COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION of the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund mid-term evaluation
Date: 2026-03-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: aquaculture, common fisheries policy, conservation of resources, fishery resources, fund (EU), maritime economy, project evaluation, resources of the sea, sea fishing, sustainable fisheries

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.3.2026  SWD(2026) 88 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  of the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund mid-term evaluation {SWD(2026) 87 final}  
 
 
Context and purpose of the evaluation 

The European Maritime Fisheries Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) established under Regulation 
(EU) 2021/11391 (hereinafter referred to as the EMFAF Regulation) channels funding from the 
Union budget to support the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)2, the Union’s maritime policy and 
the Union’s international commitments in the field of ocean governance. Such funding is a key 
enabler for sustainable fisheries and the conservation of marine biological resources, for food 
security  through  the  supply  of  aquatic  food  products,  for  the  growth  of  a  sustainable  blue 
economy and for healthy, safe, secure, clean and sustainably managed seas and oceans. 

This evaluation covers the EMFAF including shared, direct and indirect management strands 
and includes the 26 national EMFAF programmes under shared management3.  The evaluation 
aims to provide, half-way through, a mid-term evaluation of how the EMFAF is delivering 
on  its  objectives.  It  covers  the  five  evaluation  criteria  set  out  in  the  European 
Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines4. 

The obligation to carry out the mid-term evaluation by the end of 2024 is set in the Article 45.1 
of the Common Provisions Regulation5 (shared management). The evaluation covers the period 
from the start of the programming period until the first quarter of 2024. Given the timing of 
this  report,  it  does  not  deliver  a  fully-fledged  impact  evaluation  but  it  reports  on  the 
progress made to date. For shared management, given that national EMFAF programmes and 
national  rules  and  procedures  had  to  be  developed  and  adopted  before  the  selection  of 
operations could begin, operations formally began to be implemented only in the second half 
of  2023,  with  the  first  data  received  in  January  2024.  Therefore,  meaningful  levels  of 
implementation of financial support have not yet been reached that would allow an assessment 
of  results  and  impacts  of  the  Fund.  Such  an  impact  analysis  can  be  included  in  the  2029 
retrospective  evaluation,  when  the  operations  supported  by  the  EMFAF  will  have  been 
implemented.  

This report therefore takes stock of the progress in the implementation of the EMFAF halfway 
through its seven-year cycle and indicates a way forward to evaluate its impact in the future.  

Main findings 

At the half-way point, the implementation of the Fund is under way in all Member States, even 
if the implementation rate is low. Based on transmission of data info for the reporting period 
until 30 June 2024, commitments reached 16% on average, with 10 Member States well below 
10% and even 4 Member States still at 0% commitments at 4 years into the programme period 
and 2 years after programme adoption.  

There  is  a  high  variability  in  the  implementation  between  Member  States  and  specific 
objectives. At the EU level Priority 1 has 59% of total committed amounts; Priority 2 – 20%, 

1 Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing  
European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 
2 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 
3 Representing all EU Member States except Luxembourg, which has no national EMFAF programme 
4 https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation/better-
regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en 
5 Regulation - 2021/1060 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 

the 

1 

 
 
 
Priority 3 – 8%, Priority 4 – 2%. Progress is visible particularly in operations implemented by 
public  bodies,  especially  for  data  collection  and  control,  research  institutes  for  projects  on 
innovation  and  improving  knowledge,  and  ongoing  progress  to  operationalise  Local  Action 
Groups (LAGs) is noted with differences across Member States.  

Beyond  activation  of  the  specific  objectives,  at  this  early  implementation  stage,  the  first 
operations  implemented  initially  indicate  a  strong  support  to  the  data  collection  and  control 
operations, the landing obligation, a cornerstone of the CFP, biodiversity protection and support 
for small-scale Fisheries.  

Effectiveness 

The delivery of the support takes time to materialise and only a few operations have been fully 
completed  so  far.  Variations  between  Member  State  are  significant:  while  some  have  only 
started programme implementation, others have already committed over 40% and close to 50% 
of their EMFAF allocation. On the positive side, the EMFAF appears to be more advanced than 
the EMFF in the middle of the programming period, indicating that Member States expect to 
make considerable headway in 2025 in most cases. The EMFAF faces challenges, notably in 
terms of organisational capacity, and the need for consistent training and skills development, 
especially at the national level. Addressing these areas can further enhance the effectiveness of 
the EMFAF in achieving its goals of sustainable structural changes in the maritime and fisheries 
sectors.  

Stakeholder involvement during the preparation of national EMFAF programmes has also been 
largely effective, with strong support and satisfaction for the managing authorities. However, 
there  is  room  for  more  innovative  contributions  and  better  alignment  of  stakeholder 
expectations  with  the  practical  realities  of  the  programmes.  There  is  also  more  room  for 
simplification  and  optimisation  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  delivery  system,  especially  with 
enhanced use of simplified costs options and financial instruments, the application and selection 
procedures, and optimisation of the Member States’ monitoring and reporting systems.  Even 
though, it is too early to systematically assess the impact of the EMFAF, the analysis of the 
national EMFAF programmes and feedback gathered from the Member States show that the 
planned budget allocation and types of actions demonstrate both continuity with the EMFF and 
capitalisation on lessons learnt. 

Efficiency 

The  novel  EMFAF  architecture  makes  a  shift  from  predefined  measures,  to  broad  types  of 
actions  offering Member States greater flexibility  to  pursue strategic objectives based on an 
assessment  of  their  needs.  Moreover,  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation  (CPR)  introduced 
flexibilities, such as the streamlining of the enabling conditions, the reduction in control and 
audit requirements and the simplified identification of programme authorities, aiming to make 
the programming and implementation of the CPR Funds more efficient. 

The EMFAF provides for the possibility to trigger a crisis mechanism, which would result in 
compensation  in  case  of  exceptional  events  causing  a  significant  disruption  of  markets. 
Moreover,  the  EMFAF’s  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  system  has  improved  considerably 
compared to the previous programming period, through the early development of indicators in 
consultation  with  the  Member  States,  the  provision  of  guidance  on  the  indicators  and  the 
performance framework methodology for target setting. The EMFAF is expected to provide 

2 

 
 
more reliable data and show more concretely how the Fund contributes to the objectives of the 
CFP as well as to the horizontal policy priorities of resilience, green and digital transition. These 
contributions are expected to become clearer in the context of the retrospective evaluation. 

Despite steps taken at the EU and national level to simplify the Fund and its implementation, 
administrative costs are assessed to have increased overall. While these costs are considered 
justified in general by the complexity and legal restrictions of the Fund, and comparable to what 
has been observed for other CPR Funds, they seem disproportionate for countries with a lower 
EMFAF budget allocation, in particular landlocked countries. 

Coherence 

There are several ways the regulatory framework strengthens internal coherence between the 
EMFAF and the CFP:  

•  Setting minimum targets for specific CFP areas, such as biodiversity protection and data 

collection and control. 

•  Establishing higher intensity aid for certain types of actions and beneficiaries, including on 
operations related to the landing obligation (the maximum aid intensity rate for operations 
improving size selectivity of fishing gear is established at 100%), support for small-scale 
coastal fisheries (maximum aid intensity rate of 100%) and support for Outer-most Regions 
and other remote islands (maximum aid intensity of 85% vs 50% for other geographical 
areas). 

•  Establishing means to reinforce monitoring of EMFAF contributions to specific CFP areas 
–  The  contribution  of  the  EMFAF  to  different  CFP  areas  is  tracked  through  the  use  of 
markers that are reported on a regular basis within the MEF. 

This coherence is supported by Member States’  programmes,  where allocated budgets often 
exceed the mandatory minimum amounts.  

During  the implementation of the Fund, internal  coherence is  maintained  through eligibility 
criteria and compliance requirements that ensure that beneficiaries and their projects adhere to 
CFP rules.  

The EMFAF aligns with and complements the other EU funds. The degree of coherence and 
complementarity varies across funds, with the strongest synergies seen between the EMFAF, 
ERDF6 and ESF+7. There is good coherence and complementarity between the objectives of 
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funds8  and also good coherence is present between the 
EMFAF  and  Horizon  Europe9  with  good  examples  of  synergies.  There  is  relatively  good 
complementarity between the EMFAF and the LIFE programme10.  

6 Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on the European 
Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund. 
7 Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 establishing the European Social Fund Plus 
8 Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 – rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the 
common agricultural policy (CAP strategic plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 
and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development  
9 Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing 
Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for 
participation and dissemination, and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1290/2013 and (EU) No 1291/2013 
10 Regulation (EU) 2021/783 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing a 
Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE), and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 

3 

 
 
 
There  is  strong  potential  for  synergies  between  the  EMFAF  and  InvestEU  as  both  funding 
instruments can be complementary.  

Moreover,  the  contribution  of  the  EMFAF  to  tackling  climate  change  is  in  line  with  the 
European  Green  Deal  and  the  EU’s  commitments  to  implement  the  Paris  Agreement.  The 
EMFAF also aligns with the Farm to Fork Strategy by, supporting sustainable (environmental, 
economic and social) fishing and aquaculture activities, biodiversity protection and restoration, 
carbon emissions reduction and improvement of products quality. Finally, the EMFAF plays a 
role  in  preserving  and  restoring  ecosystems  and  biodiversity  by  supporting  environmental 
legislation,  including  the  Habitat  and  Birds  Directives  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive, and actions within the Natura 2000 network.  

European Value Added 

With the CFP being an exclusive competence, the role of the EU in implementation and funding 
is indispensable and the general notion of the common policy, the mobile nature of fisheries, 
and  the  duty  to  manage  the  resources  responsibly,  means  that  without  adequate  oversight 
Member  States  would  not  be  incentivised  to  manage  the  common  resources.  Thanks  to  the 
investments made by fishers and national administrations, and through the support of the EMFF 
and in continuation of the EMFAF, fishing has become more sustainable and far fewer stocks 
are now overfished in the EU. In the Mediterranean and Black Seas, the situation has improved 
but  the rate of overfishing is  still too  high,  and  more efforts  are needed  to  restore stocks to 
healthy levels, also with the help of the Fund.  

The managing authorities pointed out that overall, the EMFAF promotes a level playing field 
for all EU stakeholders operating in the blue economy sectors, and provides the incentives to 
support  research,  data  collection,  fisheries  control  and  facilitate  the  adoption  of  sustainable 
fishing  practices.  The  Fund  can  also  enhance  coordinated  efforts  and  shared  benefits  across 
Member States, making interventions more effective and efficient compared with what Member 
States could achieve through national-level actions alone. 

Relevance 

The  EMFAF  continues  to  be  a  strategic  instrument  to  address  the  EU  policy  priorities  and 
national needs, by providing flexibility to Member States to programme EMFAF in line with 
the  changing  policy  context  and  priorities.  The  evaluation  findings  show  that  managing 
authorities appreciated that their programmes considered regional specificities, which ensured 
they were tailored to the unique conditions and needs of local communities. The review of the 
national  EMFAF  programmes  confirmed  that  20  Member  States  have  specifically  built-in 
flexibility to allow for changes in needs and uncertainty over the course of the programming 
period, which shows that the Fund is now more flexible in dealing with the reality on the ground. 

The two-year work programme delivered under (in)direct management is also able to adapt to 
emerging needs on a more regular basis and serves as a complement to the national EMFAF 
programmes in addressing needs that transcend national boundaries.  

There is however room for improvement and more efforts are needed in addressing the social 
aspects and challenges of the sector which are expected to increase. 

4