped make better use of the 
financial support and contributed successfully to the 
sustainable development of the country. 

To what extent were the sectoral 
support payments paid on time 
and in line with the relevant 
provisions of the current 
Protocol? 

Contributions paid in line with the Protocol provisions 
and allocated to the national or local budget in 
compliance with the Protocol. 
Achievement of the criteria reports and procedures, 
budget, financial indicators and methods of control and 
audit. 
Achievements of annual and multi-year objectives 

Consumption of the EU contribution for sectoral 
support and geographical distribution compared 
to the local and national needs in the related 
policy area. 
Geographical and social distribution impacts and 
benefits from all financial compensation. 
Absorption capacity of the sectoral support. 
Success stories. 
Percentage of sectoral support compared to the 
national and local budget for fisheries and to 
other donor contributions. 

Calendar of payments and considered allocations. 
Results of the budget and financial indicators and 
methods of control and audit. 

60 

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

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

To what extent have the 
objectives set out in the 
Agreement and the Protocol still 
correspond to the needs of the 
EU, its Member States, and its 
shipowners? 
Should there have been different 
objectives? 

How is the Agreement and 
Protocol relevant to the policy 
objectives of RFMOs and the 
EU’s regional network of 
fisheries Agreements? To what 
extent are they relevant and create 
an important impact? 

Agreement and its Protocol implemented in line with the 
objectives of resource and environmental sustainability. 
Development  of  a  sustainable  fisheries  sector  supported 
at national and local level. 
Coastal States better integrated into the global economy. 
Improved scientific and technical knowledge. 
Economic exchanges supported.  
More sustainable economic and social development. 
More effective governance. 
National and local needs and those of the EU and its fleet 
correctly addressed. 

Achievement of objectives set at RFMOs. 
Maintenance of network of FPAs in the region on 
fisheries management and scientific issues. 
Creation of synergies with the EU and neighbouring 
countries, including at regional level, at RFMOs. 

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

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

61 

 
 
 
 
e.  Coherence – The extent to which the Agreement and its Protocol do not contradict other interventions with similar 

objectives 

Questions 

Success criteria 

How coherent is the Protocol with 
the CFP in general and with its 
external dimension and the 
regional fisheries policy (RFMOs 
and other organisations)? 

The Protocol is in line with the CFP in general. 
It helps achieve EU objectives at regional level, the EU’s 
zero-tolerance approach to IUU fishing, and is consistent 
with RFMOs’ and other organisations’ objectives or other 
EU interventions.  

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

Consistency with the main EU strategies and 
policy orientations (incl. on human and labour 
rights).  
Consistency of approaches and interventions; no 
duplication of activities; synergies created. 

The Protocol makes a substantial contribution to other 
EU policies and conversely. The Protocol and its 
implementation are coherent and cooperate very 
positively with other EU interventions, in particular with 
the relevant programmes supported by DG INTPA, and 
EU countries. 

The Protocol contributes to achieving the priorities 
identified nationally, locally, and regionally. Authorities, 
stakeholders, and society are aware and informed on the 
contribution. 
The Protocol contributes to the sustainable management 
of fisheries at local, national, and regional levels. 

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

62 

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

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

 
63 

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

Questions 

Success criteria 

Suggested indicators 

Successful use of the financial contribution (namely the 
sectoral support) to support and develop the national and 
local fisheries sector. 
Evidence of the need and usefulness of the benefits 
arising from the Agreement, in terms of good 
governance, natural resources conservation, sound 
implementation of sectoral policies, infrastructure, social 
services, the setting-up of businesses, vocational training, 
and of programmes aimed at developing and modernising 
the fisheries sector, to ensure that this distribution 
benefits the country, its natural resources and the 
population. 
Note: The fishing species included in the Agreement are 
the ones of interest for the EU fleet considering the 
species available and fishing possibilities for all fleets 
operating in the same area. 

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

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

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

Data on the implementation within the current Protocol in 
economic, social, and environmental terms compared to other 
agreements or with no Agreement. 
Data supporting evidence of progress in development of 
sustainable fisheries sector of Mauritius (incl. data reflecting the 
development of the fleet, infrastructure, control capacity, 
income and the state of marine resources and ecosystems) and 
usefulness of the access arrangements for the EU fleet thanks to 
the EU action, compared to results that could have reasonably 
been obtained (e.g. results obtained in another country 
considered as a benchmark) with and/or without other 
arrangements in place, in the absence of an EU Agreement. 

Uptake of fishing authorisations. 
Use of fishing opportunities. 
Use rate of derogations on rules of origin provided for in 
Economic Partnership Agreements concluded in the region, and 
relevance for the Agreement and its Protocol.  
Comparison of all costs and benefits of operating under this 
Agreement, other (S)FPAs and private agreements. 
Degree of legal certainty provided by the Agreement and its 
legal framework. 

64 

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

employed 

Questions 

Success criteria 

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

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

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

To what extent are the authorities, 
stakeholders and civil society in 
general satisfied with the 
implementation of 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). 

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

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

National and local administrations, stakeholders and 
society in general give a positive opinion on the 
implementation of the Protocol’s obligations. 

Suggested indicators and sources 

Results of interviews of shipowners and fisheries 
associations 

Results of interviews of NGO representatives and 
other stakeholders, local populations, seafarers’ 
and fishers’ representatives or associations, 
fishing operators in the EU and at the local, 
national, regional levels  

Results of interviews of industry, fishing 
operators, NGO representatives, seafarers’ and 
fishers’ representatives, or associations.  
Reports of any incidents between fleets. 

Level of compliance with the Protocol’s 
obligations (landing obligations, observers, data 
reporting, socio-economic impact of the 
Agreement’s implementation on national/local 
population, communication activities and their 
impact, communication activities, press 
statements, content of articles, social media, etc.). 

65 

 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS 

The tables below show cost and benefits compared to no FPA/Protocol. In most cases, EU fleets and EU Member States would have the same obligations 
and costs associated with control and enforcement of vessel activity either in the Mauritius fishing zone or in the broader competence area of the IOTC, 
and the Mauritius  authorities would have similar control and enforcement  costs if they allowed EU vessels access  to  their waters. Recurrent  costs are 
annual. Sources of information are shown in brackets. 

EU citizens/ 
consumers 

Mauritius citizens/ 
consumers 

EU businesses 

Mauritius 
businesses 

EU countries’ 
administrations 

Mauritius’ 
administration 

EU Commission services 

Costs 
Direct 
compliance costs 

Negotiation of 
Protocol 

Design of 
sectoral support 
component 
Enforcement 
costs 

Sectoral support 
oversight 

Data 
management, 
licensing and 
vessel oversight  

Benefits 
Direct 

Financial 
compensation for 
access (EU and 
shipowners) 

one-off / 
recurrent 

one-off 

n/a 

one-off 

n/a  

recurrent 

n/a  

recurrent 

n/a 

one-off / 
recurrent 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a  

n/a 

Monetary value, ranges and/or qualitative comment 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a  

n/a  

n/a 

n/a  

n/a  

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

1/12 FTE/year 
estimated 
(consultants) 

Some staff time, 
but not 
quantifiable 
Some staff time, 
but not 
quantifiable 

1/2 FTE/year 
estimated 
(Ministry) 

1/2 FTE/year 
(Ministry) 

2 person months FTE 
estimated (DG MARE) 

n/a  

1/4 FTE/year estimated 
(DG MARE) 

1/8 FTE/year estimated 
(DG MARE) 

Monetary value, ranges and/or qualitative comment 

recurrent 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a  

n/a 

n/a 

EUR 558 000  
2023-2024  

n/a  

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sectoral support for 
admin. / 
management, MCS, 
and 
research/science 

EU catches in 
Mauritius to 
consumers (after 
processing) 

recurrent 

n/a  

n/a 

n/a  

n/a 

n/a  

EUR 450 000 / 
year (Protocol) 

n/a 

recurrent 

662 tuna 
fish  
(≈ 277 
tonnes 
canned 
tuna) 
average 
2023 2024) 

n/a  

n/a 

n/a 

n/a  

n/a 

n/a 

Direct value added 
to EU fleet 

recurrent 

n/a 

n/a  

EUR 199 000 
annual average 
2023-2024 

EUR 257 000 
annual average 
2023-2024  

n/a  

Crewing/employmen
t (FTE) 

recurrent 

5 = annual 
average 
2023-2024 

0 = annual average (2023-
2024) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Indirect 

Indirect value added 

recurrent 

n/a  

n/a  

EUR 195 000 
annual average 
2023-2024 

EUR 151 000 
annual average 
2023-2024 

n/a  

n/a  

Upstream/downstre
am employment 
(FTE) 

recurrent 

4 = annual 
average 
2023-2024  

5 = annual average 2023-
2024  

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a  

n/a 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT 

Background   

In line with the Terms of Reference and the Better Regulation ‘toolbox’, the independent consultant produced a strategy for obtaining 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 aim of the consultation was to:   

1.  get  stakeholders’  views  on  the  implementation  of  the  ongoing  protocol  and  on  the  possible  renewal  of  the  protocol,  including  the  different 

options;   

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

Target groups 

•  Organisations representing EU fishing vessels with fishing opportunities under the current Protocol and, where appropriate, EU fishing vessels 

with a possible interest in obtaining such fishing opportunities in the future 

•  Competent authorities of EU countries whose fishing vessels use fishing opportunities under the current Protocol and have a possible interest in 

obtaining them in the future 

•  Civil society: NGOs active in the field of fisheries and the marine environment and trade unions or organisations of seafarers signed on board EU 

fishing vessels 

•  Development cooperation organisations of EU countries active in Mauritius 

For the full list of targeted organisations consulted, see the table of stakeholders provided at the end of this Annex. 

Method of consultation 

•  By electronic consultation on the basis of questionnaires (Q) tailored to each of the target groups in three languages (Spanish, French, English). 

Supplemented, where appropriate, by video calls (VC). 

68 

 
Results of the consultation 

Response rate: 52% 

Total number of organisations consulted (outside European Commission DGs, LDAC and MAC): 21 

Number of replies received: 10 

Stakeholder 

Stakeholders in charge of the implementation of the FPA 
Spain: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food / MAPA - International Fisheries 
Relations Department 
France: Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Développement Durable et de la Mer / DG AMPA 

Italy: Ministero dell’agricoltura,deall sovranita alimentare e delle foreste 

Portugal: DGRM - Direção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços 
Marítimos 

Stakeholders who are direct beneficiaries of fishing opportunities 
OPAGAC (purse seiners - Spain) 

ANABAC (purse seiners - Spain) 

ORTHONGEL (Purse seiners – France and Italy) 

CRPMEM – Regional Fisheries Committee of Réunion (Longliners –France) 
OPNAPA - Organización de Productores Nacional de Palangre de Altura (Longliners – 
Spain) 
ADAPI (longliners – Portugal) 

ORPAGU (longliners – Spain) 

ARVI (longliners – Spain) 

Stakeholders with an interest in the SFPA 

EEAS / EU Delegation in Mauritius 

69 

Contribution 

Provided (Q) 

Not provided 

Provided (Q) 

Not provided 

Not provided  

Provided (Q) 

Provided (Q) 

Not provided 

Not provided 

Not provided 

Not provided  
Responded (Q) 
but declined to 
comment as no 
vessels using 
Agreement 

Provided (IP) 

 
 
 
 
Stakeholder 

Pew Charitable Trusts 

Europêche 

European Transport Federation 

CAPE/CFFA 

COGECA 

WWF  

Environmental Justice Foundation 

Oceana  

Long Distance Advisory Committee (LDAC) 

Contribution 

Not provided 

Not provided 

Provided (Q) 
Provided (Q and 
VC) 

Not provided 

Not provided 
Responded but 
declined to 
comment (Q) 

Provided (Q) 

Informed 

See Annex 8 of the evaluation study for information on the exact content of the consultation, including detailed responses of the stakeholders. 

70