EFCA
5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION
&OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES
EP- COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES11 July 2012
EFCA - 5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION&
OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES
ContentI. Governance 5 year independent external evaluation report AB recommendationsDraft Multiannual Work Programme (MWP) 2013-2017 and Annual Work Programme (AWP) 2013
II. Operational activitiesJDPs state of playIII. The possible way forward
5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT
1st Evaluation of the 5 year term of the Agency: 2007 – 2011; 85 000 €
Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005“Every five years the Administrative Board shall
commission an independent external evaluation of the implementation of this Regulation”
BackgroundBackground
5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT
Overall conclusion
“The evaluators’ overall assessment of the governance and performance of the CFCA1 is positive although there is scope for improvements.
On the whole, governance arrangements have worked well.
Considering the agency’s limited resources, its operation in the politically sensitive environment of fisheries policy, and current Member State budget constraints, performance against the evaluation criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability can be considered promising…”2
1.The Agency name changed to European fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) on January 2012
2. Community Fisheries Control Agency, five-year independent external evaluation, final report (page 116)
5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT
Evaluation MethodDesk research
Stakeholder consultations with 16 MS, EC, EP, ECA, EMSA,FRONTEX and 10 other organisations (RACs, NGOs)
Survey feedback from 20 Member State and 5 EC representatives (76%); 46 RAC members and other stakeholders (20%)
5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT
Evaluation report findings on performance3
Relevance: alignment of the activity with relevant policy priorities and needs at EU and MS level;
Efficiency: delivery of activities in line with schedules and resources, and on the general operation of the Agency;
Effectiveness and Impact: deal respectively with the achievement of immediate and more long-term objectives;
Sustainability: addresses issues related to the dissemination of knowledge and the integration of contents into MS systems and approaches.3.The Evaluation report also covered the intervention logic and governance
5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT
Performance – Relevance
9999999999
5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT
Performance – AB on Operational Coordination
9999999999
5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT
Performance – AB on Capacity Building
9999999999
5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT
Performance – Efficiency
9999999999
5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT
Performance –Effectiveness
9999999999
5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT
Performance – AB on Operational Coordination
9999999999
5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT
Performance – AB on Compliance
9999999999
5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT
Performance –Impact
9999999999
5 YEAR INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT
Performance –Sustainability
9999999999
ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
Following the 5 year independent external evaluation report
the seminar on the 5 year independent external evaluation of the Agency
Administrative Board recommendationsAdministrative Board recommendations
SUMMARY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDRECOMMENDATIONS
Level playing field and coordination and assistance for better compliance are considered as wider objectives of the Agency;
Introduction of multi-species and continuous regional JDP with a solid legal basis and prioritisation;
Examine periodically at which level EFCA involvement in the JDPs provides the best added value, in accordance with the existing legal basis;
Establish a clear overarching road map for training, in particular the remaining areas of the Core Curricula, including the training of trainers;
SUMMARY OF THEADMINISTRATIVE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
Establishment of regional training for national inspectors, as well as Union inspectors;
Implement the recently prepared method for assessing the performance of the JDPs after discussion at regional level;
Development of indicators for measuring the effectiveness of capacity building;
Develop a method for assessing cost effectiveness for Member States;
SUMMARY OF THEADMINISTRATIVE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
Show-case EFCA best practice on inter-agency and national agencies cooperation, and share EFCA experience on performance indicators for measuring administrative efficiency and effectiveness;
Annual stock-taking of scientific evidence on developments with the fish stocks that the EFCA is focusing on. Consider scientific bodies request for access to data for scientific purposes;
EFCA and the EC to study ways of exchanging data on compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy requirements, in accordance with data ownership requirements of Member States;
SUMMARY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
Administrative Board to focus on strategic issues, leaving routine matters to be decided by written procedure;
The Board should reflect on the participation of other parties in the Administrative Board;
It is too premature to propose an amendment of Agency regulation. Nevertheless a guidance document with clear description of responsibilities delimitation between EFCA, EC, and MS is recommended.
Draft MWP 2013-2017 & AWP 2013
Considering the overarching objectives of sustainability, compliance, level playing field and available resources the Agency will concentrate on the core tasks in 2013 -2017:
1. Multiannual positive priorities
2. Multiannual negative priorities
Proposed positive priorities1.1- Operational CoordinationSucceed in implementing the evolution towards regional, multispecies Joint Deployment Plans in force and coordination of control activities of Black Sea Member States. The process will require:
Improving regional risk management;
Assessment of impact of control activities;
Reflections on the possible introduction of scientific input in the current JDP risk management and on controllability, intelligence and data analysis/cross checking in the JDP framework;
Draft MWP 2013-2017 & AWP 2013
Proposed positive priorities1.2.- Capacity Building
a) Training: inter alia core curricula
b) Support Member States, European Commission and horizontal agency activities:
development of ICT projects (ERS, FISHNET, JADE, training platform, ICT mapping platform and EIR);
Common fisheries Policy (CFP) reform inter alia discard ban;
Maritime surveillance and new technologies based on the evaluation of the pilot project
Acquisition of means for the Member States.
Draft MWP 2013-2017 & AWP 2013
Proposed positive priorities
1.3.- Cooperation with Third Countries on Commission request
Operational cooperation with Norway (and maybe Faeroes and Iceland) could be considered in the North Sea, and Pelagic Western Waters JDPs;
Russia in the Baltic Sea and NAFO-NEAFC, Canada and USA;
Mediterranean third countries.
Draft MWP 2013-2017 & AWP 2013
Draft MWP 2013-2017 & AWP 2013
EFCA Budget (€)
Expenditure(€)
BUDGET 2011
BUDGET 2012
DB 2013
DB2014-2017
Title I (Staff) 6,047,000 6,225,000 6,329,000 TBDTitle II (Administrative costs)
1,233,000 1,279,359 1,175,359 TBD
Title III (Operational costs)
5,570,000 1,712,541 1,712,541 TBD
Total expenditure
12,850,000 9,216,900 9,216,900 TBD
Budget ExecutionEvolution
OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES
EP- COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES11 July 2012
JDPs state of playJDPs 2012 – Data 1st Semester
JDP NAFO/NEAFC BALTIC SEA
NORTH SEA
PELAGIC WW
BLUEFIN TUNA
TOTAL
Number of inspections 82 2096 1822 923 372 52955295
Cases infringement 6 100 108 85 33 332332
TYPE OF INFRINGEMENT DETECTEDTYPE OF INFRINGEMENT DETECTEDINSPECTIONS CONDITIONS 1 6 8 1 1616
LICENCING 1 8 6 12 2727TECHNICAL MEASURES 1 15 36 4 7 6363
CONSERVATION MEASURES 3 10 21 11 4545
REPORTING 29 32 77 14 152152NATIONAL MEASURES 38 5 1 4444
JDPs state of play JDPs Ratio of infringements vs
inspections (2007-2012 up to 30th June)
JDPs state of play JDPs Number of inspections(2007- 2012 up to 30th June)
JDPs state of play BFT JDP - Pooled Means until June 2012
Western Med Central Med Eastern Med Eastern Atl
High Seas Patrol Vessels 1 3 - -
Coastal Patrol Vessels 9 5 6 -
Airplanes/Helicopters 5 4 2 -
High Seas Patrol Vessels 4
Coastal Patrol Vessels 20
Airplanes/Helicopters 11
Number of means deployed
Number of means deployed in each area
128 ICCAT inspectors participate to missions coordinated by the JDP
JDPs state of play BLUEFIN TUNA JDP 2012
Joint Activities 2012 (1st Half)Mediterranean and Atlantic
Vessels inspected
Vessels inspected with at least 1 infringement found
Joint Campaign 2012 SEA 241 23LAND 131 10TOTAL 372 33
In 2012, most possible infringements were related to technical measures (by-catch of more than 5%), documentation (logbook, ITD, BCD, video) and misreporting.
TYPE OF INFRINGEMENTS DETECTED
TECHNICAL MEASURES LICENSING REPORTING
7 12 14
JDPs state of play Fused maritime data
(VMS, AIS, SAT AIS, incidents, tuna farms…)
VMS with expired ICCAT permit (on the way to port)
VMS with validICCAT permit
Fishing Vessel (AIS, no VMS)
JDPs state of play A global picture
in support to control operations
JDPs state of play Monitoring of fishing vessel behavior in
transit (entering Med on the way to Suez)
AIS position (reported)
Voyage projection (not reported)
THE WAY FORWARD
Support on the implementation of the Control Regulation (e.g.: traceability,...) and CFP reform;
EFCA as “body designated”;
Coordination of Member Sates data management systems;
The new SCIP approach.
THE POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD
THE POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD
THE WAY FORWARD
THE WAY FORWARD
SCIP COOPERATION MODEL
AssessmentAssessmentAssessment
AssessmentAssessment
THANK [email protected]
http://www.efca.europa.eu
mailto:[email protected]
presentation_Savouret_20120711.ppt