EFF-Interim Evaluation En

Interim evaluation of the European Fisheries Fund (2007-2013) Final report

February 2011

2

Table of contents

1 Objectives, scope and approach of the evaluation .......................................................................... 4

1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 4

1.2 Objective and scope of the evaluation .................................................................................... 5

1.3 Evaluation approach and limitations........................................................................................ 7

2 Evaluation of the implementation and management systems........................................................ 10

2.1 Introduction to the implementation and management systems............................................. 10

2.2 EQ No 1: programming and implementation of key principles (partnership and demarcation line) 14

2.3 EQ No 2: programme management ...................................................................................... 22

2.4 EQ No 3: programme monitoring........................................................................................... 32

3 Evaluation of effectiveness and progress to date .......................................................................... 36

3.1 Introduction to EFF programmes........................................................................................... 36

3.2 EQ No 4: programmes’ state of play ..................................................................................... 40

3.3 EQ No 5: preliminary results achieved by the Axis 1 projects............................................... 47





4 Conclusion and recommendations................................................................................................. 94

5 Annexes ......................................................................................................................................... 98

5.1 Annex 1: General tables on effectiveness............................................................................. 98

5.2 Annex 2: Objectives’ tree of EFF......................................................................................... 109

5.3 Annex 3: List of interviews................................................................................................... 111

5.4 Annex 4: Acronyms ............................................................................................................. 115

3

This study was undertaken by Ernst & Young, in association with A.N.D International and Eurofish International Organisation.

The evaluation team comprised:

• Arnauld Bertrand (Partner, Ernst & Young),

• Christina Castella (Manager, Ernst & Young),

• Tom Farrant (Senior, Ernst & Young),

• Dominique Aviat (A.N.D. International),

• Séverine Renault (A.N.D. International)

• Aina Afanasjeva (Eurofish).

4

1 Objectives, scope and approach of the evaluation

1.1 Introduction The European Fisheries Fund (EFF)1 is the financial instrument of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) for 2007-2013. The EFF replaced the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) which covered the 2000-2006 programming period. The EFF total budget amounts to € 4.3 billion.

This public aid instrument seeks to grant financial support to the European fisheries sector for the period 2007-2013 to help it adapt to changes required within the sector. The EFF is designed to secure a sustainable European fishing and aquaculture industry by achieving the objectives set under the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in 2002.

As defined in the Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 establishing the EFF framework for the 2007-2013 period, assistance under the EFF should aim to:

► support the common fisheries policy so as to ensure exploitation of living aquatic resources and support aquaculture in order to provide sustainability in economic, environmental and social terms;

► promote a sustainable balance between resources and the fishing capacity of the Community fishing fleet;

► promote a sustainable development of inland fishing;

► strengthen the competitiveness of the operating structures and the development of economically viable enterprises in the fisheries sector;

► foster the protection and the enhancement of the environment and natural resources where related to the fisheries sector;

► encourage sustainable development and the improvement of the quality of life in areas with activities in the fisheries sector;

► promote equality between men and women in the development of the fisheries sector and fisheries areas2.

Regulation (EC) No 498/2007 articulates the detailed rules for implementing the different structural measures and defines a framework for the monitoring of programme implementation. Individual operations can be classified under 5 priority axes and 16 measures:

► Priority axis 1: Measures for the adaptation of the Community fishing fleet

− Measure 1.1: Permanent cessation of fishing activities

− Measure 1.2: Temporary cessation of fishing activities

− Measure 1.3: Investments on board fishing vessels and selectivity

− Measure 1.4: Small-scale coastal fishing

− Measure 1.5: Socio-economic compensations for the management of the fleet

1 Commission Regulation (EC) No 498/2007 of 26 March 2007 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund

2 According to article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 the Member States and the Commission shall ensure that equality between men and women and the integration of the gender perspective are promoted during the various stages of implementation of the EFF, including the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The Member States shall ensure that operations to enhance the role of women in the fisheries sector are promoted.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32007R0498:EN:NOT

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32007R0498:EN:NOT

5

► Priority axis 2: Aquaculture, inland fishing, processing and marketing of fishing and aquaculture products

− Measure 2.1: Aquaculture

− Measure 2.2. Inland fishing

− Measure 2.3. Fish processing and marketing

► Priority axis 3: Measures of common interest

− Measure 3.1: Collective actions

− Measure 3.2: Protection and development of aquatic fauna and flora

− Measure 3.3: Fishing ports landing sites and shelters

− Measure 3.4: Development of new markets and promotion campaigns

− Measure 3.5: Pilot operations

− Measure 3.6: Modification for reassignment of fishing vessels

► Priority axis 4: Sustainable development of fisheries areas

► Priority axis 5: Technical assistance

1.2 Objective and scope of the evaluation

Objectives The objective of this interim evaluation is to perform an up-to-date assessment of the uptake and first impacts of EFF measures implemented in the Member States. The interim evaluation of the EFF is based on the existing guidelines that were developed by the Commission with the help of a network of evaluators and adopted by the EFF Committee. As these guidelines were designed for national evaluations, they have been adapted to meet the requirements of an EU-wide evaluation.

In parallel, the Commission is preparing the impact assessment of an EU programme for the next multi-annual financial framework 2014-2020, to succeed the EFF 2007-2013. The impact assessment will include the compulsory elements of an ex-ante evaluation and will strongly draw on the analysis of the current funding period, and to a lesser extent the ex-post evaluation of FIFG 2000-2006. The present interim evaluation will underpin this impact analysis of the future financial instrument.

The objectives of this interim evaluation are therefore:

to provide the Commission with an up-to-date evaluation of the implementation of the EFF to

date,

To assess the uptake and impact of EFF measures implemented in the Member States in order to contribute to the analysis of the "Problem definition and baseline scenario" stage of the combined Impact Assessment and ex-ante evaluation undertaken in preparation for the future financial instrument for fisheries.

To address the level of achievement, by each axis (and measure when possible), of the objectives defined in the Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 establishing the EFF and assess the impact of Council Regulation (EC) No 744/2008 instituting a temporary specific action aiming to promote the restructuring of the EC fishing fleets affected by the economic crisis.

6

Evaluation questions The evaluation addresses two main evaluation criteria (quality of implementation and effectiveness of the different priority axes) and is structured around 9 Evaluative Questions as follows:

Criteria Evaluative questions

Implementation and management system

► EQ1: How effectively is the principle of partnership applied in the EFF implementation? Are stakeholders effectively involved in the EFF implementation? Is EFF implementation well coordinated between the national/local level? Are stakeholders, such as (in particular) women’s organisations/organisations promoting equal opportunity and environmental stakeholders/NGOs involved in the EFF implementation?

► EQ2: To what extent do the management processes in place, from project application to payments, enable the effective implementation of projects that best achieve the program’s objectives?

► EQ3: How effective is the program monitoring system?

Effectiveness and progress to date

► EQ4: What is the program’s state of progress at the end of 2010?

► EQ5: What are the preliminary results achieved by the Axis 1 projects in relation to mid term targets of OP? Which measures are the most effective in achieving these targets?



► EQ8: How far has the Axis 4 implementation process progressed in the country (groups operational, groups formed but not implementing local strategy, groups not yet formed…)? How did the national institutions, in particular the Managing Authority, adapt to the territorial character of Axis 4? To what extent did the instruments/measures of the EFF contribute to an efficient implementation process? To what extent did the support by FARNET foster the implementation of Axis 4?

► EQ9: What are the outputs and results of Axis 5?

Scope EFF implementation includes 26 national operational programmes in 26 Members States (all 27 MS except Luxembourg).

EFF Regulatory framework The Common Fisheries Policy is based on article 39 of the EC Treaty which articulates the global objectives of the Common agricultural policy. From the creation of the Financial instrument for fisheries guidance (FIFG) in 1993, over its renewal in 1999 and adjustment to the CFP reform in 2002, until its recent replacement by the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) in 2007, the fund was created to further the CFP whose general objective is to "provide for sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources and of aquaculture in the context of sustainable development, taking account of the environmental, economic and social aspects in a balanced manner".

The EFF was established by the Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund for the programming period 2007-2013 and replaces the existing regulations on the FIFG

7

Analysis, judgement and reporting

Data collection

• DG Mare Desk Of f icerand Heads of Unit interviews

• Country site visits(Spain, Greece, Denmark, Estonia)

• Documentation review• Issue questionnaire to

Member States

Structuring of the evaluation

• Kick of f meeting withkey stakeholders

• Documentation review• Data collection plan

conception and validation

• Data collection toolspreparation

• Preparation of stakeholder interview schedule

• Analysis of data collected

• Answers to evaluative questions

• Draw conclusions and develop recommendations

• Report draf ting and f inalisation

1 2 3

1263/1999 and 2792/1999. Unlike its predecessor, the EFF is no longer included in the structural funds and this regulation is the unique basis for the EFF.

Commission regulation (EC) No 498/2007 articulates the detailed rules for implementing the different structural measures and defines a framework for the monitoring of programme implementation. Individual operations are classified under 5 priority axes and 16 measures.

A Restructuring Council Regulation (EC) No 744/2008 was adopted by the Council on 24 July 2008 to institute a temporary specific action to promote the restructuring of the EU fishing fleets affected by the economic crisis. These measures constitute a temporary derogation from some provisions of the EFF and therefore resulted in reprogramming efforts for a number of Member States within the EFF OPs.

Scope of EFF measures The EFF relates to the fisheries sector as a whole, which is defined as all activities of production, processing and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture products. It covers the following 4 main areas of interventions which correspond to the 4 priority axes, each of which is linked to one or more of the 16 measures.

- Measures for the adjustment of the fishing effort, fleet renewal and modernisation (Axis 1);

- Measures supporting other fishery activities; aquaculture, inland fishing, processing and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture products (Axis 2);

- Collective actions (Axis 3);

- Measures for a sustainable development of fisheries areas (Axis 4).

An additional axis focuses on technical assistance (Axis 5).

1.3 Evaluation approach and limitations

General approach

The evaluation followed a structured approach consisting in 3 phases, as outlined below:

8

The present report provides draft responses to all evaluation questions. Detailed tables on effectiveness, a list of interviews undertaken and data collection tools are provided in the annexes.

Focus on Data Collection There were four main sources of data for this evaluation, presented in the table below:

Source Description

DG Mare Desk Officer / Heads of Unit interviews

Interviews of 1hr to 1.5hrs were held with all DG Mare Desk Officers and Heads of Unit (26 interviews in total). All interviews were held face to face in Brussels unless otherwise stated. A table of interviewees is provided in annex. Meeting minutes were taken on each occasion.

Four country site visits Interviews were held with various authorities and stakeholders in Greece, Denmark, Estonia and Spain. A full list of interviewees is provided in annex.

Questionnaire of Member States A questionnaire regarding the current state of implementation was sent via email to all Member States on 6 December 2010 (22 questionnaires were sent in total, as Greece, Spain, Denmark and Estonia were treated separately), with an original deadline of 17 December for responses.

Recipients were given weekly reminders of the deadline. The deadline was extended to 24 December considering that several MS only received the questionnaire late in December due to a change in contact details or authorities.

As of 24 December 2010, questionnaire responses had been received for 15 MS:

Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria, Czech Republic, Belgium, Latvia, UK, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Cyprus, Slovenia, Netherlands, Finland, Italy.

Responses were received subsequent to this date for 7 MS: France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, and Romania (these questionnaire responses have been taken into account to the best extent possible, given the time constraints).

Questionnaires were not sent to the 4 MS where the evaluation team undertook site visits. Instead, face to face meetings were undertaken to obtain responses to these questions.

Therefore, analysis as part of this evaluation is based on a total of 22 questionnaire responses and 4 country visits. Questionnaire responses from Germany and France could only be partially taken into account as they were received only during the second part of January 2011.

Documentation review Various documentation at EU and National level including past annual implementation reports, operational programs, country fiches, annual examination agenda and minutes, etc

Limitations The review and adaptation of the methodological framework for EFF interim evaluations that will be performed at national level by mid-2011 sought to take into consideration the specificities of this “high-level” evaluation. The following conditions must be taken into account when considering the analysis performed for this evaluation.

- Data was requested from MS with a short turnaround time, impacting the completeness of data and quality of responses

9

- Indicator data appears highly heterogeneous across MS and limits the extent to which EU-wide conclusions can be drawn

- Where financial data as at 31 October 2010 was not provided by the MS, an alternative data source was used

- Due to generally slow implementation progress across the programme, attention has been given to best practices, shortcomings with respect to the FIFG and reasons for delays.

10

2 Evaluation of the implementation and management systems

2.1 Introduction to the implementation and management systems

Context

Implementation and management processes The administration of the EFF OP in the Member States encompasses several consecutive steps which cover the full programme cycle, from planning and programming at the Member State level, to final closure of the programme. The step in between, programme implementation, requires various tasks, from projects selection to expenditure certification and payments (programme management), as well as certification of expenditure to EC and implementation of an audit strategy.

11

Partnership principle As set out in Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006, close cooperation between the Commission and the MS is considered a vital element in achieving the objectives of the EFF. Each MS is to organise partnerships with competent regional, local and other public authorities, as well as economic and social partners. This involvement of appropriate stakeholders places particular importance on promoting equality between men and women, as well as sustainable development and environmental protection. The partnership principle applies to each phase of the EFF, encompassing preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. In particular, a consultation is required for the development of the national strategic plan. Our analysis that follows reviews the extent to which MS have adhered to this principle of partnership.

Changes in the regulations since FIFG Several changes have been introduced for the implementation of the EFF compared to the previous programming period.

Commence Develop description of Management and Control System

Develop OperationalProgramme

Develop National Strategic Plan

EC approve

EC approve

Programme preparation

Payment to beneficiaries

Implementation of projects

Selection ofprojects

Communication to potential beneficiariesCalls for proposals

Programme management

Management and Control System (Managing Authority, Intermediate Bodies, CertifyingAuthority, Audit Authority)

Programme certification

Monitoring

Audit (system, operations…)

Control & certification Payment EC to MS

Programme audit

12

National Strategic Plan According to Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006, each Member State must “adopt, following a dialogue with the Commission, a national strategic plan on all relevant aspects of the common fisheries policy” in order to “reinforce the strategic content of the common fisheries policy in line with the Community’s priorities for the sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture”. This national strategic plan must set out the priorities, objectives, the estimated public financial resources required and deadlines for its implementation with particular regard to the strategies set out in the Common Fisheries Policy. Where possible it should be developed collaboratively between the Member State authorities and sector stakeholders to encourage participation and partnership.

Single Operational Programme Using the National Strategic Plan document as a base, each Member State must develop a single operational programme detailing a “coherent set of priority axes to be achieved with the aid of the EFF” for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013. The operational programme must be coherent with the national strategic plan. This represents a shift from the previous funding period (FIFG 2000-2006), where several Member States developed a number of operational programmes depending on country specifics. The operational programme is to be developed following close consultation with the regional, local, economic and social partners in the fisheries sector and any other bodies deemed appropriate by the MS. It must be submitted to, and approved by the Commission. Where there have been significant changes in strategy in the course of implementation, the Operational Programme should be revised by the Member State for the remainder of the funding period.

Management and Control System Each member state must also establish a management and control system to facilitate the implementation of the Operational Programme. Prior to any application for interim payment, Each Member State must submit to the Commission a description of the systems employed, which includes:

- Definition of bodies who play a role that concerns the management and control system

- Description of the role and responsibilities of each body

- A clear separation of functions between and within bodies

- Procedures for ensuring the correctness and regularity of expenditure

- A reliable accounting, monitoring and financial reporting system

- Audit arrangements and procedures.

- Details on the designated Management Authority, Certifying Authority and Audit Authority, each of which has a defined scope of responsibilities as per Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006.

This description is to be accompanied by a report presenting the results of a compliance assessment of the establishment of the systems that provides an opinion on their compliance with Articles 57 to 61 which deal with the General Principles of Management and Control Systems, and Functions of the Audit Authority, respectively. The Commission subsequently considers the assessment performed by the Member State and makes its own assessment prior to approval or rejection of the MCS description.

Evaluation questions The evaluation of the quality of the implementation and the management systems is structured around three main evaluation question as follows:

- Evaluation Question No 1 assesses the effectiveness of the programme preparation phase as well as the implementation of some key principles. It thus analyses:

o The effectiveness of programming, including a review of the benefits and drawbacks of National Strategic Plans in Member States and an analysis of the problems that might have arisen in the definition of a MCS.

13

o The effectiveness of the stakeholders' involvement and of the implementation of the partnership principle. (Effective cooperation within the monitoring committee (regular meetings, strong influence, etc.))

o The utilisation of the “demarcation line" approach to define the type of action supported by each Fund.

- Evaluation Question No 2 analyses:

o The efficiency of the management and control systems to ensure the general performance of the programme and reduce administrative burden.

o The processes that might impact on the general performance of the programmes, but also report on good practices that could be recommended as regards: Projects selection, projects implementation and payments.

- Evaluation Question No 3 analyses the effectiveness of the monitoring system at both EU and national levels.

14

2.2 EQ No 1: programming and implementation of key principles (partnership and demarcation line)

Evaluation question No 1:

How effectively is the principle of partnership applied in the EFF implementation? Are stakeholders effectively involved in the EFF implementation? Is EFF implementation well coordinated between the national/local level? Are stakeholders, such as (in particular) women’s organisations / organisations promoting equal opportunity and environmental stakeholders/NGOs involved in the EFF implementation?

Conclusion

- Overall, the partnership principle is applied effectively throughout EFF implementation – however in general the programming process has been more consultative than the implementation and monitoring process. The primary forum for stakeholder participation is through the Monitoring Committee, of which the composition and meeting frequency differ according to the specific structure put in place by each Member State. Monitoring Committees generally meet twice a year in average, which is a satisfactory frequency. This said, there are instances where Member States have held only one Monitoring Committee meeting for certain years.

- Whilst some MS have strong regular representation from different stakeholder groups such as NGOs, Women’s organisations and Environmental organisations through the Monitoring Committee, a number of MS are either lacking representatives from these types of stakeholder groups or these groups are under-represented in terms of the composition of the Monitoring Committee. This could potentially be due to difficulties in involving these groups due to their limited capacities.

- EFF programmes result from effective strategic planning thanks to detailed analysis of needs and broad consultation at both national and local level. Most MS drew on the expertise and contributions of sector stakeholders and the programming phase was widely open to external input.

- The process of developing a National Strategic Plan for fisheries and aquaculture prior to developing a single Operational Plan for Member States was viewed as both positive and negative. Whilst some MS regard the NSP as an important first step in the EFF programming phase that enables a focus on the high priorities and a more strategic view of the sector, it is regarded by many MS as redundant with the Operational Programme, and there is a time-consuming process to produce a document that is not referred to on an ongoing basis but rather disregarded once the OP is in place.

- Programming proved to be a lengthy process for many MS, as the majority experienced delays in having their OP and Management and Control System approved. Reasons for this were varied, however the most common included,

- Limited previous experience with EU programmes (12 new MS since 2004)

- Limited resources within Administration whose dual role working on FIFG as well as EFF meant that less attention was given to EFF at the beginning of the funding period.

- Difficulty in reaching consensus on how funds would be allocated across

15

priorities, intermediate authorities, etc, and consolidating plans due to decentralised nature of management. The nature of decentralised administrations has impacted the generation of benefits associated with moving to one single operational programme.

- Absence of an effective coordinating body to drive the programming process amongst the intermediate authorities (e.g. UK, Belgium).

- Assessment of Management and Control systems by an external audit body and EC approval have improved the reliability of the OP management and reinforced the audit trail (see evaluation question No 2), but this was a long process that required many resources from an EC perspective. At the beginning of December, all MS had submitted their compliance assessment to EC and 4 reports were still ‘rejected’ (UK, Romania, Bulgaria and Belgium, representing 11% of the total EFF allocation).

- For smaller MS, it was noted that the administrative effort required in the programming phase may outweigh the benefit, suggesting the principle of proportionality should apply and that smaller MS should be afforded greater flexibility through a simplified programming process so that it does not consume a disproportionate amount of administrative effort.

Analysis and findings on partnership principle

The partnership principle is generally well applied, but environmental NGOs and women organisation are not always participating in Monitoring Committees The partnership principle is generally well implemented in each phase of the programme – from programming, through to implementation, monitoring, and evaluation – and also with each group of stakeholders whether they be the EC, other authorities and administrations or sector representatives.

The primary forum for stakeholder participation is through the Monitoring Committee, of which the composition and meeting frequency differ according to the specific structure put in place by each Member State. Analysis below suggests that in practice, there are opportunities to improve the level of partnership and consultation in a number of MS.

The following observations can be made regarding the composition of the Monitoring Committee (data based on Monitoring Committee composition data provided by each Member State through questionnaire):

- Fishery and aquaculture industry representatives are always there. They comprise greater than 30% of total MC members in 9 of the 23 MS surveyed (Czech Republic, Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia, Netherlands, Finland, Slovenia, Sweden, UK). On the other hand, fishery and aquaculture representatives represent 20% or less of total MC members in 6 MS (Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Malta, Austria, and Portugal).

- NGO representatives comprise between 0% and 46% of total MC members, however 5 MS have no NGO representatives (Czech Republic, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Finland). This could potentially be due to difficulties in involving these groups due to their limited capacities.

- Women’s organisations are hardly involved in the MC as they represent between 0% and 8% of total MC members. Only 7 of 23 MS surveyed have a representative from a women’s organisation on the MC (Ireland, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Malta, Portugal, Romania), and the maximum in any committee is a single representative. The remaining 16 of 23 MS surveyed do not have a representative Women’s organisation on their Monitoring Committee.

- Environmental stakeholders comprise between 0% and 50% of total MC members. However 15 of the 23 MS surveyed have less than 10% of their MC represented by environmental stakeholders (Belgium, Bulgaria, Ireland, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, Finland, and UK). Finland is the only MS surveyed that

16

does not have an environmental stakeholder as a regular member of the Monitoring Committee.

- The remaining stakeholders that comprise the MC are predominantly members of the State administration, including representatives from the management authority and other government administrations, as well as a small sample of consumer organisations, producer organisations, and trade unions.

Monitoring committees generally meet twice a year, except in some MS where monitoring is less regular Amongst MS surveyed, 65% claim to hold an MC meeting at least twice per year, and another 35% state that they hold meetings between once and twice per year (Portugal, Malta, Lithuania, Latvia, Cyprus, and Ireland).

65%

35%

Frequency of Monitoring Committee Meetings

Twice or more per year

Between once and twice per year

Source: Questionnaires to MS

An effective level of involvement and participation of sector stakeholders is generally more common amongst smaller MS, where the size of the sector enables stakeholders to interact to a greater extent and develop stronger relationships, e.g. In Estonia, Council meets once a month, commence discussions right from the early stage of project planning right through to implementation.

There was generally positive feedback regarding the value of Desk Officers to work as intermediaries between the MS and the EC and regular (sometimes weekly) contact takes place. Most MS are happy with the level of involvement by the EC in providing feedback on documents and data, as well as appropriate advice. However, some MS expressed frustration at the lengthy delays awaiting results of EC DG consultation, and the often qualified rather than definitive advice by the EC on queries and issues.

Furthermore, it is considered that coordination at programme level is too formal (annual meetings and EFF Committee), and more informal exchanges could prove more effective. This is the case for axis 4 with the FARNET Support Unit established to assist in the implementation of EU measures for the sustainable development of fisheries areas. FARNET organises two meetings per year with persons in charge of Axis 4 in the Managing Authorities. Coordination includes a strong networking component and exchanges of good practices between authorities.

There have also been problems of interpretation of the EFF regulation and new concepts and the response time of the Commission on these issues can tend to be too long. Furthermore, interpretations provided tend to make the regulations more restrictive than originally intended.

Less positive views of the partnership principle have also occurred in certain MS that have undergone a reallocation of funding between Axes. Where this is the case, the MS has had to manage displeased stakeholders whose project plans have been impacted by the shift in funding. Furthermore, in certain landlocked countries in particular, there was evidence of resource disputes regarding how much funding is allocated to fisheries as opposed to aquaculture.

Partnership principle was particularly well applied during the programming phase that was based on broad consultation in most MS

17

MS adopted varying processes in the development of their NSP and OP. These documents were generally developed following close consultation with regional, local, economic and social partners in the fisheries sector and any other bodies deemed appropriate by the MS.

Examples of comprehensive and wide consultation included:

- Finland: Specific working groups were designed for every sector (fishing, aquaculture and processing and trade) plus one overall steering group. The plan was written in the Ministry when the main bottlenecks of each sector were identified in the groups. The NSP was evaluated and discussed in the steering group prior its approval.

- Greece: Approximately 500 people attended a conference which included representatives from universities, scientific research groups, international scientists, representatives from European agriculture organisations, environmental groups. In addition to this, the Greek authorities received written contributions, and appointed an external expert (Enveco) to undertake the strategic environmental impact assessment of the programme (SEA Directive).

- Hungary: The OP was developed by a smaller team, coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Nevertheless, on a regular basis the Ministry organised forums for stakeholders and NGOs.

- Italy: The NSP was developed by an internal and external expert group. It was presented and discussed with all stakeholders, in particular with local administrations (Regions), fishing industry, aquaculture sector and environmental stakeholders. The OP was developed by the administration itself in cooperation with the Technical Assistance. According to art. 8 reg. 1198/06, before the official presentation to the Commission, the PO was discussed in several meetings with all stakeholders, in particular with local administrations (Regions), fishing industry, aquaculture sector and environmental stakeholders.

- Latvia: The NSP was initially developed by the Ministry of Agriculture and then continued by the National Board of Fisheries in collaboration with partners. Fisheries consultative council led by the Minister of Agriculture played a key role approving the draft before sending to the Government. SWOT analysis was the basis for the strategy at NSP and OP level. A Working group with partners was established in order to design the programme.

- Slovenia: A Minister nominated an inter-service group of experts who helped draft the NSP. Then, several workshops were organised with the representatives of the fisheries sector to enable the best possible SWOT analysis of the sector. Prior to this, the Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry and Food organised a survey of interest for different measures, yet the implementation afterwards showed how interest estimated for different measures cannot be based only on such a survey as the MA decided for a co-financing rate only at a later stage. The draft OP was a task managed by a coordinator of the OP. It was drafted using brainstorming method of the people employed within the Section for Hunting and Fisheries. Workshops were organized with the representatives of the fisheries sector.

- Spain: consultation was very important for the development of the NSP, and meetings were held in all the autonomous communities (at least 15 meetings over a period of 6 months to 1 year). Sector representatives and NGOs were invited to these, and written contributions were also required of autonomous communities. This resulted in a detailed SWOT analysis of various sectors, including fisheries and aquaculture, which was included in the OP. For the OP, a group of programs was created with the Dirección General de Estructuras y Mercados Pesqueros (no longer operational) and the Dirección General de Ordenación Pesquera, and with representatives of all the autonomous communities. Many meetings were organized to develop the OP from June 2006. Furthermore, a system of consultation and consensus was established with other relevant agencies (publication in the Official Gazette of the draft OP and the environmental assessment associated; online publication of documents on the web site of the Ministry; written communication to the government concerned (88 representatives), the interested public (POs and other fishermen's associations, NGOs, consumer associations, social agents (159 agents)). A period of 23 days was provided for comments.

- Slovakia: In order to adequately prepare the NSP and for the purposes of carrying out national consultations among all sectors and partners concerned, an EFF working group was established. This group discussed objectives and priorities of fishery in relation to the Common Fisheries Policy, a national strategy of the Slovak Republic for the sector

18

development, and measures to implement fishery and aquaculture policy in Slovakia. As no program from the EU funds had been oriented in Slovakia exclusively to support of fishery in the past and taking into account real position of the fishery within the national economy, there was no history of mapping the sector in the extent allowing detailed assessment of its needs and development potentials. Therefore sector analysis relied on information provided directly by potential assistance beneficiaries. The Ministry of Agriculture of the Slovak Republic (MoA) sent a questionnaire to all subjects with any indication of fish breeding requiring information on orientation of their enterprises, its technical conditions and equipment, situation in employment and qualification of employees, trade, processing and business (investment) plans for the future. The outputs from this questionnaire were taken into account in creation of the operational programme and its individual measures. The MoA sent an additional questionnaire to potential beneficiaries, this time to the processing sector, with a similar intention to receive information on situation in their enterprises, investment plans, material and information needs and financial targets in relation to the EFF. The outputs from those questionnaires were taken into account in creation of the NSP and the operational programme and its individual measures.

- Lithuania: During the programming phase a working group was formed bringing together all relevant socio-economical partners, and there were 20 meetings held with different sectors representatives in order to identify NSP actions, objectives and priorities. The fisheries sector was analysed in terms of where the EFF support should be directed. The process was adopted for the OP where there was a working group to discuss the development of the OP.

- Malta: In terms of development of the NSP, consultations were held with other relevant Ministries such as the Malta Environmental Planning Authority and the Policy and Planning Division within the Office of the Prime Minister. In line with Article 8 (partnership) of the European Fisheries Fund Regulation, informal meetings were also held during the same period with the Fishers’ Co-operatives, the Malta Aquaculture Producers Association and with the industry. As a result of these discussions, an initial draft of Malta’s National Strategic Plan was formulated. This was presented informally to the Commission at the end of December 2005. It was also submitted for reactions to the then Minister for Rural Affairs and the Environment (now Minister for Resources and Rural Affairs), the Parliamentary Secretary and the Permanent Secretary within the same Ministry. This initial draft was also presented to the Fisheries Board on 1st December, 2005. According to the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 4 June 2001, Article 5, this board is chaired by the Director of fisheries and is composed of one representative each of commercial fishers, the leisure fishers association (Għaqda dilettanti tas-sajd), fish market traders, fish retailers, the armed forces of Malta and from the department for the protection of the environment. Four members are nominated by the fishers’ co-operatives while the final three other members on this board represent civil society. Subsequently, the National Strategic Plan was also submitted and presented to the fishers’ co-operatives separately.

With respect to the drafting of the Operational Programme, consultations following a similar methodology as that used in connection with the Malta’s National Strategic Plan for fisheries and aquaculture were also held. More specifically consultations with the organisations identified below took place prior and during the drafting of the OP. The respective organisations were informed that the OP was being drafted and they were invited to give any comments they feel may be of relevance to the OP. Once the first draft was complete, a copy of such draft was sent to each of the organisations. A consultation period for reactions / comments was provided for.

- Portugal: The methodology comprised the formation of Working Groups with representatives of the Regional Fisheries of the Azores and Madeira, the National Institute of Biological Resources (formerly IPIMAR) School of Marine and Fisheries Trade, Forpescas-Training Centre Training for the Fisheries Industry, the Commissions for Regional Coordination and Development and the Association of Portuguese Municipalities, coordinated by the Directorate - General for Fisheries and Aquaculture. This was followed by the preparation of business surveys of manufacturing; the collection of contributions from industry experts; a hearing of professionals throughout the preparation of the NSP, through associations and producer organisations, and a public discussion during one month. The drafting of the OP considered the following contributions: Sector Organisations and institutional partners gathered in several meetings organized by the Directorate-General for Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Technical

19

Support Structure and the Coordination Committee of the Central Region; query of Environmental Authorities on major issues to consider in the strategic environmental assessment, stakeholder consultation on the draft OP, the public presentation and discussion of the draft OP and the ex-ante evaluation and public consultation and environmental assessment report PO.

Analysis and findings on programming process

NSP are relevant in theory, but not used in practice and sometimes considered as partially overlapping with the OP The vast majority of Member States and Desk Officers hold the view that whilst developing an NSP is an important step in defining the priorities and vision for the sector, as well as achieving consensus on priorities through a consultation process, it is a high level document and does not provide utility on an ongoing basis throughout the funding period. Therefore, even though it assists strategic thinking prior to the development of a detailed Operational Programme, it is often not monitored or referred to on an ongoing basis, and the OP is seen as a much more relevant and day to day reference tool. Although the NSP is a broad document covering the CFP as a whole and not only the EFF, certain MS stated that the NSP is a pure duplication of the OP, and sometimes a source of confusion. In some MS, the added-value of NSP is thus barely acknowledged.

Furthermore, as the sector evolves very quickly (e.g. fuel crisis), the timing of and intervals between the NSP and OP is too great and does not encourage efficiency or coherence. Some MS stated that the NSP added little value to the development of the OP.

For smaller MS, it was noted that the administrative effort required in developing an NSP and subsequently an OP may outweigh the benefit, suggesting that smaller MS should be afforded greater flexibility through a simplified programming process so that it does not consume a disproportionate amount of administrative effort.

However, MS that had not historically developed this type of strategic plan, e.g. new MS, expressed greater utility than those who have had more experience developing NSP-type documents, as it forced them to consider strategic priorities.

Finally the rules for developing the NSP under the EFF regulation need to enable greater flexibility. Several MS stated they felt the process did not provide them the opportunity to include some specific national needs that were not entirely compatible with the focus of the EFF.

The OP drafting followed by the setting up and compliance assessment approval of the MCS is an lengthy process which is still ongoing in 4 MS A common explanation for delays in the implementation of the Operational Programme, and therefore limited progress in terms of funds committed and achieved, was the delays associated with the approval of both the Operational Programme (OP) – to a small extent – and Management and Control System (MCS) – to a larger extent.

Following table summarises the different approval dates of both documents:

20

Member StateOP validation

dateMCS validation

date Comments

Austria 19/12/2007 23/05/2008

Belgium 11/11/2008 21/12/2010

Delay due to unsatisfactory MSC :Althoug the AA provided unqualified opinion, the report was rejected by the EC

because of more than 30 problems and recommendantions that should be adressed because approval: no formal delegation to the IB, no clear process for

on-the-spot checks, etc.)

Bulgaria 14/12/2007 22/12/2010Delay due to lack of capacity at AA level :

The AA had to be changed as the previous one did have enough capacity to perform the compliance assessment.

Cyprus 19/12/2007 19/10/2009Czech Rep 11/12/2007 25/08/2009Denmark 17/12/2007 26/01/2010Estonia 14/12/2007 01/07/2009Finland 20/11/2007 18/09/2009France 19/12/2007 29/05/2009

Germany 17/12/2007 08/10/2009 No particular problem, except that the programme is actually divided into 13 separate regional programmes with their own MCS

Greece 11/12/2007 26/11/2010Delay due to unsatisfactory MSC :

The functioning and tasks allocation within the newly created intermediate body was not clearly established.

Hungary 09/09/2008 20/11/2009Ireland 09/09/2008 17/05/2010

Italy 19/12/2007 29/07/2010Delay due to lack of capacity at AA level :

The AA had to be changed as the previous one did have enough capacity to perform the compliance assessment.

Latvia 18/12/2007 14/05/2009Lithuania 17/12/2007 08/09/2009Malta 10/12/2008 08/03/2010Netherlands 19/12/2007 16/06/2009Poland 16/10/2008 End of 2010Portugal 11/12/2007 End of 2010

Romania 14/12/2007 not yet acceptedDelay due to unsatisfactory MSC :

The functioning and tasks allocation within the Managing Authority are not compliant.

Slovakia 04/12/2007 14/12/2009Slovenia 19/11/2008 05/07/2010

Spain 13/12/2007 End of 2010 Delay due to lack of capacity at AA level whose priority was given to other EU programmes. EFF MSC was thus assessed with much delay.

Sweden 19/12/2007 08/05/2009

United Kingdom 09/09/2008 not yet acceptedDelay due to unsatisfactory MSC (No formal designation of the intermediate

bodies) and ack of capacity at AA level (bad quality of the compliance assessment report).

Source: Programmes decision & Compliance assessment state of play

The OP drafting and approval posed few problems, with only 7 MS experiencing some delays, having their programme approved in 2008 instead of 2007. Reasons can be partly attributed the decentralised management structure and lack of coordinating body in Belgium and United Kingdom, and limited experience in EU programmes in Poland and Malta.

In addition to the NSP, MS are required to prepare two other compulsory documents before the OP can be accepted by the EC, namely the ex-ante evaluation and the Environmental Impact assessment (in accordance with SEA Directive and submitted to DG Environment). These documents can be a source of added delays before the OP is approved, although no particular difficulty was mentioned by the MS regarding these two documents. Most delays are associated with late approval of the MSC. Although this has not prevented the programme to be commenced and projects to be implemented, if is not officially approved, the EC cannot reimburse expenditure declared and paid by beneficiaries. As at December 2010, the MCS of 2 Members States representing 9% of the total EFF allocation are not approved yet by the EC (Romania and United Kingdom). For 11 other MS, approval was granted in 2010.

The most commonly encountered problems were of three types:

− Problems in setting a reliable system meeting EU standards and requirements, which led to adverse or qualified opinions provided by the compliance assessment body. Inexperience with EU programmes, limited administration capacity, high staff turnover, low staff motivation levels, poor

21

remuneration, significant in-built bureaucracy (e.g. Romania, Bulgaria) were factors explaining these difficulties. Additionally, limited resources within Administration whose dual role working on FIFG as well as EFF meant that less attention was given to EFF at the beginning of the funding period (e.g. Portugal). Other problems are mostly linked with the correct designation of intermediate bodies (UK and Belgium that have both regional intermediate bodies, in line with their decentralised management system) which prevents any clear distribution of tasks and responsibilities with the Managing Authority.

− Problems with the quality of the compliance assessment work performed, in line with the audit strategy implemented. The problem was encountered in the UK and Belgium, but also in Bulgaria where the EC required the audit authority to be changed.

− Delays in receiving the compliance assessment reports from the national authorities, especially in MS where the Audit Authority is shared with other Cohesion policy programmes; in these MS, it appeared that priority was given to larger funding programme (e.g. Spain, Poland).

Analysis and findings on demarcation line approach In theory, MS are generally in favour of the demarcation line approach, stating that it is a necessary principle to have in place. MS said the approach is important to set up in advance and useful in the project approval process, to avoid overlapping of aid and to strengthen complementarity.

In reality, however, the majority of MS believe it has drawbacks. One MS noted that frequent modifications of the programme erode the benefits of the demarcation principle, with another stating that Commission guidance on demarcation was too generally and not particularly helpful. OPs are written at a stage when there is little ability to foresee the measures that will subsequently be implemented.

Nevertheless for most MS, demarcation has not yet proved a problem as processes in place effectively prevent double funding from EU sources. On the other hand, it was mentioned that the opportunities to achieve complementarity are limited due to the small size of the EFF budget in comparison with other funds, such as the Rural Development programme.

In general, links between government departments and common databases ensure there is a good awareness and understanding between programme managers of individual grant projects and scopes. One MS in particular has an electronic system where Fisheries and Rural Development projects are entered right from the application process. Others have a biannual committee across funds that reviews projects where there is a perceived risk of double funding. Despite these actions, some MS mentioned that there needs to be a clearer distinction between actions supported by several funds, e.g. distinction between EFF axis 4 and LEADER, so that MS can also take advantage of complementarities.

It is important therefore to encourage cross representation at different monitoring committees, so that fund administrators are aware of what is being financed under other funds.

22

2.3 EQ No 2: programme management


To what extent do the management processes in place, from project application to payments, enable the effective implementation of projects that best achieve the program’s objectives?

Conclusion

- Since the FIFG programming period, there have been shifts in roles and responsibility between Government Departments. This has particularly been evident for the Audit Authority, where certain MS have observed shortcomings in the audit function, such as a lack of technical/administrative capacity. These evolutions have overall strengthened the robustness and reliability of the MCS.

- According to data collected, it is estimated that the administration of EFF Operational

programmes (Managing Authority, Intermediate Bodies, Audit Authority and Certifying Authority) requires an average of 0.43 FTE years per million EUR of total EFF Budget. EFF estimation is in line with the Cohesion Policy estimation (0.44 person years per million EUR).

- The shift towards producing a single OP per MS under the EFF compared to the FIFG was designed to reduce the administrative burden for both the EC and administrations implementing the programme.

- This goal was achieved on the whole for the EC where monitoring 26 EFF programmes proved more efficient than 60 FIFG programmes. This positive trend is offset to a small extent however by the increased workload for DG MARE F1 unit (in charge of analyzing the MCS compliance assessment reports and approving the MCS descriptions)

- Whilst a few MS have observed reductions in the administrative burden for both administrations and beneficiaries, an equal number believe this shift has not reduced the administrative burden, and in many cases has rather enhanced it. Simplification and administrative cost reduction have mainly been perceived in small or medium-sized MS having centralised management rules, such as Ireland and Finland (one single programme replaced three different programmes under FIFG, which brought some concrete cost reductions in terms of monitoring and reporting requirements), as well as in the new Member States (where experience gains, as well as simplification of procedures and application forms had contributed to decrease the administrative burden). On the other hand, large decentralised MS such as Spain and Germany have faced greater challenges in identifying opportunities to reduce administrative costs. In these MS, programme management system is complex as one single programme and MCS are actually split into several regional programmes.

- In MS, the shift towards producing a single OP and strengthening the MSC brought new costs, some of which are investments or “one off” costs (need to modify the management system and rules, need to recruit and train new staff, misunderstandings and misinterpretation of new rules as regards audit requirements, etc.). A comparative analysis of the workload balance between the EFF and Cohesion policy programmes confirms the considerable administrative effort that has gone into the programming phase and suggests that programme

23

management needs to be allocated additional resources in order to accelerate implementation.

- New recurrent costs resulting from the new EFF regulation mainly concentrated at the audit authority level. A particular contributor to the administrative burden is the enhanced monitoring and control function under the EFF. Whilst this has resulted in increased robustness of audit and controls under the EFF and therefore provides greater assurance in the financial management of the programme, on the other hand, it has increased workload by creating additional requirements and administrative processes.

- Alternatively, the evolution of the EFF towards more eco-innovations and inclusion of a new axis 4 aiming to set up local development strategies have also implied new costs for the running of Operational Programmes.

- A number of smaller MS alluded to the concept of proportionality, believing that the

administrative and logistic burden is too high and out of proportion for MS with smaller programmes. This view was equally shared by some MS with larger EFF budgets, who agreed that the EFF is a difficult to manage in comparison with FIFG, as it is a collection of small projects for which the administrative effort is disproportionate.

Analysis and findings on organisation structures and administrative costs

EFF administration requires approximately 1300 jobs (without taking into consideration Germany and Spain) and an average of 0.43 FTE years per million EUR of total EFF Budget

24

Total (FTE) Managing Authority

Intermediate Bodies

Certifying Authority

Audit Authority Others FTE/ M€

Ireland 4 1 2,6 0,1 0,5 0,10Denmark 15 11 1,5 2 0,11Lithuania 10 9 * 1 0,18United Kingdom 27 1,8 19,5 2 0,5 3,5 0,20Belgium 5 2,8 2,2 0,4 0,21Romania 52 52 * * 0,23Sweden 13 3 5 1,5 3 0,23Greece 51 20 8 14 9 0,25Portugal 74 18 50 2,5 3 0,30France 70 31 15 14 10 0,32Poland 268 63 165 20 20 0,37Hungary 13 6 4 2 1 0,37Netherlands 19 3,8 12 1,5 1,5 0,39Latvia 54 9 37 3 3,5 1 0,43Finland 17 3 12 1 1 0,43Cyprus 9 * * 0,46Italy 217 45 60 5 7 100 0,51Slovenia 14 5 5 3 1 0,65Estonia 64 61 1,3 2 0,76Malta 11 4 2 2 3 1,31Bulgaria 129 52 12 5 60 1,61Austria 15 2 8 1 2 2 2,85Slovakia 49 6 30 6 7 3,58Czech Rep 101 12 50 15 14 10 3,73Germany NA NASpain NA NATotal/ average 1 300 430 497 104 152 117 0,43* Figures not provided separately

9

Source: Questionnaires to MS and interviews (European Commission and Member States)

The average number of FTE per million euro of EFF budget across the programme is 0.43. This result is similar to the estimation reached for the administration of Cohesion Policy (0.44)3.

Differences from one MS to another are significant as shown by the very broad range of FTE per million euro (from approximately 0.1 in Ireland or Denmark, to approximately 3.5 in Czech Republic and Slovakia which means that EFF administration is 35 times more expensive in Czech Republic and Slovakia than in Ireland or Denmark).

Austria, Slovakia and Czech Republic are MS where the number of FTE significantly exceeds the average (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Bulgaria, and Malta). They are characterised by small EFF programmes relative to the large size of the administration which has likely contributed to disproportionally high administrative costs.

A significant workload share was dedicated to programme preparation, which shows that the shift towards one single operational programme has led to many administrative “one off” costs Answers to the questionnaire sent to Managing authorities show that 26% of workload is dedicated to programme preparation, whilst 74% is dedicated to programme monitoring and management.

3 A review of the governance and administrative structures and costs at national and regional levels for European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) programmes over the 2007-2013 programming period was performed in 2010 and provides an important source of comparison to the EFF programme.

25


National monitoring &

reporting

Programme management

(projects’ selection, control and verification of

deliverables) EFF 26% 19% 55%

Cohesion Policy 3% 19% 78% Source: Questionnaires to MS and interviews (European Commission and Member States)

A comparison with EU Cohesion policy highlights the workload shift towards programme preparation and away from programme management under the EFF. It can be explained in part by the delays that have occurred in the implementation progress due to the lengthy time period involved in developing the NSP, OP and description for the MCS. If the overall programme were further progressed in terms of commitments and payments as at the end of 2010, then it would be expected that these figures would be more closely aligned. On the other hand, it does confirm the considerable administrative effort that has gone into the programming phase and suggests that programme management needs to be allocated additional resources in order to accelerate implementation.

A comparison between MS highlights the extent to which programming was a complex and lengthy process in most MS, especially:

− In MS that previously managed several single funded and multi-funded programmes under FIFG (Italy and UK), and that had to adapt to the changes associated with one single operational programme per MS and cope with regional/ decentralised management systems which prevent the generation of benefits associated with one single programme;

− In MS where designated MAs were lacking expertise in the programming aspect of the OP and/ or where big shifts occurred in the roles and responsibilities of implementing bodies to meet the new MCS requirements (in-depth reorganisation in Greece – creation of a new intermediate body).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Latvia

Netherlands

Malta

Lithuania

Poland

Sweden

Slovakia

Czech Rep

Hungary

Austria

Cyprus

Bulgaria

Portugal

Slovenia

Spain

Finland

Estonia

Denmark

Belgium

Ireland

Greece

Italy

United Kingdom


National monitoring & reporting

Programme management (projects’ selection, control and verification of deliverables)


26

Changes since FIFG have led to both more reliable and costlier systems

Shift to one single OP

− The shift towards producing a single NSP and OP per MS under the EFF compared to the FIFG was designed to reduce the administrative burden for administrations implementing the program. Whilst some MS and Desk Officers have observed reductions in the administrative burden for both administrations and beneficiaries through the simplification of application procedures for example, an equal number believe this shift has not reduced the administrative burden, and in many cases has rather increased it. This is supported by the graph below this analysis, which illustrates an even distribution of responses.

− Moreover, as is the case for Cohesion Policy programme, the common perception among most MS is that “simplification at the Commission level ultimately necessitates more onerous duties at the national and programme levels”.

− Several situations can be distinguished:

o Simplification and administrative cost decrease have mainly been perceived in small or medium-sized MS having centralized management rules, such as Ireland (one single programme replaced three different programmes under FIFG, which brought some concrete costs reductions in relation with monitoring and reporting requirements), as well as in the new Member States (where experience gains, as well as simplification of procedures and application forms had contributed to decrease the administrative burden.

o However in the case of Spain, Italy, France, the UK, Belgium, Germany and Portugal, shift to one single OP has brought significant complexity and reduced opportunities to ease administrative burden. The Italy desk clarified that the increased complexity was due to the new control and reporting requirements demanded by the new fund rather than the simple shift to one OP.

Spain’s management and control system is characterised by the fact that the autonomous communities are responsible for implementation of the programme, whilst the central management authority merely manages the economic structure. This has led to complexity in terms of organisation since whilst the competencies are located amongst the autonomous communities, the responsibility for the programme is held centrally.

As an illustration of the complexity in implementation, in each autonomous community, there is/are: 1 or 2 intermediate bodies of the Managing Authority, 1 body through the Certification Authority, and an intermediary body responsible for making payments to beneficiaries.

This means there are approximately 60 intermediate bodies in total, which are delegated the implementation of the OP.

In the UK, the devolved nature of management (effectively 4 separate Governments) means there are always issues in presenting a single Member State view. Programme monitoring also creates challenges due to separate information systems in place for each area. However, plans are in place to introduce a better computerised system into the Managing Authority in April 2011. Despite the decentralised management approach, there is however a mechanism in place whereby the Intermediate Bodies meet twice a year with the Managing, Certifying and Audit Authorities (referred to as the ”Liaison” meeting) in order to share best practice and resolve difficult issues.

Belgium faced particular difficulties in setting up their management and control system due to a division in responsibilities between the two regions: Flanders, which encompasses the coastline, and therefore focuses on investment in sustainable fisheries and Wallonia, without a coastline, whose focus is on restocking in rivers and investing in fish traps etc. Under the FIFG, each region within Belgium could set up its dedicated programme and MCS. However, due to the single programme and authorities by MS under the EFF, merging these strategies and responsibilities proved to be more difficult than envisaged.

27

Robust control and audit function which have increased administrative costs

− Since the FIFG programming period, there have been shifts in roles and responsibility between Government Departments. This has particularly been evident for the Audit Authority, where certain MS have observed shortcomings in the audit function, such as a lack of technical/administrative capacity, which have resulted in a shift of the audit function towards the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance. Benefits of this shift include the fact that the Ministry of Finance is a logical central point to perform the audit function for several EU funds, and often have more experience in doing so. There have also been similar shifts in smaller, newer MS who do not have as extensive experience in implementing EU programmes and adhering to their stringent guidelines.

− As an example, in the Netherlands under the EFF, the oversight of the monitoring and control system shifted to Minister of Finance. This brought increased experience and professionalism, and potentially cost efficiencies. Furthermore, the MCS now responds to the high standards of the EC. Under FIFG, monitoring and control was poor, and led to negative impacts at the end of the program. In Italy, under the EFF, the Audit and Certification authorities are now identified as two separate bodies outside the Ministry, whereas under the FIFG they were both part of the General Direction.

− However, one particular area raised by several MS as contributing to the administrative burden is the enhanced monitoring and control function under the EFF. Several stakeholders noted the increased robustness of audit and controls under the EFF, which on the one hand provides greater assurance in the financial management of the programme, but on the other hand, has created additional requirements and administrative processes. Some MS have suggested that this audit burden can be reduced by applying proportionality to administrative systems based on allocation and risk rather than applying blanket measures. Often “to be on the safe side”, an excessive amount of controls are implemented, increasing the workload in terms of the audit function. MS are currently required to establish the same structures and systems whether their allocation of funds is €1m or €1bn. The same administrative and audit burdens on beneficiaries and MS apply regardless of the quantum of the grant amount. Several MS stress the importance of reducing the financial control burden to reduce negative impacts particularly at the end of the funding period.

− Data collected from the MS confirm that conclusions of the study on the administrative costs of Cohesion Policy programmes also apply to the EFF programmes. Indeed “the control related requirements are considered to be the main culprit for the increase in administrative costs. Specifically, the verification of the Managing Authorities (Article 13.2 Regulation 1828/2006), statistical audit sampling (Article 17 Regulation 1828/2006) and the descriptions of the management and control system (Article 71 Regulation 1083/2006) are all a cause for concern here.”

Proportionality

− A number of smaller MS alluded to the concept of proportionality, believing that the administrative and logistic burden is too high and out of proportion for MS with smaller programmes. Several suggested that a single MCS should be employed across several EU funds, so that dedicated resources and expertise are not required specifically for the EFF, which represents only a minor focus for some MS. It would also make the auditing of MCS by externals more cost effective if the process could be coordinated with the other funds. Others stated that a sophisticated information system is not necessary for MS that are only implementing approximately 40 projects per year. It was also suggested that there should be more flexibility to small MS, where twice a year updates as part of the Monitoring Committee and annual audit on the implementation of the program were deemed more than sufficient.

− Equally, MS with much larger EFF budgets agreed that the EFF is a difficult to manage in comparison with FIFG, as it is a collection of small projects for which the administrative effort is disproportionate. There are a large number of stakeholders involved for a very little sum of funding.

Other factors explaining costs increase

In comparison with FIFG, EFF includes new measures which emphasise the importance of innovation and local partnerships as a key field of intervention (notably under Axis 4). As a consequence, project preparation and appraisal are sometimes regarded as more expensive as there is now a need for additional specialised skills, whilst management of Axis 4 requires, when well implemented, a certain number of dedicated staff members.

28

In Denmark, the increase of administrative costs is thus mainly explained by the new orientation of the programme’s strategy towards more innovation and establishment of territorial strategies (Denmark was not significantly affected by the new programming structure).

Realignment of funds

Other MS suggested a realignment of the regulations of the different funds, stating that there is currently too much room for interpretation and not sufficient standardization of approach to encourage efficiencies. Open interpretation can lead to audit and control issues if the audit authority does not share the same interpretation. One MS suggested that the approach of EAFRD should be applied whereby one Competent Authority ensures proper accreditation and functioning of the vital management functions related to the implementation of the fund.

Key points for new financial instrument

MS emphasise the need for the new financial instrument in 2014 to cut down on the administrative burden, particularly in terms of applying for a grant, monitoring, checking, and rationalising statistical reporting obligations. There also needs to be flexibility afforded to MS in procurement rules, to address situations where it is difficult to get the required number of bidders.

Nevertheless a number of MS have reported putting measures in place to reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries, particularly in relation to reducing the amount of required paperwork and attachment to accompany applications and payment requests. Others suggest establishing a website portal to better communicate with applicants throughout the application and implementation process.

0 5 10 15 20 25

Administrative burden has been reduced for the final beneficiaries

The change to 1 single programme and 1 specific MSC dedicated to the EFF programme has simplified the

management of the EFF programme

Management costs and administrative burden have been reduced for the Managing Authority

MS views on simplification, management costs and administrative burden

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion


The graph above illustrates the varied opinions of MS as to whether management costs and the administrative burden have been reduced under the EFF. It shows that whilst opinion is more or less divided on whether the change to one OP and specific MCS per MS has simplified programme management or whether the administrative burden has been reduced for final beneficiaries, it is clear that the majority of Management Authorities believe that their management costs and administrative burden have not been reduced.

Synthesis of improvements and deteriorations since FIFG

Improvements to management and implementation since FIFG Whilst the majority of MS have not noticed particular improvements with regard to the management and implementation of the OP since the FIFG, the following particular enhancements were mentioned:

- Better organisation/management structure due to lessons learnt from past experience

o More effective delegation of tasks to Intermediate Body

29

o Simplified decision-making processes within the administration

o Increased competence within the Managing Authority in specific fisheries issues

o Communication and exchange mechanism in place whereby the Intermediate Bodies meet twice a year with the Managing, Certifying and Audit Authorities to share best practice and resolve difficult issues

- More robust control and audit procedures and processes

o Simplification and automation of audit verification process

o Greater verification on publicity spending and public procurement rules

o Better separation and independence of Managing Authority, Audit Authority and Certifying Authority

- Staff resources and capability

o Technical assistance under Axis 5 to reinforce administrative resources to administer MCS

o Dedicated resources focusing specifically on the EFF, rather than working across several funds

- System, process and reporting simplification

o Simplification of the evaluation procedure

o Less complex and extensive reporting requirements due to one single fund OP, as opposed to the FIFG, where schemes implemented were under three different multi-funded programmes which made reporting and monitoring excessive.

o Shortening disbursement cycle

o Improve information system on the basis of experience from FIFG

- Reduction in burden for beneficiaries

o Reduction of the required attachments (the application form)

o Reduce the flow of documents when submitting: a) demand for financial resources, b) the certification and declaration of expenditure and request for refund

- Introduction of Axis 4 to encourage collaborative action – these types of initiatives should be pursued for future instrument

Deteriorations since FIFG The most common deterioration since the FIFG programme cited by MS was the complexity that the EFF has introduced, particularly related to the programming process and audit and control function.

The need to develop a single NSP and OP has created complexity for some MS who historically have taken a regional approach. The large number of bodies involved and territorial scope of the programme posed challenges to taking a national approach. For example, France and Portugal programme for three different types of regions: convergence, non-convergence and outermost regions. Also, for Spain, the unique program is not suitable and further enhances the administrative burden.

The burden is particularly felt by MS with the less significant programmes, who claim the management cost is disproportionate to the benefit provided by the programme. Whilst the complexity and robustness of the MCS has been reinforced, in many MS it has not necessarily resulted in a proportionate increase in staff resources to implement the OP. With a trend towards streamlining and cost reduction in the public sector of many Member States, the ability to manage the programme with fewer resources is becoming increasingly important. It has also been noted that whilst the administrative burden is similar to that of the FIFG programme, the EFF tend to encourage smaller scope projects, thus amplifying the burden and preventing economies of scale.

In Belgium, the single strategy and code of conduct between EU-funds meant a gigantic logistic and administrative increase given the relatively small EFF-programme. In the view of the MA, the envisaged flexibility and proportionality disappeared completely and was replaced by even more

30

stringent obligations when implementation proceeded. Since the initial implementation a variety of extra guidelines and opinions were added. This resulted in continuous adjustments to the required documents and seriously delayed the proper execution of the programme.

Several MS noted the increased work effort associated with the audit and control function, claiming that too many checks are carried out and that this is delaying implementation of the programme.

Analysis and findings on implementation procedures

Streamlining process for potential beneficiaries

Whilst the majority of MS claim a strong and positive level of interaction and communication between the administrations and potential beneficiaries in order to simplify procedures and accelerate fund consumption, few MS could cite structured programs in place to assist potential beneficiaries in accessing funding. One particular example of a facilitation scheme in place is in the UK programme.

In England the Seafood Industry Authority provides a National Facilitation Service for the EFF in England. This service is funded by Axis 5 Technical Assistance monies and Marine Management Organisation funds. The work of this group covers all axes of the EF: investments on-board fishing vessels, small scale coastal fishing, aquaculture, processing and marketing of fishery and aquaculture products, collective actions, protecting and developing aquatic fauna and flora, fishing ports, new markets and pilot projects. The group also works with the potential Axis 4 local area groups.

The objective of the group of three facilitators located across England is to be pro-active in the fisheries marketplace, bringing the grant to the stakeholder and acting as a conduit between the potential applicant and the Marine Management Organisation. According to UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs data, in the first three years of the FIFG scheme there were 96 approved applications and 38 rejections. In 2003, following the mid-term evaluation the UK introduced a facilitator to the England programme to cover grant opportunities within the fishing industry; Vessel modernisation, Processing and Marketing, Port Facilities, Operations by Members of the Trade, Aquaculture.

Following the 96 applications in the first 3 years of FIFG, the fourth year saw an additional 71 applications, increasing to 143 in year 5 and 155 in year 6. After the first two years of the EFF programme, the facilitator scheme had attracted 500 applications.

The Facilitators play a key role in the application process. When an applicant has an idea for a project, he or she will generally contact their area facilitator for advice on how to progress the application. Initial eligibility guidance is given to see if the project fits with the measure and regulations. Advice is given on the application form and associated paperwork, quotes, accounts, business case, etc.

In Spain, a specific budget has been planned under Axis 5 to develop a new website for potential beneficiaries, accessible from the Department's website. This communication targets all stakeholders and actors involved (NGOs, environment). The general public is perhaps less affected (site of the Department and specific media).

In Greece, the Managing Authority has recently launched a call for proposal to obtain assistance from a third party communication advisor in order to assist in the development of a Communication Strategy and Plan to reach beneficiaries. Currently new calls for proposals are distributed to a list of stakeholder organisations. The Managing Authority has assembled a directory of sector contacts (approximately 100) who are contacted via email and mail when a call for proposal is launched and are sent both a hard copy and soft copy. In the coming year, the Greek Managing Authority plans to expand this communication campaign to radio and newspaper. Face to face contact with stakeholders is mainly though the Monitoring Committee.

Currently, potential beneficiaries can approach either local authorities or the Managing Authority (depending on the project) for assistance in filling in an application. When unable to assist, they may use the services of a third party when specific expertise is necessary, especially when evaluating applications. However despite this assistance being provided, there is no separate structure or process in place.

To date, the most significant barrier to potential beneficiaries applying for EFF funds is the lack of confidence due to the economic crisis and the difficulty in obtaining loans. In response to this however,

31

financial engineering has been used in the form of a 35 million euro holding fund established for beneficiaries as a guarantee.

Similarly in Latvia, projects addressing investments in aquaculture and fish processing that had been previously planned fell through due to lack of co-financing. The Managing Authority however reacted quickly by setting up a credit fund to provide loans to fisheries at lower interest rates (in September 2010). This process was time consuming, but enabled beneficiaries to access finance. A similar measure was put in place for rural development.

In Spain, application procedures have been simplified since FIFG as the administration has gained in experience and achieved more efficient internal processes. Certain information requests have been either reduced or even discarded, either as they were deemed unessential or if the documentation could be obtained from elsewhere. As a result, the application processing cycle was reduced from 6 to 3 months.

Some other MS have created portals for applicants on their website which provide general information to potential beneficiaries on the application process. Several MS have sought to reduce the amount of support documentation required, and the length of application forms. Furthermore, in some instances, applications can be submitted electronically.

Analysis and findings on transparency of selection criteria and procedures In Greece, the selection criteria proposed by the Managing Authority (and approved by the Monitoring Committee) are clear for beneficiaries as they are stated on each call for proposal. If beneficiaries require clarification, this is provided during the proposal process. The evaluator is required to perform a comparative evaluation between projects based on these criteria, and this is reviewed by an evaluation committee.

In Spain, a specific list of selection criteria was established by the Ministry, which is available on the Ministry’s website. Currently, these criteria appear adequate, despite to date there being no need to select one project over another because funds have been available to cover all the eligible projects proposed. Axis 4 FLAGS use selection criteria for affirmation action.

Environmental impact and protection is taken into account in the selection criteria through an obligatory declaration in the application that beneficiaries have not engaged in illegal fishing activities. On the other hand, in terms of encouraging and favouring environmentally responsible methods, this is less provision for this in the selection criteria. With regard to environmental concerns, the problem does not come from the selection criteria as much as a need to collaborate with the sector to develop more projects related to specific measures, e.g. 3.1: more energy efficient motors. Currently, environmental actions relate more so to cessation of activity.

With regards to eligibility rules, Spanish authorities and beneficiaries pose many questions, following a previous Commission audit of FIFG undertaken where several projects were found as inadmissible. As a result, Spain had to be deducted EUR 90 million in funding. Following this, many manual checklists and controls were put in place to improve under EFF.

32

2.4 EQ No 3: programme monitoring


How effective is the programme monitoring system?

Conclusion

- Monitoring systems are generally well developed, centralised and computerised from an IT and technical point of view. Some MS have made new developments to improve previous systems, which have resulted in some delays in electronic monitoring before new system is fully operational (beginning of 2011 for Finland for instance). Only a few MS resort to simple monitoring systems consisting of Excel sheets which means that the monitoring systems developed for the projects and the programme are not interfaced with one another.

- Indicators are focused on operational level and financial absorption.

- Less attention is given to results and impacts for which progress is not regularly updated, checked, and used to follow the effectiveness of the programme. Results and impacts indicators are generally very diverse and heterogeneous in terms of quality and relevance. As at 31.10.2010, few results and impact data are available which can also be explained by the low implementation rate of the programmes. Impact indicators are also less developed and difficult to follow.

- Monitoring systems are fed with heterogeneous indicators: each MS has set up its own results and impact indicators which makes it impossible to aggregate data and draw meaningful comparisons on indicators across MS.

- At operational level, MS have to follow programme’s implementation according to data on operations defined in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 498/2007. Even though MS are still obliged to collect data and make this available on request, this data is no longer collected on a regular basis by the EC as the Infosys system that used to consolidate data received from MS is no longer operational under EFF. Although Infosys showed inconsistencies and focused on outputs only, it enabled regular follow-up of the programmes’ state of play and progress at EU level, and proved very useful in assessing outputs and results of Axis 1.

- Monitoring has become more difficult in countries like the UK and Germany since the shift from several FIFG programmes to one single national EFF programme as the central Managing Authority experiences problems in collecting data from the regional level.

33

Monitoring systems are mostly computerised and allow consolidation at central level Most MS have put in place a centralised, computerised monitoring system for the EFF programme.

There exist however, some MS where systems have not yet been computerised, others which retain a combination of centralised, decentralised, computerised and non-computerised systems, and finally certain MS where decentralised systems are used due to domestic characteristics making it difficult to combine into one system.

Several of the MS with smaller EFF programmes have not justified putting in place an elaborate computerised system and just use Excel spreadsheets for follow up, as an example. For these MS, the establishment costs associated with such a system would potentially outweigh the payments made to beneficiaries. There are several examples of decentralised systems, such as the UK, due to a regional approach, where government departments and decision-making have historically been decentralised.

Computerised centralised

Non-computerised centralised

Decentralised Combination of above

Austria Netherlands Belgium SwedenCyprus Bulgaria PolandCzech Republic GermanyDenmark UKEstoniaFinlandFranceGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaMaltaPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpain19 MS 1 MS 4 MS 2 MS

Source: Questionnaires to MS and EC

Quality of results and impact indicators should be improved A large proportion of MS expressed satisfaction with the effectiveness of their monitoring system, in terms of the quality of indicators and data collection, as well as the reliability of data that is fed into the system. However there are several MS who believe both of these factors require improvement, and a broad comparison of existing indicators and available data at 31 October 2010 confirm that the existing systems of indicators are not fully operative to allow adequate monitoring of the Operational programmes from a results and impacts’ perspective.

34

0 5 10 15 20 25

Quality of indicators and

data collection?

Reliability of fed into the monitoring

system?

MS Assessment of Effectiveness of Monitoring System

Very good

Good

Should be improved

Ineffective

Source: Questionnaires to MS (on the basis of 22 answers received)

At operational level, the accounting records of operations and the data on implementation referred to in Article 59 (c) of EFF Regulation include the information set out in Annex III of the EFF Implementing Regulation. For the measures already existing in FIFG, these indicators are similar to those required within the framework of INFOSYS during FIFG. Although having a common list of indicators to be monitored by all MS is relevant and necessary (see below), the current framework reveals some shortcomings highlighted by MS:

− Not all data listed in Annex III of the EFF Implementing Regulation are relevant for the authorities and the users at the different levels and they do not fully meet the MS needs in terms of monitoring.

− The number of indicators is too large and some indicators are not relevant in the case of some MS (e.g. species of aquaculture). A reduction of this is proposed for example in processing and marketing of fish (merging indicators hygiene, environment and production systems to a common indicator).

− Whilst there are too many indicators, there is no differentiation between Member States/fleet sizes/EFF funds allocation, which results in a disproportionate burden on smaller Member States with limited funds and limited administrative capacity.

− Some indicators are also considered as irrelevant, as they are difficult to quantify and scarcely linked to any SMART goals (as for instance under measure 3.3: “m2 of cold storage created”).

In addition to these output indicators, each MS defined its own results and impact indicators in its Operational Programme, using the “Indicators for monitoring and evaluation: a practical guide for the European Fisheries Fund” document. Indicators are very heterogeneous in terms of quantity and quality as they were generally chosen according to the data available which differs widely from one country to another. Data provided by defined indicators is often considered as ineffectual whilst sources are not fully reliable:

− Data sometimes cover too few enterprises included into the collection of data (protection of individual data), particularly in small countries.

− Indicators such as on employment are not reliable as it is in the best interest of beneficiaries of the EFF support to maximise the number of employees benefited as a result of the project supported by EFF. Some MS consider that figures (numerical indicators) should be accompanied by measurable factual evidence as there is a need to provide the link between them and the projects.

− In some MS, existing impact indicators are very high level and cannot be clearly linked with the projects funded.

35

Result and impact data is often only available after a considerable time-lag. At the date of the evaluation, results indicators are not yet available for a number of MS.

Generally, it is impossible to estimate results of the investment shortly after the project has ended. Results of the investments can be seen after a couple of years when the investment is fully in use, which a key challenge.

One clear deterioration is ceasing to use Infosys, as EC is now lacking a clear overview of EFF implementation The European Commission does not have any common framework for monitoring indicators on results and impacts, which also partly results in the heterogeneity of set indicators and data that cannot be consolidated or compared.

As regards operations, a common framework is defined in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 498/2007 with a list of data to be communicated on request to the Commission according to Article 40.

− However no request has been has been issued so far (except for Axis 4). As a result, there is no aggregated data on operations at EU level. This observation is a deterioration compared with FIFG programming period as INFOSYS, which was the informatics application for all structural interventions in the FIFG, stopped being used for EFF 2007-2013 programming period. Although INFOSYS was not optimal (physical data concerning operations under priority axes 3 and 4 of FIFG were not sufficiently reliable due to incorrect classifications under one measure or another, as well as inaccurate information on implementation due to an erroneous interpretation of the indicators), it enabled some consolidated queries per country, programme, measure and action.

In addition, it is likely that data monitored according to Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 498/2007 generate the same mistakes as was the case of data transmitted through the INFOSYS during FIFG. DG MARE had to run specific verifications to correct these mistakes (link with the fleet register in particular), which represented a lot of work. This partly explains why EC abandoned the INFOSYS from 2007-2013 programming period.

36

3 Evaluation of effectiveness and progress to date

Preliminary definitions The effectiveness analysis is based on the following key figures:

− Programmed amounts (i.e. programming) are amounts available for investments within each programme approved by the European Commission;

− Committed amounts (i.e. commitments) are amounts allocated to selected operations by the Managing Authority of each programme. Commitment rate (%) is the ratio that compares EFF committed amounts to EFF programming.

− Achieved amounts (i.e. achievements or payments) are amounts certified by the responsible authority of each programme and paid by the managing authority to the ultimate beneficiary. Achievement rate (%) is the ratio that compares EFF achieved amounts (payments) to EFF programmed amounts. This allows operation progress to be checked (operations still running or not even started).

3.1 Introduction to EFF programmes EFF programmes: distribution by MS and priority axis The total EFF budget amounts to M€ 4 304. The programmes of 3 Member States – Spain, Poland and Italy – represent 53% of the 2007-2013 programming period budget. Spain has the largest programme for a single country, comprising 26% of the total EFF budget. Poland is the second largest recipient of EC contribution. Seven countries comprise 75% of the contribution.

37

Spain26%

Poland17%

Italy10%

Portugal6%

Romania5%

France5%

Greece5%

Germany4%

UK3%

Denmark3%

Latvia3%

Estonia2%

Bulgaria2%

Lithuania1%

Sweden1%

Netherlands1% Ireland

1%

Finland1%

Hungary1%Czech Rep

1%

Belgium1%

Slovenia1%

Cyprus0%

Slovakia0%

Malta0% Austria

0%

In comparison with FIFG, the programmes of Spain, Poland and Italy represented 60% of 2000-2006 funding budget of 3.9 billion (Spain 45%, Italy 10% and Poland 5%).

EFF budget represents an increase of almost 10% from the previous programming period under FIFG. Although new Member States joined the program in 2004, giving them a shorter period to expend their smaller budget, whilst Bulgaria and Romania are implementing their first programme from 2007, Spain, Poland and Italy remain the three biggest programmes. Romania and Bulgaria are however also significant programmes considering they represent a combined 7.3% of total EFF programmed funds.

Overall, Axes 1, 2 and 3 (28.2%, 28.7% and 26.3% respectively) account for the majority of EFF funds (83.3%).

38

Axis 128%

Axis 229%

Axis 326%

Axis 413%

Axis 54%

Each MS has developed a single strategy and operational programme for EFF. The relative weight of each 5 priority axis varies according to the MS as shown in the table below.

Total

Programmed (k€)

% of OP in total axis 1

% of axis 1 in

OPProgramm

ed (k€)


% of axis 2 in

OPProgramm

ed (k€)


% of axis 3 in

OPProgramm

ed (k€)


% of axis 4 in

OPProgramm

ed (k€)


% of axis 5 in

OPProgramm

ed (k€)Austria 0 0% 0% 5 164 0% 98% 50 0% 1% 0 0% 0% 45 0% 1% 5 259Belgium 11 500 1% 44% 3 500 0% 13% 7 900 1% 30% 1 900 0% 7% 1 300 1% 5% 26 100Bulgaria 8 001 1% 10% 36 004 3% 45% 20 002 2% 25% 12 001 2% 15% 4 000 3% 5% 80 010Cyprus 2 200 0% 11% 3 250 0% 16% 12 924 1% 66% 1 000 0% 5% 350 0% 2% 19 724Czech Rep 0 0% 0% 11 927 1% 44% 13 824 1% 51% 0 0% 0% 1 355 1% 5% 27 107Denmark 40 365 3% 30% 37 650 3% 28% 36 515 3% 27% 12 461 2% 9% 6 684 5% 5% 133 675Estonia 15 265 1% 18% 24 584 2% 29% 21 210 2% 25% 19 282 3% 23% 4 228 3% 5% 84 568Finland 3 445 0% 9% 16 990 1% 43% 14 784 1% 37% 3 606 1% 9% 624 0% 2% 39 449France 65 621 5% 30% 59 029 5% 27% 83 049 7% 38% 5 700 1% 3% 2 653 2% 1% 216 053Germany 8 145 1% 5% 57 560 5% 37% 68 688 6% 44% 19 438 3% 12% 2 034 1% 1% 155 865Greece 77 272 6% 37% 59 690 5% 29% 32 320 3% 16% 33 300 6% 16% 5 250 4% 3% 207 832Hungary 0 0% 0% 24 164 2% 69% 8 944 1% 26% 0 0% 0% 1 743 1% 5% 34 851Ireland 34 766 3% 82% 0 0% 0% 6 000 1% 14% 1 501 0% 4% 0 0% 0% 42 267Italy 165 494 14% 39% 106 086 9% 25% 108 207 10% 26% 23 339 4% 5% 21 217 15% 5% 424 343Latvia 20 861 2% 17% 46 129 4% 37% 24 153 2% 19% 28 911 5% 23% 4 961 3% 4% 125 016Lithuania 13 668 1% 25% 22 431 2% 41% 9 249 1% 17% 6 694 1% 12% 2 672 2% 5% 54 713Malta 2 175 0% 26% 1 760 0% 21% 4 095 0% 49% 0 0% 0% 342 0% 4% 8 372Netherlands 16 913 1% 35% 7 379 1% 15% 16 903 1% 35% 4 987 1% 10% 2 395 2% 5% 48 578Poland 168 841 14% 23% 146 819 12% 20% 146 819 13% 20% 234 910 41% 32% 36 705 25% 5% 734 093Portugal 53 065 4% 22% 78 058 6% 32% 90 027 8% 37% 17 403 3% 7% 7 931 5% 3% 246 485Romania 9 975 1% 4% 105 000 8% 46% 30 000 3% 13% 75 000 13% 33% 10 739 7% 5% 230 714Slovakia 0 0% 0% 10 468 1% 76% 2 536 0% 19% 0 0% 0% 684 0% 5% 13 689Slovenia 2 164 0% 10% 7 141 1% 33% 7 574 1% 35% 2 164 0% 10% 2 597 2% 12% 21 640Spain 442 907 36% 39% 322 048 26% 28% 298 756 26% 26% 49 212 9% 4% 18 967 13% 2% 1 131 891Sweden 13 666 1% 25% 10 933 1% 20% 19 133 2% 35% 8 200 1% 15% 2 733 2% 5% 54 665United Kingdom 39 635 3% 29% 33 590 3% 24% 49 621 4% 36% 11 598 2% 8% 3 384 2% 2% 137 828Total 1 215 945 100% 28% 1 237 354 100% 29% 1 133 285 100% 26% 572 607 100% 13% 145 595 100% 3% 4 304 787

Axis 5Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 4

− Countries where Axis 1 constitutes a high priority in terms of funds allocation include Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Spain. Conversely, Axis 1 is a very low priority (or not at all) for Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia.

− Axis 2 is a very high priority for Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia, which is understandable considering they are all (with the exception of Romania and Finland, which have a relatively small coastline) land-locked countries. On the other hand, Axis 2 is not pursued strongly by Belgium, Cyprus, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands and Sweden.

39

− Member States where Axis 3 is a strong focus include Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Netherlands and Malta, 3 out of 5 of which are new Member States. Axis 3, on the other hand is a relatively low priority for Austria, Greece, Ireland and Romania.

− Axis 4 is a particular focus for Estonia, Latvia, Poland and Romania, all representing new Member States. Conversely, Member States with a minimal focus on Axis 4 include Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, Spain and Slovakia. Land-locked countries have no focus at all on Axis 4.

− Allocations to Axis 5 are relatively even across Member States, and represent a maximum of 5% of the total EFF budget for each Member State (with the exception of Slovenia).

40

3.2 EQ No 4: programmes’ state of play


What is the program’s state of progress at the end of 2010?

Conclusion

- M€ 1.4 EFF committed at 31 October 2010 out of total budget of M€ 4.3 (rate of commitment: 32.7%)

- Marked acceleration in 2010 in terms of committed amounts. Further acceleration has been achieved since the drafting of the analysis within this report (since end October 2010) particularly in Italy (Axis 1 specifically) and Poland.

- Non-convergence regions perform better than Convergence regions

- Among “big” programmes, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Italy show some significant delay. It must be noted that in the particular case of Italy, considerable progress was made in the last trimester of 2010. Some small new Member States (Malta and Slovakia) are also lagging behind the average (their rate of commitment is less than 25%). On the other hand, Slovenia, Cyprus, Ireland, Austria, Czech Republic, and Denmark perform well rate in terms of commitment rate (>55%).

- Reasons for delays are diverse in nature, and include:

difficulties in setting up a single operational programme in MS having a decentralised management of fisheries (Italy), difficulties in establishing and obtaining approval of their MCS, combined with a lack of management capacities within the set authorities (Romania, Bulgaria), delays due to internal reorganisation of the management system (Greece), lack of staff and overlapping with FIFG closure (Greece), overestimated budget compared with the absorption capacity (Romania, Bulgaria), and programme modifications due to the introduction of Reg. 744/2008, known as the “Fuel Package”. Furthermore, some external factors also influence an adequate launch of the programme such as the financial crisis that has reduced the available co-financing opportunities and might have an impact on the final achievement rates if projects are abandoned.

- In terms of commitments as at 31.10.2010, Axis 1 performs the best, followed by Axis 2 and Axis 3.

- At measure level, measures 1.1, 2.1, and 2.5 are clearly the most advanced ones. On the contrary, some measures are practically not used at all. This is mostly the case for measures 1.4 (Coastal fisheries), 2.1.1 (Aqua-environmental measures), 2.1.2 (Animal health), 2.2 (Inland fisheries) and 3.6 (Modification for reassignment of fishing vessels).

Overall effectiveness In overall terms, as at 31 October 2010, EFF commitments reached € 1,409,607,342 whilst payments amounted to € 641 029 407. In relation to overall EFF allocation (€ 4,304,787,366), commitments were 32.7% and payments 14.9%.

For most MS, implementation began only in 2009, due to delays associated with the adoption of OPs and the approval and implementation of MCS and Audit Strategies. Due to these factors, and others according to MS specific contexts, the rate of implementation at the end of 2009 was still low and

41

amounted, in relation to the overall EFF allocation, to 18.4% (EUR 793 894 729) in terms of commitments and 4.1 % (EUR 175 029 780) in terms of payments.4

Non-Convergence regions perform overall better than Convergence regions. Whilst unable to determine the split of convergence and non convergence objectives for the October 2010 progress update, as at December 2009, Convergence regions comprised 64.1% of total commitments (EUR 516,604,670) (compared to 75.6% of total programmed funds or EUR 3,252,409,305) and Non-Convergence regions represented 35.9% or EUR 288,762,172 (compared to 24.4% of total programmed funds or EUR 1,052,378,061).

Programmed (€)Commitments 31 Dec 2009 (€)

Commit-ment rate

31 Dec 2009Commitments 31 Oct 2010 (€)

Commit-ment rate

31 Oct 2010EFF EFF EFF EFF EFF

Convergence 3 252 409 305 516 604 670 16%Non-Convergence 1 052 378 061 288 762 172 27%Total 4 304 787 366 805 366 843 19% 1 409 607 342 33%


Effectiveness per MS at 31 October 2010 Overall commitments increased by 14.3% from December 2009 to October 2010 as many MS began to accelerate their implementation of projects. Over this same period, payments (financial achievement rate) increased by 10.8%, reflecting the increased number of MCS approved and operational in the year. Most MS have made considerable progress in 2010 in terms of commitments and payments, although other MS have still been unsuccessful in accelerating the implementation of their OP. This said, in general there has been further progression made since October 2010, which is not reflected in the financial analysis within this report.

The following observations can be made:

- Italy, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria and Malta are the worst performers. Together with Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, they have committed 30% or less of their EFF funds which is below EU average. It must be mentioned however that particularly Italy and Poland have accelerated their level of implementation in the final trimester of 2010.

- Slovenia, Cyprus, Ireland, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Sweden and Belgium have committed 50% or greater of their EFF funds. However, these 7 MS only constitute 7.2% of total EFF programmed funds, representing some of the smallest programmes in terms of budget. The findings above illustrate that whilst certain MS have progressed well in 2010 in terms of commitments and payments, these have tended to be the MS with proportionally smaller EFF budgets.

- The biggest programmes are average performers such as Spain, the largest EFF budget (comprising 26.3% of the total), which has committed 34% of its programmed funds.

The table and graph below shows the commitment rate and achievement rate of total EFF funds per MS:

4 Report from the Commission - Third Annual Report on the Implementation of the European Fisheries Fund (2009).

42

Programmed (€)Commitments 31 Oct 2010 (€)

Commit-ment rate

31 Oct 2010Achievements31 Oct 2010 (€)

Achieve-ment rate

31 Oct 2010No. Projects 31 Oct 2010

Commitments 31 Oct 2010 (€)

Achievements31 Oct 2010 (€)

EFF EFF EFF EFF EFF Total TotalSlovenia 21 640 283 21 640 283 100,0% 197 654 0,9% 18 26 058 340 263 540Cyprus 19 724 418 13 704 421 69,5% 8 697 676 44,1% 680 5 306 342 17 395 355Ireland 42 266 603 27 861 697 65,9% 27 453 772 65,0% 65 37 472 954 0Austria 5 259 318 3 444 546 65,5% 2 532 075 48,1% 261 6 852 462 5 043 170Czech Rep 27 106 675 15 705 083 57,9% 7 055 855 26,0% 473 20 940 112 9 407 811Denmark 133 675 169 74 939 597 56,1% 29 000 000 21,7% 246 118 908 580 41 000 000Sweden 54 664 803 29 445 455 53,9% 19 206 410 35,1% 1195 54 277 712 44 357 733Belgium 26 100 000 13 553 955 51,9% 8 077 057 30,9% 105 22 211 231 11 628 994Latvia 125 015 563 61 072 811 48,9% 32 778 608 26,2% 683 81 430 415 37 124 911Lithuania 54 713 408 26 001 124 47,5% 12 209 718 22,3% 143 34 397 16 413Portugal 246 485 249 116 887 163 47,4% 43 327 091 17,6% 1395 155 022 074 53 268 436Estonia 84 568 039 38 212 107 45,2% 15 109 695 17,9% 398 50 949 478 20 146 263United Kingdom 137 827 889 60 031 382 43,6% 20 974 319 15,2% 758Finland 39 448 827 17 031 178 43,2% 10 323 469 26,2% 1876 76 623 191 48 060 760Netherlands 48 578 417 20 900 000 43,0% 11 500 000 23,7% 218 67 500 000 36 900 000France 216 053 084 86 958 204 40,2% 47 519 923 22,0%Spain 1 131 890 907 381 610 723 33,7% 201 651 692 17,8% 751 290 253 402 153 357Germany 155 865 417 51 211 171 32,9% 18 161 200 11,7% 796 78 750 460 10 119 314Hungary 34 850 860 10 337 251 29,7% 3 535 267 10,1% 84 13 791 930 4 713 689Poland 734 092 574 203 547 080 27,7% 89 721 864 12,2% 3776 271 396 106 119 629 152Slovakia 13 688 528 3 417 153 25,0% 1 570 338 11,5% 38 565 334 1 658 948Italy 424 342 854 69 103 787 16,3% 24 172 809 5,7% 5239 138 207 574 48 345 617Romania 230 714 207 32 218 077 14,0% 2 646 243 1,1% 80 42 837 436 3 528 324Greece 207 832 237 26 913 127 12,9% 2 897 838 1,4% 20 28 329 607 3 050 356Bulgaria 80 009 708 3 859 966 4,8% 318 286 0,4% 35 523 796 424 381Malta 8 372 329 0 0,0% 0 0,0% 0 0 0Total 4 304 787 366 1 409 607 342 33% 640 638 858 15% 18 582 2 049 279 784 918 236 524


Reasons for delays in implementation In an effort to ascertain particular reasons for delays in the progress of individual programmes, a survey was conducted of the Management Authority within all MS, and in depth on-site discussions were held with four sample MS. The findings are presented below in terms of the impact (large, medium, small, none) that the reason had on delays to the MS (based on 23 responses to this particular question).

Average commitment rate

43

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Difficulties in launching calls for proposals

Problems in drafting the NSP

Problems in drafting the OP

FIFG closure overlapping

Administrative burden linked to closure of FIFG

Absence of co-financing available

Problems in setting up a MCS

Late approval of the programme or the MCS

Number of responses

Extent to which particular reasons for delay were experienced by MS

Large

Medium

Small

Not at all


The graph shows that delays in the implementation progress were largely attributed to reasons linked directly to the EFF, and particularly to the establishment of the MCS. There were 7 MS which stated that they had problems in setting up an MCS “to a large extent”. These countries were Belgium, UK, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Slovenia and Greece. Similarly, there were 9 MS who stated that delays associated with the late approval of the OP or the MCS affected them “to a large extent”. These countries included Belgium, Hungary, UK, Malta, Ireland, Spain, Slovenia, Greece and Romania.

Whilst some MS experienced difficulties in understanding and applying the EC’s regulation with respect to the MCS, the majority of difficulties were associated with the lack of experience in developing an MCS. This reason was particularly apparent amongst the new MS, which have had limited experience with EU programmes. However as evident in the findings above, this explanation was not confined to new MS, and several “older” MS also cited a lack of experience in developing a MCS as a particular reason for delays in the programming (Belgium, UK, Italy, Spain, Greece). Several MS noted that they had an insufficient understanding of the EC’s requirements for a MCS, resulting in delayed approvals and the requirement to develop a second version of the MCS description.

On the other hand, in terms of external factors, relatively fewer MS experienced as severe difficulties in drafting the NSP and in launching calls for proposals (15 and 14 respectively noted that these reasons did not concern the implementation of their programme. However, another commonly experienced delay amongst MS related to unfavourable domestic economic conditions making it difficult to obtain co-financing. To address this, several MS have put in place special funds. As an example, in Latvia, projects addressing investments aquaculture and fish processing that had been previously planned fell through due to lack of co-financing. The Managing Authority reacted quickly by setting up a credit fund to provide loans to fisheries at lower interest rates (in September 2010). This process was time consuming, but enabled beneficiaries to access finance. A similar measure was put in place for rural development.

To a lesser extent than the MCS, the administrative burden and overlapping nature of the FIFG programme (including insufficient staff resources) contributed to delays for more than half of the MS. Resourcing issues was compounded in several MS where the resources responsible for the development of the OP and MCS were also responsible for the closure of the FIFG. An example is the UK, where FIFG closure proved immensely complicated and resource intensive.

In the programming phase, some MS also referred to the political/administrative difficulties associated with developing a single OP, especially if they are more accustomed to taking a decentralised

44

approach to planning. This was particularly evident in Spain, Italy, UK, Germany and Belgium. For example, the devolved nature of the UK (four separate Governments) created difficulties in presenting a single Member State view. This was also the case in Germany, where OPs and MCS were developing at the state level, resulting in 14 different plans which are required to be consolidated into one.

Finally, several MS’ lack of implementation progress can be attributed to their disproportional EFF budget. Romania and Bulgaria in particular possess proportionally significant EFF budgets in comparison to their absorption capacity. In addition, Poland’s shared of the budget under EFF increased by 11.93% from that of the FIFG. Its EFF commitment rate to date of 27.73% can be attributed, to a large extent, to the significant share of funds allocated to Axis 4. Romania, which joined the EU in 2007, comprises 5.36% of the total EFF budget (the 5th largest EFF budget). However as at 31 October 2010, its commitment rate is only 13.96%, less than half the total across all Member States.

Effectiveness per Axis and Measure at 31 October 2010 From a priority axis perspective, at 31 October 2010, the commitments by axes amounted to 40% of total EFF budget (M€ 487) for Axis 1, 34% (M€ 424) for Axis 2, 36% (M€ 403) for Axis 3, 5% (M€ 30) for Axis 4 and 19% (M€ 27) for Axis 5.

Axis 1 projects thus account for the greatest proportion of commitments, due to their shorter term nature and lack of regional cooperation required. Axis 4 achievement is less than 1%, indicating that whilst groups have been formed, FLAG group projects are generally still in the very early stages of implementation.

Programmed (€)Commitments 31 Oct 2010 (€)

Commitment rate

31 Oct 2010Nb Projects 31 Oct 2010

EFF EFF EFFAxis 1 1 215 945 251 494 152 968 41% 12 218Axis 2 1 237 354 125 444 760 818 36% 3 556Axis 3 1 133 285 167 410 280 731 36% 2 101Axis 4 572 607 398 29 889 883 5% 441Axis 5 145 595 425 30 522 942 21% 320TOTAL 4 304 787 366 1 409 607 342 33% 18 636

Focusing more specifically on the progress relating to the individual measures for Axes 1, 2 and 3, it is apparent that certain measures are strongly favoured over others. This comparison is represented in the table below (NB: no data was provided per measure for UK; and data for Slovenia and Latvia reveal some inconsistencies between measure level and total Axis level data. For this reason, these three MS have been excluded from the Measure-level analysis):

45

Commitments 31 Oct 2010 (€) % of total

Nb Projects 31 Oct 2010

EFF EFF1.1: Aid to permanent cessation of fishing activities

263 102 164 22% 516

1.2: Aid to temporary cessation of fishing activities

137 502 512 11% 7 931

1.3: Investments on board and selectivity

44 061 076 4% 2 145

1.4: Coastal fisheries 2 885 809 0% 4231.5: Socio-economic compensations 19 093 613 2% 774

2.1: Investments in aquaculture 136 713 089 11% 1 709

2.1.1: Aqua-environmental measures

32 282 008 3% 233

2.1.2: Animal health measures 0 0% 02.2; Inland fisheries 4 436 830 0% 2812.3: Fish processing and marketing

213 113 246 18% 1 132

3.1: Common measures 88 068 095 7% 1 1693.2: Protection of aquatic flora and fauna 38 220 203 3% 134

3.3: Port infrastructure 147 170 530 12% 2763.4: New markets and promotion campaigns 44 564 331 4% 234

3.5: Pilot projects 41 697 842 3% 175

3.6: Modification for reassignment of fishing vessels

477 013 0% 1

TOTAL Axis 1, 2 & 3 1 213 388 362 100% 17 133


Axis 1 − In terms of Axis 1, the most favoured measure is 1.1: Aid to permanent cessation of fishing

activities, followed by 1.2: Aid to temporary cessation of fishing activities. Measures 1.4 and 1.5 in particular which address Coastal Fisheries and Socio-economic compensations, respectively, are less commonly implemented. The MS which have utilised Measure 1.1 the most are Sweden, Spain, France, Denmark, Poland, Italy and Portugal. Measure 1.2 has been strongly favoured by Spain, Poland, Italy, Sweden, Portugal and France. On the other hand, 1.4 has only been used by Italy, Finland, Slovenia, Sweden, Estonia and Germany; and 1.5 is most favoured by Spain, Poland, Sweden, France and Latvia.

− In certain MS, there has been a low level of interest in Axis 1 measures, particularly those relating to cessation of fishing activities and investments on board and selectivity. In some cases, the potential beneficiaries consider the conditions laid down in the granting of public aid too restricting, or not desirable for their activities, e.g. replacement of vessel’s motor in favour of a smaller, more fuel efficient motor. Other reasons for delay in permanent cessation of fishing activities is due to the requirement to prepare a Management Fisheries Plan, followed by a Fishing Effort Adjustment Plan, and subsequently through the public tender process.

46

− Nevertheless Axis 1 has the highest level of achievement due to the nature of Measures 1.1 and 1.2. These measures have achieved a higher level of implementation due to their simple implementation procedures, short term nature of the projects, and similarity to measures under the FIFG.

Axis 2 − For Axis 2, the most favoured measure is 2.3: Fishing processing and marketing, followed by 2.1:

Investments in aquaculture. However, despite the strong level of commitments to these two measures, payments to date are small in comparison. Measure 2.3 is most strongly favoured by Spain, Portugal, Poland, Sweden, Italy, Latvia and Estonia. Investments in aquaculture (Measure 2.1) are strongly favoured by Poland, Romania, Sweden, Spain and Latvia. Measure 2.1.2 is only utilised by Poland, Latvia, Romania, Sweden and Lithuania; and Measure 2.2 is most favoured by Finland, Sweden, Italy, Germany and Poland.

− Financial aid given to fish processing and marketing enterprises has largely assisted with the development of this sector in several MS. There has been a strong interest from fish processing and marketing enterprises for this measure, both new enterprises that are constructed, and well as existing enterprises to be modernized. Projects include modernization of existing fish farms and the building of new storage capacity.

Axis 3 − With regard to Axis 3, all measures are being used to a reasonable extent. The most favoured

measure is 3.3: Port infrastructure, followed by 3.1: Collective actions and 3.2: Protection of aquatic flora and fauna. A strong level of achievement with respect to EFF commitments has occurred for measure 3.4: New markets and promotion campaigns. The MS who most favour Measure 3.3 are the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Greece, Spain and Sweden. On the other hand, Measure 3.6 is only utilised by Sweden.

− A large proportion of MS deem Measure 3.3 very relevant due to the need to develop the adequacy of fisheries infrastructure. Many MS are making significant investments in infrastructure of ports, to bring them up to modern standards and increase the effectiveness of fishing and processing.

47

3.3 EQ No 5: preliminary results achieved by the Axis 1 projects


What are the preliminary results achieved by the Axis 1 projects in relation to mid-term targets of OP? Which measures are the most effective in achieving these targets?

Description of Axis 1 measures:

The objective of Axis 1 is to help vessels owners and fishers to cope with the financial and social repercussions of the fishing effort reduction.

Measures financed under Axis 1 are:

- Measure 1.1 – aid to permanent cessation of fishing activities: a premium is granted to vessel owners when a vessel permanently ceases activities (scrapping or reassignment of the vessel). In the new EFF, the cessation has to be part of a Fishing Effort Adjustment Plan (FEAP) in order to be eligible for aid. This should guarantee that EFF only co-finances cessations made with the purpose of increasing sustainability and long-term exploitation of the fishing stock and not economic cessations.

- Measure 1.2 – aid to temporary cessation of fishing activities: vessel owners and/or their crew members are eligible for a premium to compensate temporary cessation of activities. In the new EFF, only cessations made in the context of a FEAP or resulting from an exceptional occurrence are eligible. Recurrent seasonal cessations, corresponding to fishing activities are not eligible.

- Measure 1.3 – investments on board and selectivity: investments co-financed by the EFF may include upgrading safety, working conditions, hygiene, conservation, energy efficiency or selectivity, without increasing catch capacity. Engine replacement may be eligible, provided this leads to lower fuel consumption, less pollution and, for vessels over 12 metres in length, reduced power.

- Measure 1.4 – small-scale coastal fisheries: only vessels measuring no more than 12 metres in length and not using towed gear are eligible. This gives right to the same types of aid co-financed by the EFF as other types of fishing activity. For investments on boards, the EFF co-financing rate may be higher. Additional eligible investments include training, preparation of local management plans, certain technical innovations, etc.

- Measure 1.5 – socio-economic compensations: the EFF may co-finance socio-economic compensations proposed by MS, involving diversification of activities, upgrading professional skills, retraining, early departure, or a non-renewable compensation following a vessel permanent cessation.

The “Fuel package” voted by MS during the economic crisis relaxed the conditions of eligibility to some extent, especially as regards measures 1.1 and 1.2.

48

Conclusion

- High rate of commitment (41%) with a rate close to 80% in the most advanced MS.

- This rate is closely linked to the high level of commitment of the measure 1.1: permanent cessation of activities (53 % of Axis 1 commitments).

- The concept of Fishing Effort Adjustment Plans (FEAP), which should have represented the innovation of the EFF for axis 1, has been interpreted differently among MS, either as a new instrument or as a generic term for all the measures referred to in Art. 21 (recovery plans, fisheries management plans, etc.).

- The “Fuel Package” and the introduction of the Fleet Adaptation Schemes (FAS) re-introduced the possibility of receiving financial aid for strictly economic restructuring, whereas the original intention was to tighten the link between decommissioning schemes (and temporary cessation of activities) and conservation measures.

- Overall the “Fuel Package” arrived late, appeared difficult to implement and was not always considered relevant.

- The measure 1.2 – temporary cessation of activities – has been largely used in relation to the “Fuel package”, which allowed more flexibility than the original EFF regulation.

- The measure 1.3 – investments on board and selectivity – has been difficult to implement. One of the main identified causes for delay is the lack of financing from the private sector, which has been worsened by the economic crisis. Depending on the MS, investments have focused more on working conditions and safety or on the environment.

- The need to support coastal fisheries (measure 1.4) is not strongly supported by MS. This appears to be due to two factors, which have resulted in a low level of commitments. Firstly, there seem to be some issues with the definition and interpretation of a coastal fishery, which may be too restrictive. Secondly, other measures of the EFF have appeared more attractive or a greater priority to the sector.

- The measure 1.5 on socio-economic compensations has been mostly used in relation to permanent and temporary cessation of activities (measures 1.1 and 1.2). Projects mainly related to early departure and non renewable compensation. Measures for young fishers seem to be difficult to implement, especially in a context of crisis.

- Regarding the first impacts, the only information available and comparable between MS concerns the reduction of fleet capacity. Results vary among MS: while Denmark, Estonia, France, Poland and the Netherlands achieved (and exceeded in some cases) their objectives, as outlined in their OPs, impacts seem less significant in Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

49

Current state of implementation

Programmed TOTAL (€)

Programmed EFF (€)

Commitments EFF -

31.10.2010 (€)

% EFF commitment -

31.10.2010 No. Projects

selected *

Spain 778 357 590 442 907 458 172 689 149 39% Na

Poland 225 121 723 168 841 292 67 861 005 40% 3 145

France 178 916 909 65 621 494 46 400 668 71% Na

Italy 330 987 428 165 493 714 38 801 910 23% 4 762

Denmark 53 730 684 40 365 342 33 275 168 82% 68

Portugal 66 966 211 53 065 134 31 373 314 59% 1 137

Ireland 46 355 000 34 766 000 27 453 772 79% 46

Latvia 27 814 590 20 860 942 14 347 750 69% 330

Sweden 22 777 001 13 666 201 12 129 424 89% 824

UK 73 960 646 39 634 805 10 996 052 28% 383

Belgium 14 777 854 11 500 000 9 671 041 84% 59

Netherlands 44 613 233 16 913 233 8 700 000 51% 66

Estonia 20 352 708 15 264 531 8 319 195 55% 215

Lithuania 16 528 892 13 667 647 4 264 834 31% 0

Cyprus 4 400 000 2 200 000 2 970 453 135% 11

Slovenia 2 885 372 2 164 029 2 164 029 100% 332

Romania 13 300 000 9 975 000 1 209 732 12% 46

Finland 7 985 000 3 445 000 1 060 742 31% 2

Germany 13 283 334 8 145 000 441 987 5% 62

Bulgaria 10 667 961 8 000 970 22 743 0% 0

Austria 0 0 0 0% 0

Czech Rep 0 0 0 0% 0

Greece 97 767 605 77 272 459 0 0% 0

Hungary 0 0 0 0% 54

Malta 2 900 000 2 175 000 0 0% 31

Slovakia 0 0 0 0% 645

Total 2 054 449 741 1 215 945 251 494 152 968 41% 12 218Source: Questionnaires to MS and interviews (European Commission and Member States)

Amounts programmed by MS are highly correlated with the importance of the fleet in terms of number of vessels, power and tonnage. Among MS with the highest levels of commitment, Spain, UK, Italy, France, Greece, and Portugal also hold some of the largest fleets. There is an exception with Poland, which only accounts for 1 % of the number of vessels, 2.2 % of the tonnage and 1.5 % of the power and still is the third MS in terms of amounts programmed.

The commitment rate is quite high at the end of 2010, with 41%. However, this rate and the way Axis 1 was used highly differ from one Member State to the next.

Spain

50

Permanent and temporary cessation of activities (measures 1.1 and 1.2) represent 92% of all Axis 1 commitments in Spain (51% and 41% respectively).

At the end of 2009, Spain had implemented 15 FEAPs:

- 4 recovery plans (2 for hake, halibut, tuna)

- 2 plans following non-renewal of agreements with third countries (Mauritania and Angola)

- 3 fisheries management plans (Anchovy in Biscaya, Integral Plan for the Mediterranean, Venus clams in Cadiz Gulf)

- 4 Other FEAPs (surrounding nets in Cadiz Gulf, bottom trawling in Cadiz Gulf…)

- Emergency measures for public health reasons (molluscs in Malaga, Provincia de Huelva y Sanlucar, Linea de la Concepcion)

- 1 plan for inland fisheries

Poland Poland focused 24% of Axis 1 on measure 1.1 and 35% on measure 1.2.

Measure 1.1 mainly concerns the cod fishery in the Baltic Sea, for which stock is considered to have a “reduced recovery ability” and is “harvested unsustainably”. Baltic fleet accounted for more than 99 % (866 vessels on 870) of the polish fleet in 2007, but only for 50 % of the GT and 82 % of the kW. The fleet is quite old with an average age of 26.7 years in 2007.

Cod represented 19.2 % of the Baltic’s fleet landings. Some herring and salmon stocks are also considered to be overfished but to a lesser extent.

Polish fleet already decreased during FIFG period, it concerned 404 fishing vessels, 15 800 GT and 53 400 kW.

France The French OP specified that 50 % of the funds for the decommissioning scheme should be used within 2 years after the adoption of the OP, in order to encourage a quick adjustment of the fleet on sensitive fisheries. That is why France is among the MS which committed the most significant EFF amounts (79 % for France and average of 40 % average for all MS). 24 decommissioning schemes have been implemented by the end of 2009, while the OP planned to implement 5 by the end of 2010 and 10 by the end of the EFF period.

The French OP indicates that the use of m 1.2 should be used as a last resort and must focus on fishers who do not have other fishery opportunities, i.e. other species to target. This explains the little use of the m 1.2 until now. However, the possible use of this measure has been broadened following the adoption of the “fuel package”.

Italy In Italy, the rate of commitment is quite low (23%), but the programmed EFF was very high. Italy implemented only one decommissioning scheme by the end of 2009 which concerns 8 vessels on tuna fishery. In Italy, progress has been made in the final trimester of 2010. Various decommissioning schemes have been implemented since the evaluation analysis was undertaken. For example, in terms of BFT, more than 30 vessels have been scrapped or removed from the fleet.

Temporary cessations have been mostly used in relation to the fuel package, as well as the cessation of bluefin tuna fishing by purse seiners.

State of implementation by measure (As a reminder, no data was provided per measure for UK; and data for Slovenia and Latvia reveal some inconsistencies between measure level and total Axis level data. For this reason, these three MS have been excluded from the Measure-level analysis):

Measure 1.1 commitments account for more than half of the total EFF commitments for Axis 1. Measures 1.1 and 1.2 represent together 86 % of the EFF commitments on Axis 1.

51

Commitments Total -

31.10.2010 Commitments

EFF - 31.10.2010Payments Total

- 31.10.2010 Payments EFF -

31.10.2010 No. Projects -

31.10.2010

TOTAL 679 035 051 466 645 174 525 389 750 364 007 071 11 735

1.1 373 713 175 263 102 164 287 238 304 205 849 621 507

1.2 210 069 828 137 502 512 195 964 367 130 303 073 7 931

1.3 61 633 196 44 061 076 25 861 576 16 696 157 2 100

1.4 7 211 717 2 885 809 2 803 434 869 905 423

1.5 26 407 134 19 093 613 13 522 068 10 288 315 774

Commitments Total -





31.10.2010

TOTAL 679 035 051 466 645 174 525 389 750 364 007 071 11 735

1.1 55% 56% 55% 57% 55%

1.2 31% 29% 37% 36% 31%

1.3 9% 9% 5% 5% 9%

1.4 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%

1.5 4% 4% 3% 3% 4%Source: Questionnaires to MS and interviews (European Commission and Member States)

Implementation for measure 1.1: Aid to permanent cessation of fishing activities The measure 1.1 represents the most significant share of EFF commitments (56 %) in Axis 1. The m 1.1 EFF commitments represent at least 49 % of the EFF commitments on Axis 1 for each MS involved in this measure, except in Poland where it only represents 30 %.

The MS where the commitments are the most significant is Spain, where it represents 52 % of its Axis 1 commitments. Furthermore the importance of m 1.2 is also high with 41 % of the commitments.

The second most significant country on measure 1.1 is France. The balance between measures 1.1 and 1.2 is less equal than in Spain, since m 1.1 represents 72 % of the EFF commitments and m 1.2 only 12%.

In three Northern MS, it represents between 84 and 97% of Axis 1 EFF commitments (Lithuania, Netherlands, and Sweden).

Measure 1.1 Commitments

Total - 31.10.2010

Commitments EFF - 31.10.2010

Payments Total - 31.10.2010

Payments EFF - 31.10.2010

No. Projects - 31.10.2010

Spain 162 518 828 87 284 818 111 592 883 58 613 647 na

France na 33 336 901 na 26 674 871 na

Ireland 36 605 029 27 453 772 36 605 029 27 453 772 46

Denmark 22 281 879 21 167 785 16 100 000 15 300 000 32

Poland 27 398 012 20 548 509 26 793 661 20 095 246 62

Italy 37 914 607 18 957 304 13 650 061 6 825 031 95

Portugal 19 574 444 17 913 070 18 410 789 16 981 566 67

Sweden 16 330 921 10 342 480 16 330 921 10 342 480 28

Netherlands 27 400 000 8 300 000 27 400 000 8 200 000 23

Estonia 7 853 384 5 890 038 4 816 649 3 612 487 21

52


Total - 31.10.2010





Belgium 7 667 590 5 731 286 7 609 392 5 728 503 9

Lithuania 4 843 680 4 117 128 4 745 388 4 033 580 33

Romania 1 586 692 1 190 019 1 586 692 1 190 019 5

Cyprus 1 738 109 869 055 1 596 839 798 419 12Source: Questionnaires to MS and interviews (European Commission and Member States)

Implementation for measure 1.2: Aid to temporary cessation of fishing activities As for m 1.1, Spain is the first MS in terms of commitments for measure 1.2.

The measure 1.2 commitments represent:

- between 31 and 59 % of the Axis 1 EFF commitments in Poland, Spain and Italy,

- between 12 and 22 % of the Axis 1 EFF commitments in Portugal, France and Sweden.

- Other MS have not committed any fund on measure 1.2.


Total - 31.10.2010





Spain 122 899 647 71 489 800 109 844 322 65 218 114 na

Poland 53 416 149 40 062 112 52 916 107 39 687 080 2 546

Italy 24 295 042 12 147 521 24 295 042 12 147 521 4 280

Portugal 7 418 227 7 017 958 6 868 134 6 520 994 505

France na 5 764 740 na 5 708 982 na

Sweden 2 040 763 1 020 381 2 040 763 1 020 381 600Source: Questionnaires to MS and interviews (European Commission and Member States)

Implementation for measure 1.3: Investments on board and selectivity With the exception of four MS, commitments on m 1.3 represent less than 20 % of Axis 1 EFF commitments. These four MS are Bulgaria (100%), Germany (53%), Belgium (41%), and Denmark (36 %).

However, in absolute value, Spain, Portugal, France and Italy, show the highest levels of commitment after Denmark.


Total - 31.10.2010





Denmark 14 429 530 11 932 886 5 600 000 4 300 000 naSpain 14 855 415 7 537 984 8 048 328 3 682 407 naPortugal 7 410 343 5 535 488 3 298 239 2 506 171 450France na 5 031 377 na 1 190 327 naItaly 9 091 015 4 545 507 825 880 412 940 338Belgium 6 777 812 3 939 755 2 825 271 1 643 562 50Cyprus 3 119 945 1 559 973 1 909 973 954 986 611Estonia 1 982 332 1 486 749 803 618 602 713 39Poland 1 926 574 1 444 930 909 951 682 464 114Sweden 671 443 335 721 606 320 303 160 159Netherlands 100 000 300 000 400 000 100 000 8Germany 467 730 235 384 232 382 235 348 25Finland 770 733 152 577 396 707 78 400 36Bulgaria 30 324 22 743 4 907 3 680 2


53

Implementation for measure 1.4: Coastal fisheries Only a few MS implemented m 1.4 and, in most cases, only marginally. Apart from Estonia and Finland, which have implemented 103 and 295 projects respectively, the number of projects by country remains very low (13 projects in Germany, 7 projects in Italy). Italy, where small-scale coastal fisheries represent close to 65% of the national fleet, shows the highest level of EFF commitment, with 1.3 m€. The second in terms of total commitments is Finland, which corresponds to its priorities laid down in the operational program. However in Italy only 7 projects have been selected so far and no payments have been made. No more detailed information is available but it is reasonable to assume that the sector simply did not apply for aid under this measure despite the large amounts committed.

This measure still represents a significant share of Axis 1 commitment in some MS: 85% in Finland, 16% in Germany, 7% in Estonia.

Measure

1.4 Commitments

Total - 31.10.2010 Commitments




31.10.2010

Italy 2 604 804 1 302 402 0 0 7

Finland 3 680 159 897 886 2 458 843 567 888 295

Estonia 736 544 552 408 265 215 198 911 103

Germany 94 774 71 079 21 922 65 761 13

Sweden 95 435 62 033 57 454 37 345 4Source: Questionnaires to MS and interviews (European Commission and Member States)

Implementation for measure 1.5: Socio-economic compensations The MS which committed the highest amounts for m 1.5 are also those which committed significant amounts for m 1.1 and m 1.2 (Spain, Poland, France, and Italy) because early retirement and non-renewable compensation to fishers have been heavily used.

The qualitative information collected does not show a significant use of financing for diversification of activities, upgrading of professional skills, retraining, and individual premiums for the acquisition of fishing vessel for fishers under 40.

The share of Axis 1 commitment for m 1.5 in individual MS never exceeds 9%, except in Germany (31%).


Total - 31.10.2010





Spain 10 377 792 6 376 547 7 169 872 4 406 458 na

Poland 7 740 606 5 805 454 2 969 901 2 227 426 423

France na 2 267 650 na 1 413 025 Na

Italy 3 698 352 1 849 176 437 000 218 500 42

Portugal 1 070 397 906 798 855 082 733 328 115

Cyprus 1 082 852 541 426 130 275 65 137 22

Estonia 520 000 390 000 430 000 322 500 52

Sweden 737 616 368 808 714 060 357 030 33

Denmark 348 993 174 497 300 000 100 000 na

Lithuania 173 772 147 706 145 968 124 073 29

Germany 271 121 135 560 110 561 110 560 8

Netherlands 200 000 100 000 100 000 200 000 35Romania 26 284 19 713 0 0 6

54


Total - 31.10.2010





Finland 159 349 10 278 159 349 10 278 1Source: Questionnaires to MS and interviews (European Commission and Member States)

Relevance and effectiveness of measures Two main instruments were introduced during this programming period, the Fishing Effort Adjustment Plans and the Fleet Adaptation Scheme.

Fishing effort adjustment plans (FEAP) The article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) N° 1198/2006 indicates that each MS must “lay down a policy for adjusting fishing effort” in its national strategic plan (NSP). In addition, funding for permanent cessation of activities under the EFF can only be applied for if the vessel is part of a FEAP. The article 21 indicates that FEAPs cover:

- recovery plans, management plans, MS or commission emergency measures, other MS measures related to conservation, adjustment of fishing capacity (Art 5 to 16 of EC regulation N° 2371/2002),

- the non renewal of a fishery agreement between the Community and a third country or a substantial cut in fishing opportunities under an international agreement or other arrangement.

Furthermore, the priority shall be given to recovery plans (defined in Article 5 of EC Regulation N° 2371/2002), which deal with the most sensitive fisheries.

The regulation also states very strict conditions to compensate temporary cessation of activities (cap level, obligation to be under a FEAP, no seasonal cessations).

This implies that, in most cases, scrapping measures should not be implemented for economic reasons only, as it was often the case during the previous programming period.

Concerning the presentation of a general FEAP in the NSP, this has been more or less effective. In France for instance, the FEAP is only an internal document for the managing authority. In the UK, the OP indicates that “A fishing effort adjustment plan will be set up, approved and adopted by the relevant UK administration, in consultation with stakeholders” (point 5.2.5). In Spain, the NSP presents the objectives of FEAPs in general. Specifically, strategic priorities are set on the fleet adaptation, while ensuring a sustainable exploitation of resources, with respect to the environment, and implementing socio-economic measures to reduce damages caused to workers by FEAPs. In other words, it remains very general. In this same MS, FEAPs are only detailed in the Annual Implementation Report 2009 where all recovery plans, management plans, (15 of them, excluding FAS) are presented under the chapter FEAPs.

Overall, the concept of FEAPs remains vague. Although most MS seem to have fulfilled the obligation of establishing an overall strategy to adjust their fishing effort (as required by Reg. 1198/2006, Art. 22. 1), in many cases this strategy mostly states general principles of the CFP in terms of sustainable fishing and sometimes recalls measures available in Axis 1. Operational programs are more specific in how each measure of Axis 1 is planned to be used, but the idea of an overall strategy encompassing all the measures tends to disappear. Then depending on the MS, the FEAP has been understood as either a specific separate document explaining the strategy for adjusting the fishing effort (usually not published) or as a generic term covering all existing plans specified in Reg. 1198/2006 Art. 21).

In conclusion, the concept of thinking strategically about managing the fishing effort instead of using scrapping as a way to compensate for the destruction of old, non-profitable vessels has been theoretically understood. However, practically, the implementation of Axis 1 remained in line with the logic and the instruments used under the FIFG.

The “Fuel package” and the Fleet Adaptation Scheme (FAS) The Fleet Adaptation Schemes (FAS) have been created with the Reg. 744/2008, known as the “Fuel Package”, in July 2008, in response to the economic crisis. The general aim of this regulation is to

55

relax some of the obligations set under the original Axis 1 rules, particularly regarding the implementation of permanent and temporary cessation of activities. In other words, this allows EFF funds to be used to facilitate economic restructuring whereas the EFF regulation originally intended to focus on the consistency with conservation measures.

The main instrument is the Fleet Adaptation Scheme, which completes the range of instruments that can be considered as FEAPs, by authorizing EFF aid for permanent and temporary cessation of activities for economic reasons only, even though rules are still quite strict.

The main characteristics of FAS are presented below:

− only includes measures from Axis 1

− The “30 and 30” rule: shall concern only fleet or fleet segments , where:

o The energy costs >30% of production costs (on average over the fleet segment for the 12-month period preceding 01/07/2008)

o There is an objective of a permanent reduction of at least 30% of the fishing capacity of the fleet segment by 31/12/2012 (possibly 20% for small fleet segments upon the Commission’s approval)

− Shall include the list of vessels (regulation provides the eligibility criteria regarding the vessels themselves)

− The FAS gives a right to financial aid for permanent and temporary cessation of fishing activities

Besides the creation of FAS, Reg. 744/2008 also provides:

− The possibility of derogation to State aid rules for SMEs

− More flexible rules for temporary cessation of activities as long as it is within a FEAP or a FAS

− Higher public co-financing rates for certain EFF measures (under axis 1 and 3)

− Partial decommissioning: public aid to vessels owners withdrawing one or more vessels included in a FAS in order to build a new vessel of lesser fishing capacity

In the end, few countries actually used the possibilities offered by this regulation and those that did were not very satisfied. The main criticisms of this regulation are the following:

− The Regulation arrived too late (cf. Figure below on the timing between the evolution of oil prices and the entry into force of Reg. 744/2008)

− The implementation was too complex and too restrictive (e.g. in Andalusia, there was no fleet that could fit the 30/30 rule)

− According to some MS, the regulation as a whole was not relevant and was mainly used to circumvent the original EFF regulation

Figure 1: Evolution of oil prices and entry into force of Reg. 744/2008

56

Spain, for instance implemented 6 FAS. The program was significant in Galicia, where 36 ships were scrapped, for a capacity of 11,922 GT and 16,783 kW. Other FAS targeted at very small fleet segments with an objective of permanently exiting between 1 and 7 ships per FAS.

What was mostly used in Spain however was the increased flexibility to provide financial aid for temporary cessation of activities under FEAPs. In total, at the end of 2009, 8,750 fishers were concerned for a total number of 880,060 days.

Denmark is an interesting example insofar as it did not plan to use the measure 1.1 except under special circumstances. Therefore the regulation 744/2008 seemed well-adapted. In their revised OP, measures concerning the fuel crisis are, on the one hand, aiming at withdrawing the vessels included in a FAS, and on the other, encouraging investments on board to reduce energy consumption by taking advantage of the more attractive co-financing rate and the possibility of scrapping for replacement (partial decommissioning). Denmark scrapped 32 vessels with public aid as part of the FAS and a limited number of vessels were modernised (4). Six vessels were constructed and four vessels imported, but all additional capacity was fully compensated by capacity withdrawn without aid in accordance with the general entry-exit rules. The overall effect of the fuel package was a reduction in tonnage and engine power of respectively 43 and 45% and reduction in fuel consumption of 37%.

Measure 1.1: Aid to permanent cessation of fishing activities The measure 1.1 is positively perceived by National Authorities where it has been implemented and is considered as central in the first Axis of EFF. Italy highlights, for instance, the role this measure has played in the fishery sector.

Furthermore, the use of this measure has been encouraged by the adoption of the “Fuel package”.

Measure 1.2: Aid to temporary cessation of fishing activities Spain and Italy which implemented this measure consider temporary cessation as relevant. Sweden, which also implements the measure, indicates it may not use the temporary cessation measure in the future. Bulgaria considers this measure should be kept in the future financial instrument in relation to the catch limitations.

The other National Authorities do not consider this measure as relevant and may not implement it in the future. According to Belgium and Estonia, temporary cessation does not bring any solution to the overcapacity issue, and focus needs to be given to supporting innovative and environmentally friendly investments improving energy efficiency

The use of this measure has been encouraged by the “Fuel package”, particularly in Spain and Italy. This measure seems to have been used mainly for temporary economical restructuring, although with a link to stock management measures.

Measure 1.3: Investments on board and selectivity The measure 1.3 on investments and selectivity are considered as relevant by all the Managing Authorities.

Some MA (Finland, Estonia, Bulgaria) would be interested in a more focused measure (types of vessels, types of investments). In other MS, the measure does not seem to be attractive: Spain, Lithuania (because of the age of the fleet) and the UK consider there are interesting but limited impacts.

Latvia and Bulgaria considers that the implementation and application conditions hamper the number of applications.

Some difficulties in the implementation have been reported, in relation to the low co-financing possibilities as a result of the economical crisis, for instance in Spain.

Measure 1.4: Coastal fisheries The positions from MAs on the measure “Coastal fisheries” are mixed. This measure is considered as relevant in Italy, Cyprus and Finland.

Some difficulties in the implementation of this measure are reported:

57

- Several MS (Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Spain) have mentioned a problem of definition. Indeed, the understanding of what “small-scale” and “coastal” mean vary from one country to another and taking into account only the boat size (12-metre length) might be too restrictive. Proposed changes to characterise small-scale and/or coastal fisheries include:

o using the number of days at sea per trip or the soak time per trip,

o include all gears of coastal fisheries,

o include ice-fishing,

o include fleet with low number of vessels

If not all propositions are relevant, the possibility of characterising the activity itself rather than only the boat could be investigated.

- In Spain, this measure has been used less than planned. The MA considers it is linked to the possibility to finance the same kind of projects under other measures or other axes, which are easier to implement.

- Italian MA considers that a change of implementation rules would bring about improved effectiveness.

- In Estonia, the MA considers that the premium system should be discontinued because it can be implemented under Axis 3, that ice-fishing should be covered by this measure and that the financing of investment should be more focused.

In Finland, the MA considers that the small capacity to invest of the fishers concerned hampers the use of the measure, even if some fish stocks are underutilised on the coastal area.

Measure 1.5: Socio-economic compensations In many MS, this measure has not been implemented to a significant extent.

This measure is considered as relevant in Spain and Latvia, where it is mostly used to mitigate the impacts of the measure 1.1. In Italy, even if the measure is adapted to the Italian fleet, its implementation is difficult.

Estonia highlights that socio-economic compensations may be more relevant in other EFF axis or other schemes (ESF, national social security).

Furthermore, Finland wishes that measure 1.5 would address inland fisheries.

Lithuania and Finland point out the difficulty of involving young people in fisheries, and according to the data collected, the measure seems not to have been used to a large extent for this purpose. Indeed, none MA refers to the premium for fishers under 40 who acquire a fishing vessel.

First impacts The analysis of the first impacts is based on the fleet capacity evolution (GT and kW) as it is the most reliable indicator available across MS at this stage. The fleet capacity reduction is linked to the measure 1.1: permanent cessation of activity.

Impacts from other measures are not adequately measurable. In the case of measure 1.2: temporary cessation of activity, there is some detailed data in Spain, but it is not always clear whether figures are “days of boat” or “days of fishers”. Impacts of measures 1.3 and 1.5 vary among MS and besides the classification of projects implemented, which is not available everywhere, no common indicator is available. Although, regarding socio-economic measures, the MA interviewed seem to agree that they contributed to mitigate the impacts of the crisis and decommissioning schemes. As for measure 1.4, impacts are assumed to be insignificant in most cases and the information available does not allow any assessment to be made where a perceivable impact could be expected (mainly in Finland and Estonia).

The tables below gather the information in the different MS, where available.

58

OP objectives and results on fleet capacity adjustments – GT

MS Baseline Obj 2010 Obj 2015 Result 2008 Result 2009 Result 2009

/ obj 2010 Result 2009 / obj 2015

DK 93 384 - 7 500 - 25 144 335%5

EE 20 826 - 1 041 - 2 083 - 3 055 - 6 315 606% 303%

FR 194 000 - 9 700 - 15 520 - 16 878 - 24 444 252% 158%

PL 10 316 - 2 579 - 3 095 - 3 014 117% 97%

NL 72 136 - 10 820 - 10 820 - 9 971 92%1 92%1

PT 106 890 - 6 000 - 3 429 57%

SP 480 761 - 78 670 - 22 281 28%

UK 212 844 - 21 284 - 5 426 25%

SE - 3 290 - 17 096 - 1 043 32%1 6%1

IT 184 493 - 17 920 - 854 5%

LV 37 300 - 4 400 - 6 800 3 900 -89% -57%1 : results 2008 / obj 2010 or 2015

Source: Annual reports and Country Fiche reports from the Commission’s desk officers

Objectives and results on fleet capacity adjustments – kW

MS Baseline Obj 2010 Obj 2015 Result 2008 Result 2009 Result 2009

/ obj 2010 Result 2009

/ obj 2015

DK 328 038 - 17 000 - 79 606 468%6

EE 53 340 - 2 667 - 5 334 - 7 554 - 12 908 484% 242%

FR 830 509 - 41 525 - 66 441 - 53 153 - 84 712 204% 128%

NL 239 796 - 35 969 - 35 969 - 35 748 99%1 99%1

PL 39 536 - 9 884 - 11 861 - 8 960 91% 76%

PT 380 095 - 23 000 - 9 680 42%

SP 1 093 722 - 252 553 - 59 169 23%

SE - 12 934 - 68 883 - 3 523 27%1 5%1

IT 1 135 001 - 93 691 - 3 146 3%

LV 61 200 - 9 700 - 18 100 + 1 300 -13% -7%1 : results 2008 / obj 2010 or 2015

Source: Annual reports and Country Fiche reports from the Commission’s desk officers

Considering the achievement of the objectives:

- The evolution of the fleet capacity in 2009 is close to or exceeded the objectives planned in OPs for 2010 in the group of MS composed of Denmark, Estonia, France, Poland and Netherlands. Among these, the rate of commitment on Axis 1 is high in Denmark (82%)

5 The Danish fleet capacity reduction directly due to the Fuel Package was actually only –4 916 GT (66% / obj. 2015). The difference (-20 228 GT) was the effect of the introduction of ITQs in 2007. 6 In fact, the Danish fleet capacity reduction due to the Fuel Package was actually only –13 672 kW (80% / obj. 2015). The difference (-65 934 kW) was the effect of the introduction of ITQs in 2007.

59

and France (79%) and remains more important than or equal to the average (40%) in the other MS.

- In Portugal, Spain, UK and Sweden the rates of achievement are significant but lower than the objectives.

- In Italy, the achievements are very limited (the commitment rate is only 23% for Axis 1 as at 31/10/2010, however it is important to note that considerable progress has been made in the last trimester of 2010, and this figure has improved); and the capacity of the fleet increased in Latvia, according to the country fiche report provided by the Commission, even with a commitment rate of 69 % for Axis 1, 84% of which concerns measure 1.1. It is true that the total size of the fleet has increased, but it is due to the introduction of new fishing fleet units for a high-sea fleet because of Commission's administrative decisions taken before Latvia's accession (coups parties). Latvia is not applying fleet adjustment measures for the high-sea fleet. Adjustment of the Baltic Sea fishing fleet is in line with the planned targets in the OP

The most ambitious objectives were set in Poland, Netherlands and Latvia (decrease of 12 to 25% of the GT by 2010), while they were smaller than 6% of total GT in the other MS. This can be seen in the table below.

These results should be used cautiously however as it is not always clear whether the objectives and the results concern the reduction of capacity without aid only or the overall reduction. In some cases, the definition might also be inconsistent between the objectives and the results.

60





Three measures are financed under Axis 2:

- Measure 2.1: Aquaculture measures. It covers three types of actions:

o Productive investments in aquaculture;

o Aqua-environmental measures;

o Public health and animal health measures.

Assistance is limited to micro, small and medium enterprises and priority is given to micro and small enterprises.

- Measure 2.2: Inland fishing measure. Support for inland fishing may cover investments for the construction, extension, equipment and modernisation of inland fishing facilities, with a view to improving safety, working conditions, hygiene and product quality, human or animal health, or to reducing negative or having beneficial impact on the environment.

- Measure 2.3: Fish processing and marketing measure. The EFF supports the construction, extension, equipment and modernisation of enterprises. It concentrates in particular on improving working conditions, improving and monitoring public health and hygiene conditions or product quality, producing high quality products for niche markets, reducing negative impacts on the environment, improving the use of little-used species, by-products and waste, producing or marketing new products, applying new technologies, developing innovative production methods and marketing products mainly originating from local landings and aquaculture.

Conclusion on evaluation question No 6

Axis 2 commitment rate is globally adequate (36%) and similar to the commitment rate of the overall EFF programme (32.7%).

“Fish marketing and processing” (Measure 2.3) is the main measure and comprises 60% of the overall Axis 2 commitments to date.

The aquaculture sector was severely affected by co-financing difficulties due to the unwillingness of banks to provide loans during the economic crisis, and the fact that aid intensity often plays a decisive role: the measure 2.1 has been relatively greater utilised in the convergence countries (EFF aid : 75%) than in the non-convergence areas (EFF aid : 50%).

Very few result indicators are available. Most of them describe the situation at the end of 2009 (some of them at the end of 2008). Most developments observed in the aquaculture production or in the processing and marketing of fish are much more affected by external factors, which have been particularly strong during the first years of implementation of EFF (e.g. financial crisis), than by structural aids.

The baseline used for setting the targets is usually the situation in 2005 or 2006, which means that a large proportion of change noted between 2007 and 2009 is attributable much more to the end of FIFG (which was closed at the end of 2008) than to the beginning of EFF.

61

In the aquaculture sector the limited and heterogeneous data available reveals an increase in the production capacity as well as some job creation. In the processing and marketing sector the available result indicators also show a significant increase in the production capacity and a noticeable degree of job creation.

As far as Axis 2 is concerned EFF appears to be the direct descendant of FIFG. There has been no obvious shift towards environmental priorities at this stage. But this does not indicate necessarily the lack of compliance of the respective investments with the environmental requirements.

Current state of implementation The commitment rate is globally adequate (36%) compared to the commitment rate of the overall EFF programme (32.7%). It exceeds 50% in 9 MS (Lithuania, Cyprus, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Austria, Poland and UK).

Programmed

TOTAL (€) Programmed

EFF (€) Commitments

EFF - 31.10.2010 (€)

% EFF commitment -

31.10.2010 No. Projects

selected *

Spain 633 009 952 322 048 245 107 794 316 33% na

Poland 195 758 020 146 818 515 77 632 195 53% 540

Portugal 105 073 320 78 058 495 36 187 014 46% 104

Latvia 61 505 000 46 128 750 30 188 961 65% 193

Romania 140 000 000 105 000 000 27 154 107 26% 35

Italy 212 171 426 106 085 713 21 737 888 20% 371

United Kingdom 57 566 891 33 589 711 20 019 777 60% 152

Lithuania 29 908 007 22 431 005 17 922 996 80% 52

Estonia 32 778 572 24 583 929 16 356 881 67% 91

Germany 92 875 634 57 560 225 14 661 696 25% 549

Denmark 75 299 048 37 649 524 11 436 242 30% 24

Czech Rep 15 902 583 11 926 937 9 867 301 83% 376

Hungary 32 524 903 24 163 925 9 797 579 41% 64

France 123 768 207 59 029 212 9 210 974 16% na

Slovenia 10 675 876 7 141 293 8 006 907 112% 15

Finland 39 520 000 16 990 000 7 631 898 45% 453

Sweden 21 865 922 10 932 961 3 944 506 36% 182

Bulgaria 48 005 824 36 004 371 3 467 119 10% 13

Austria 10 203 753 5 164 318 3 444 546 67% 261

Netherlands 17 179 398 7 379 398 3 200 000 43% 50

Slovakia 14 628 459 10 467 810 2 993 152 29% na

Cyprus 6 500 000 3 250 000 1 967 716 61% 28

Belgium 8 500 000 3 500 000 137 047 4% 3

Greece 80 661 538 59 689 538 0 0% na

Ireland 0 0 0 0% 0

Malta 2 347 000 1 760 250 0 0% na

Total 2 068 229 333 1 237 354 125 444 760 818 36% 3 556Source: Questionnaires to MS and interviews (European Commission and Member States)

62

State of implementation by measure Of the Axis 2 measures, the most used by MS in terms of commitments is Measure 2.3: Fish processing and marketing (59.7%), followed by Measure 2.1: Aquaculture. Measure 2.2: Inland fisheries has only been drawn upon to a minimal extent, as illustrated below. (NB: no data was provided per measure for UK; and data for Slovenia and Latvia reveal some inconsistencies between measure level and total Axis level data. For this reason, these three MS have been excluded from the Measure-level analysis):

Commitments Total -





31.10.2010

TOTAL 620 100 763 353 020 128 185 888 582 98 522 286 3 122

2.1 207 242 229 136 713 089 54 335 247 34 304 570 1 709

2.2 7 974 349 4 436 830 4 647 806 2 714 393 281

2.3 404 884 185 211 870 209 126 905 528 61 503 324 1 132

Commitments Total -





31.10.2010

TOTAL 620 100 763 353 020 128 185 888 582 98 522 286 3 122

2.1 33% 39% 29% 35% 33%

2.2 1% 1% 3% 3% 1%

2.3 65% 60% 68% 62% 65%Source: Questionnaires to MS and interviews (European Commission and Member States)

Implementation of Measure 2.1: Aquaculture The financing difficulties encountered by organisations in the aquaculture sector have meant that measure 2.1 has been relatively much more mobilized in the convergence countries (where EFF aid rate is higher and limits the need of private co-funding) than in the non-convergence areas: Latvia, Hungary, Portugal, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria have been among the most heavy users of the measure.

It has been highlighted by many MS that banks are not willing to financially support the aquaculture sector. To address this issue, Estonia is considering the creation of a loan fund, managed by the Rural Development Foundation (established by the Ministry of Agriculture); this loan fund should allow N+2 problems to be avoided. Latvia has already put a similar fund in place in September 2010.


Total - 31.10.2010





Poland 34 264 552 25 698 414 8 691 489 6 518 617 217

Romania 31 596 035 23 697 026 0 0 25

Spain 31 591 063 15 642 712 10 425 778 4 644 026 na

Hungary 12 536 071 9 395 357 4 301 891 3 226 418 61

Portugal 11 727 614 8 795 711 966 155 710 271 37

Czech Rep 11 321 019 8 490 764 3 846 481 2 884 860 350

Denmark 16 617 450 8 308 725 3 000 000 1 500 000 na

Italy 13 706 389 6 853 194 6 342 604 3 171 302 179

63


Total - 31.10.2010





France na 5 927 288 na 2 103 035 na

Estonia 6 800 090 5 100 067 1 432 744 1 074 558 21

Germany 7 757 770 4 859 939 1 473 220 2 793 726 376

Bulgaria 4 622 826 3 467 119 306 230 229 672 13

Slovakia 2 647 571 1 985 678 1 605 665 1 204 248 22

Sweden 3 912 089 1 942 863 1 990 678 982 158 79

Netherlands 5 700 000 1 900 000 1 200 000 500 000 40

Austria 3 315 842 1 675 771 2 027 170 1 023 610 148

Finland 7 375 856 1 296 329 5 452 465 962 494 90

Lithuania 114 541 858 406 556 943 417 707 7

Cyprus 1 449 358 724 679 715 734 357 867 12

Belgium 186 094 93 047 0 0 2Source: Questionnaires to MS and interviews (European Commission and Member States)

The interest of Measures 2.1.1 (aqua-environmental measures) and 2.1.2 (animal health measures) has not always been clearly understood. For instance Estonia is critical that the development organic aquaculture is not eligible under this measure whereas Council Regulation (EC) n°1198/2006 stipulates that the purpose of aqua-environmental measures is to promote organic aquaculture.” (Art. 30 § 2 c).

To date, only Poland, Romania, Sweden, Lithuania and Denmark have made use of aqua-environmental measures.

Measure 2.1.1 Commitments Total 31.10.2010

Commitments EFF 31.10.2010

Payments Total 31.10.2010

Payments EFF 31.10.2010

No. Projects 31.10.2010

Poland 35 003 592 26 252 694 0 0 208

Lithuania 7 196 800 5 397 600 1 643 975 1 232 981 19

Romania 824 710 618 533 370 788 278 091 6

Sweden 26 364 13 182 0 0 na

6 projects have been implemented in Denmark; however this is not reflected in the table above, since 2.1.1 has been incorporated into the total for 2.1.

The only use of the animal health measure (measure 2.1.2) to date is in Denmark, which has implemented one large project (eradication of VHS).

Implementation of Measure 2.2: Inland fishing The inland fishing measure has been implemented by only a few MS.

Lithuania, Finland, Italy, Germany and Poland concentrate 95% of total commitments.


Total - 31.10.2010





Lithuania 3 349 806 2 512 354 2 718 900 2 039 175 19

Finland 3 347 491 1 125 775 1 596 827 432 453 100

Italy 518 074 259 037 110 264 55 132 57

Germany 233 790 154 636 33 020 82 432 41

64


Total - 31.10.2010





Poland 204 819 153 614 38 617 28 963 12

Estonia 126 518 94 888 4 598 3 448 10

Sweden 124 971 62 486 83 859 41 930 23

France Na 39 600 na 0 na

Austria 68 880 34 440 61 720 30 860 19Source: Questionnaires to MS and interviews (European Commission and Member States)

Implementation of Measure 2.3: Fish processing and marketing Available data at 31 October 2010 demonstrates that significant EFF commitments have been achieved in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Latvia and Estonia.

The achievement rate (on committed EFF) is very high in Austria (85%), Sweden (65%), Finland (61%) and Germany (47%). It is very low in Italy (5% at 31/12/2010, although this had improved to 12% by the end of 2010) and some member states have not performed any payments at this stage.

In Spain we can observe delays in the execution of projects due to the difficulties companies have experienced in accessing credit since the financial crisis and to the bankruptcy of many construction companies.


Total - 31.10.2010





Spain 194 668 433 92 151 605 61 503 633 27 117 009 na

Portugal 39 878 516 27 391 303 9 844 539 6 834 781 67

Poland 34 036 631 25 527 473 8 119 367 6 089 525 103

Italy 29 251 314 14 625 657 1 589 213 794 606 135

Estonia 14 882 567 11 161 926 4 585 783 3 439 337 60

Germany 16 050 548 9 647 121 1 906 097 4 525 668 132

Lithuania 12 206 182 9 154 636 3 317 752 2 488 314 7

Finland 40 307 562 5 209 793 25 277 342 3 193 080 263

France na 3 244 086 na 1 328 446 na

Denmark 6 255 034 3 127 517 3 000 000 1 500 000 Na

Romania 3 784 731 2 838 548 0 0 4

Sweden 3 851 950 1 925 975 2 512 702 1 256 352 80

Austria 3 467 740 1 734 335 2 954 280 1 477 605 94

Czech Rep 1 835 383 1 376 537 583 683 437 762 26

Netherlands 2 400 000 1 300 000 500 000 400 000 10

Cyprus 2 486 074 1 243 037 1 071 335 535 667 16

Slovakia 1 383 299 1 007 474 53 283 53 283 9

Hungary 536 296 402 222 42 520 31 890 3

Belgium 88 000 44 000 44 000 0 1

65

Relevance and effectiveness of measures

Measure 2.1: Investments in aquaculture Measure 2.1 (investments in aquaculture) is appreciated and used in many MS, even if some major countries emphasize the difficulties linked to the financial crisis and to the unwillingness of banks to support the aquaculture sector. The decreasing profitability of the sector also explains the under-utilization of the measure, which remains important for landlocked countries and member states without significant fishing fleet.

Several Member States underline the interest to focus this measure on new technologies (recirculation systems).

The interest of Measures 2.1.1 (aqua-environmental measures) and 2.1.2 (animal health measures) has not always been clearly understood.

For instance, Estonian authorities expressed a wish that the development of organic aquaculture were eligible whilst for United Kingdom it was clear that the purpose of the support was indeed “to promote organic aquaculture within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) n°834/2007 of June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products”.

The difference of interpretation between MS is linked to the fact that the Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of EFF (Commission Regulation (EC) n° 1198/2006) dedicates one article to the productive investments in aquaculture (article 10) and another one to the aqua-environmental measures (article 11). It could be understood that support to productive investments was for conventional investments under article 10 and that support granted in the framework of aqua-environmental measures under article 11 was given for some minor costs (article 10 uses the word "investments", whereas article 11 uses the word "costs"). Moreover paragraph 3 of Article 11 adds some lack of clarity, especially for new Member States less equipped than old Member States as far as organic legislation is concerned: "Until the adoption of detailed production rules by the Community, including rules on conversion, applicable to organic aquaculture, national rules or, in the absence thereof, private standards, applicable to organic aquaculture, accepted or recognised by the Member States, shall apply”.

Only Latvia and Lithuania have made a significant use of aqua-environmental measures to date.

There has been no use of the measure dedicated to animal health measures (measure 2.1.2) to date.

Measure 2.2: Inland fishing Measure 2.2 (Inland fishing) is only used by a limited number of Member States, which consider it as useful but do not always understand its classification outside of Axis 1.

Measure 2.3: Fish processing and marketing Support for processing and marketing companies is appreciated and is used in many countries, especially the old member states (Spain, Portugal, Germany, etc).But aid to simple replacement investments is not always considered as relevant and a stronger focusing of support on innovation is wished for. Whilst simple ‘replacement’ measures have achieved success within some MS, they are not encouraging a collective approach to addressing environmental sustainability of fisheries.

Preliminary results For most MS the only data available dates back to the annual implementation reports of 2009 (figures related to 2009 and sometimes only to 2008) and therefore provides limited value in analysing this source. Many developments in the aquaculture production or in the processing and marketing of fish are much more affected by external factors, which have been particularly evident during the first years of implementation of EFF (e.g. financial crisis), than by structural aids.

In addition, some result indicators used in the annual execution reports are not fully reliable. To illustrate our point we take the example of Spain, one of the leading MS for the use of Measure 2.1

66

(aquaculture). The definition of the indicator is the production of the aquaculture sector in tonnes, measured in tonnes of “real production”; but the result indicator in the Annual Implementation Report 2009 relates to the increase of capacity.

Finally, the baseline used for setting the targets is usually the situation in 2005 or 2006, which means that a large proportion of change noted between 2007 and 2009 is attributable much more to the end of FIFG (which was closed at the end of 2008) than to the beginning of EFF.

Measure 2.1: Aquaculture The result indicators available (or at least partially available) show an increase in the production capacity (often corresponding to a decrease of the real production) and shows evidence of some job creation.

However preliminary results did not show any causal link between the investments made within EFF and an increase in production.

Spain

The target set for the production of the aquaculture sector is a real production of 113 086 t (mussel excluded) in 2015, with a baseline production of 62 281 t (2005 figures).

The result indicator shows a capacity increase of 26 289 t (+42%) for the first three years of implementation 2007-2009) whilst the real production of the sector shows a significant decrease (-18%, according to JACUMAR production data).

12 of the 80 projects approved at the end of 2009 have led to job creation (90 jobs in total).

Most projects (75 out of 80) are environmentally neutral.

Netherlands

40 aquaculture investment projects (mostly mussel seed collection installations) have been approved to date.

The Netherlands set two targets for aquaculture:

- the first one was an increase in the aquaculture production (+40% in 2010 and +100% in 2015); this objective has not been reached even partially since overall production declined since 2007; the Managing Authority decided that a more critical selection of projects will take place whether an aquaculture project has market outlets or not and whether it is economic viable or not.

- the second target was an increase in the production of mussel seed from alternative production methods (target 2010 : 8 Mkg, target 2015 : 12 Mkg); this production has increased significantly in 2009, 29 companies have started with collection of mussel seed.

Denmark

Denmark monitors 5 indicators for aquaculture.

At the end of 2008 they already show a good state of achievement in terms of the mid-term objectives:

- the volume of production has increased by 21% in the first two years of implementation and is very close to the target set for 2010,

- the objectives set for the discharge of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and organic matter for 2015 are already attained.

67

Denmark: state of achievement of objectives for aquaculture

IndicatorResult/Objective

Baseline2005

2007 2008 2009 2010 2015

Result 38,7 41,5 46,9

Objective 50 115

Result 102 108 111

Objective 160 300

Result 25,5 16,2 15,6

Objective 30 23

Result 2,02 1,44 1,39

Objective 2,5 1,5

Result 72,9 56,4 54,3

Objective 85 60

Source : Denmark Country Fiche

Aquaculture production volume(in 1000 t)

Aquaculture production volume(in million €)

Discharge from landbased fish farming production of Nitrogen(kg/t prod.)

Discharge from landbased fish farming production of Phosphorus(kg/t prod.)

Discharge from landbased fish farming production of organic matter(kg/t prod.)

Germany

The OP set intermediary objectives for the end of 2010: a production increase of 2 753 t and the creation of 100 new jobs (FTE). At the end of 2009 these targets are reached respectively at 53% and 26%.

Germany: state of achievement of objectives for aquaculture


2007 2008 2009 2010

Result 0 1 016 434

Objective 2 753

Result 0 18 8

Objective 100

Source : Annual Implementation Report 2009

Production increase(in tonnes)

Creation of new workplaces (in FTE)

Italy

The objective of a production increase in volume (+5% for the intermediary target set for 2010) has been partially reached at the end of 2009 (+2%) but no project with low environmental impact was implemented at the end of 2009 (intermediary target set for 2010 : 8%).

Romania

The intermediary target set for 2010 has been reached as early as 2007 and exceeded in 2008. Once again, this is evidence of the absence of a causal link between increase in production and EFF. Romania: state of achievement of objectives for aquaculture


Baseline2005

2007 2008 2009 2010

Result 7 248 10 312 11 960

Objective+40%

(10 147)


Aquaculture production volume(in t)

68

Measure 2.3: Processing and marketing The result indicators show a significant increase in the production capacity and a noticeable amount of job creations.

Spain

170 of the 570 projects approved at the end of 2009 have generated job creations (1 866 in total). Only 2 projects have led to job destructions (12 in total).

The result indicators show a strong increase of the processing capacity (+ 154 000 t for the first 3 years of implementation of the programme but the “real production” has decreased in the same time (baseline 2005 : 900 000 t, result 2008 : 892 000 t). The gross value added is far from the objective (1 200 million €) and even behind the baseline level (749 Million € in 2005): it fell to 727 million € in 2008.

If the majority of projects are environmentally neutral, a significant number (75 projects) are positive.

Germany

The increase in the production of the German fish processing industry has widely exceeded the intermediary targets set in the OP.

But only 67 new jobs have been created (22% of the mid-term objective).

Germany: state of achievement of objectives set for processing and marketing


2007 2008 2009 2010

Result 0 32 994 15 510

Objective 4 358

Result 0 31 36

Objective 300


Creation of new workplaces (in FTE)

Production increase(in tonnes)

Denmark

The indicators informed show that the bad economic results of 2009 prevent from reaching midterm targets.

Only the safety objective could be clearly reached: the number of occupational accidents in the fish processing industry decreased by 46%. However no elements are available to demonstrate a possible link with investments made within EFF.

Denmark: state of achievement of objectives set for processing and marketing


Baseline2005

2007 2008 2009 2010 2015

Result 821,4 819,2 943,5 859,0

Objective 871,4 897,6 924,5 952,2 1 103,9Result 2 407,4 2 510,5 2 524,2 2 274,2Objective 2 554 2 631 2 710 2 791 3 235Result 249 205 160 134Objective

Source : Denmark Country Fiche

reduction

Gross exports value(in million €)

Number of reported ocupational accidents

Production value ready-made meals and canned goods (in million €)

69

Italy

The objective of a production increase in value for the fish processing sector (+7% for the intermediary target set for 2010) has been partially reached at the end of 2009 (+2%).

The objective set for the fish marketing sector (+3% for the number of existing establishments modernised by 2010) has also been partially reached at the end of 2009 (+2%).

70





The objective of Axis 3 is to support measures of common interest with broader scope than measures normally undertaken by private enterprises and which contribute to meet the objectives of the CFP.

Six measures are financed under Axis 3:

- Measure 3.1: Collective actions. Representative organisations such as trade associations, cooperatives or grouping of enterprises can receive EFF funding to carry out projects of common interest that might for instance develop management plans, organise campaigns for the removal of lost fishing gear from the sea bed, improve product traceability and labelling or restructure producers’ associations.

- Measure 3.2: Measures intended to protect and develop aquatic fauna and flora

- Measure 3.3: Fishing ports, landing sites and shelters. This measure dedicated to public or private managers of ports or landing sites aims to improve existing infrastructure or offer new services such as computerisation of auction facilities, modernisation of ice distribution installations, safety improvements to landing areas, etc.

- Measure 3.4: Development of new markets and promotional campaigns. This measure aims to support actions intended to implement a policy of quality and value enhancement, development of new markets or promotional campaigns for fisheries and aquaculture products.

- Measure 3.5: Pilot projects. These projects aim at acquiring and disseminating new technical knowledge. They include the experimental use of more selective fishing techniques. They have to be carried out by an economic operator, a recognized trade association or any other competent body designated for that purpose by the MS in partnership with a scientific or technical body.

- Measure 3.6: Modification for reassignment of fishing vessels. Under this measure the EFF may support the modification of new vessels for their reassignment for training or research purposes in the fisheries sector or for other non-fishing activities. Only public or semi-public bodies are eligible to this measure.

Conclusion

- Axis 3 is very diverse in nature, and is dedicated to supporting measures of common interest with a broader scope than measures normally undertaken by private enterprises. The spirit of Axis 3 is to foster cooperation and organisation amongst stakeholders in order to contribute to an improved competitiveness and productivity of organisations as well as to the sustainability of the fisheries sector with projects that complement fisheries sector operations.

71

- Axis 3 projects to date have focused predominantly on ports infrastructure (measure 3.3), collective actions (measure 3.1) and pilot projects (measure 3.5).

- At the end of October 2010, total Axis 3 commitments were €410.2m (29% of all EFF commitments). The MS that have committed the most funds to Axis 3 projects to date are Sweden, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Germany and France.

- Focusing particularly on the Axis 3 budget, as at October 2010, 36% of the MS funds allocated to Axis 3 had been committed. Although delays have occurred and less than 50% of the total budget has been committed, 2010 saw an increase in commitments of 4.7% from December 2009 figures.

- Despite the delays in the overall programme, feedback on Axis 3 from MS has been largely positive. In particular MS highlighted the need to develop the adequacy of fisheries infrastructure, resulting in significant investments in infrastructure of ports (3.3), to bring them up to modern standards and increase the effectiveness of fishing and processing. It was also commonly agreed that measures encouraging cooperation and collective actions (3.1) remain very important in developing a sustainable fisheries sector. On other hand, measures 3.2 and 3.6 were less relevant and/or effective for a large number of MS.

- Feedback from industry stakeholders has been positive, and they are particularly supportive of activities that promote the marketing of fish products, as well as pilot projects that have the potential to be transferred to the industry through investment projects.

- However, whilst Axis 3 measures were generally viewed as useful and flexible, for a number of MS it is too early to determine the effectiveness of the measures considering many projects have only recently been launched. Economic impacts of collective action are uncertain and likely to be low if the measure does not target clear objectives.

The timeframe for this study has not allowed the evaluation team to assess the quality of particular Axis 3 projects within MS. However MS have provided examples of projects currently being implemented as well as views regarding the relevance of each measure, based on outcomes to date and the future for the sector within the MS. The following analysis is based on questionnaire responses from MS, annual reports, and face-to-face interviews in four selected MS. It is structured in terms of the overall progress to date, and subsequently by measure, addressing progress, outcomes to date and perceptions on effectiveness.

72

Current state of implementation Overall, the implementation of Axis 3 has been equally successful as Axes 1 and 2 in terms of commitments, with a total commitment rate of 36% at the end of October 2010 (see table below).

In terms of the total EFF budget, at the end of 2009, EUR 200 252 175 had been committed to Axis 3 projects, representing 4.7% of the total EFF budget. By October 2010, these figures had increased to EUR 410 280 731 (9.5% of total EFF budget) in commitments, summarized below.



Commitments EFF - 31.10.2010 (€)

% EFF commitment - 31.10.2010

No. Projects selected *

Spain 595 999 162 298 755 660 86 157 136 29% n/a

Poland 195 758 020 146 818 515 58 053 879 40% 91

Portugal 118 585 384 90 026 920 44 134 834 49% 129

Germany 104 109 091 68 687 844 31 816 146 46% 127

France 238 059 127 83 049 416 31 195 112 38% n/a

United Kingdom 87 882 476 49 620 896 28 583 578 58% 195

Denmark 70 330 532 36 515 266 23 744 966 65% 71

Greece 43 676 000 32 320 240 23 655 667 73% 16

Latvia 32 204 000 24 153 000 13 925 041 58% 24

Sweden 38 265 362 19 132 681 11 006 584 58% 114

Estonia 28 279 552 21 209 664 8 996 031 42% 29

Cyprus 25 848 836 12 924 418 8 285 849 64% 5

Netherlands 44 003 461 16 903 461 7 900 000 47% 90

Slovenia 10 098 796 7 574 097 7 574 097 100% 3

Italy 216 414 856 108 207 428 7 512 120 7% 89

Finland 34 473 827 14 783 827 7 084 282 48% 972

Czech Rep 18 432 539 13 824 404 5 443 127 39% 86

Belgium 17 388 352 7 900 000 3 454 199 44% 28

Lithuania 12 332 322 9 249 241 1 350 157 15% 13

Ireland 12 800 000 6 000 000 407 925 7% 19

Austria 100 000 50 000 0 0% 0

Bulgaria 26 669 902 20 002 426 0 0% 0

Hungary 11 992 523 8 944 392 0 0% 0

Malta 5 460 105 4 095 079 0 0% 0

Romania 40 000 000 30 000 000 0 0% 0

Slovakia 3 381 723 2 536 292 0 0% 0

Total 2 032 545 948 1 133 285 167 410 280 731 36% 2 101

All MS have programmed EFF funds towards Axis 3 measures. 8 MS have committed very few funds as at the end of October 2010, including 6 MS (Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Malta, Romania and Slovakia) which have not made any Axis 3 commitments to date.

On the other hand, there are 6 MS that have already committed greater than 50% of their Axis 3 budget – Slovenia (100%), Greece (73%), Denmark (65%), Sweden (58%), Latvia (58%), and the UK

73

(58%). In addition, 7 MS have committed between 40% and 50% of their Axis 3 budget – Portugal, Finland, Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Estonia and Poland.

Spain has the largest Axis 3 budget. Its OP focuses on the objective of improving competitiveness and productivity. The Managing Authority is currently reviewing the projects implemented under Axis 3. It seems that this axis has been used by coastal fishing (which did not use axis 1) as access to finance is easier and aid higher. Axis 3 also provides funding for projects that do not fall under Axis 1. The Management Authority is in the process of obtaining more detailed information on this axis for the next annual report.

State of implementation by measure From a priority measure perspective, the graph below illustrates the commitments to date towards each measure within Axis 3 (NB: no data was provided per measure for UK; and data for Slovenia and Latvia reveal some inconsistencies between measure level and total Axis level data. For this reason, these three MS have been excluded from the Measure-level analysis). The most favoured measure in terms of commitments was 3.3: Fishing ports, landing sites and shelters, followed by 3.1: Collective actions. The least used measure was 3.6: Modification for reassignment of fishing vessels.

Commitments Total – 31.10.2010


Payments Total – 31.10.2010


No. Projects – 31.10.2010

TOTAL 561 410 232 360 198 015 201 028 493 108 871 608 1 989

3.1 124 688 096 88 068 095 41 770 691 29 594 171 1 169

3.2 56 124 374 38 220 203 18 784 485 4 296 235 134

3.3 217 058 000 147 170 530 70 271 503 41 279 761 276

3.4 99 866 212 44 564 331 54 980 278 23 689 676 234

3.5 62 719 525 41 697 842 14 267 511 9 534 752 175

3.6 954 026 477 013 954 026 477 013 1






TOTAL 561 410 232 360 198 015 201 028 493 108 871 608 1 989

3.1 22% 24% 21% 27% 59%

3.2 10% 11% 9% 4% 7%

3.3 39% 41% 35% 38% 14%

3.4 18% 12% 27% 22% 12%

3.5 11% 12% 7% 9% 9%

3.6 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Combining both of these analysis views, below is a profile of the extent to which each Axis 3 measure has been used by the individual MS. The table does not consider the 6 MS that have not yet made Axis 3 commitments, in addition to 3 MS (Cyprus, Ireland and UK) for which financial data at the measure level was not available.

74

Measure 3.1: Common measures

Measure 3.2: Protection of

aquatic flora and fauna

Measure 3.3: Port

infrastructure

Measure 3.4: New markets and promotion campaigns

Measure 3.5: Pilot projects

Measure 3.6: Modification for reassignment of fishing vessels Total

Austria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Belgium 595 436 1 294 643 188 141 883 000 492 980 0 3 454 199Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cyprus 0 167 407 8 118 442 0 0 0 8 285 849Czech Rep 265 515 244 536 0 4 605 950 327 126 0 5 443 127Denmark 10 362 416 3 288 591 6 604 027 1 302 013 2 187 919 0 23 744 966Estonia 7 694 419 17 016 0 1 124 497 160 099 0 8 996 031Finland 3 569 570 9 000 2 450 901 396 932 657 879 0 7 084 282France 15 810 537 2 313 256 7 357 041 3 753 458 1 960 820 0 31 195 112Germany 766 877 10 231 720 2 848 638 905 676 17 063 235 0 31 816 146Greece 0 1 330 810 22 324 857 0 0 0 23 655 667Hungary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ireland 407 925 0 0 0 0 0 407 925Italy 426 120 153 000 3 607 834 1 298 458 2 026 708 0 7 512 120Latvia Not reliable Not reliable Not reliable Not reliable Not reliable Not reliableLithuania 973 394 0 0 376 763 0 0 1 350 157Malta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Netherlands 2 500 000 0 0 1 000 000 4 400 000 0 7 900 000Poland 1 179 143 7 837 089 43 942 716 3 607 134 1 487 798 0 58 053 879Portugal 7 854 839 2 114 246 28 727 928 1 428 850 4 008 971 0 44 134 834Romania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Slovakia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Slovenia Not reliable Not reliable Not reliable Not reliable Not reliable Not reliableSpain 33 274 950 5 526 909 19 536 274 23 117 521 4 701 483 0 86 157 136Sweden 2 386 955 3 691 982 1 463 731 764 079 2 222 825 477 013 11 006 584UK Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available Not availableTotal 88 068 095 38 220 203 147 170 530 44 564 331 41 697 842 477 013 360 198 015

Measure 3.3 has been drawn upon to the largest extent by Poland (representing 30% of total Measure 3.3 commitments) and Portugal (20% of total 3.3 commitments), followed by Spain, and Sweden.

Measure 3.1 has been used most extensively by Spain (38% of total Measure 3.1 commitments), France (18%) and Denmark (12%).

Of the lesser used measures, Measure 3.2 has been drawn upon most extensively by Germany (27% of total Measure 3.2 commitments), Measure 3.4 most by Spain (52% of total Measure 3.4 commitments, Measure 3.5 most by Germany (41% of total Measure 3.5 commitments) and finally Measure 3.6 commitments to date can be entirely attributed to Sweden.

Further analysis by Measure is presented below, highlighting progress to date, challenges in implementation and MS perceptions on effectiveness.

Implementation of measure 3.1: Collective Actions Under 3.1 the EFF can support measures of common interest which are implemented with the active support of operators themselves or by organisations acting on behalf of producers or other organisations recognised by the Member State.

Measure 3.1






Spain 55 176 589 33 274 950 23 842 557 14 004 632 na

France Na 15 810 537 na 5 600 201 na

Denmark 19 637 584 10 362 416 2 600 000 1 300 000 na

Portugal 10 738 018 7 854 839 823 133 644 024 47

Estonia 10 259 226 7 694 419 4 636 258 3 477 193 10

Finland 8 294 598 3 569 570 6 532 230 2 788 933 897

Netherlands 8 700 000 2 500 000 700 000 400 000 35

Sweden 4 773 909 2 386 955 1 271 080 635 540 31

Poland 1 572 191 1 179 143 217 151 162 863 18

Lithuania 1 297 858 973 394 368 282 276 212 9

75

Measure 3.1






Germany 1 327 085 766 877 286 166 201 081 7

Belgium 1 190 872 595 436 434 628 72 650 6

Italy 852 240 426 120 54 244 27 122 20

Ireland 867 925 407 925 0 0 na

Czech Rep na 265 515 4 961 3 720 19

Measure 3.1 comprises 24% of Axis 3 commitments as at 31 October 2010, second only to Measure 3.3. It has enabled a broad range of collective actions to be implemented. As an example, in Spain, priority is given to market transparency and improving traceability. Producer organisations are particularly targeted. Environmental considerations are also presented as a priority (Fisheries Management and Sustainable improvement in energy efficiency).

Measure 3.1 is very wide in scope and includes the following actions in Andalusia:

- Global solution integrating training, advance, support for growth and diversification

- Training in workplace risk and new technologies

- On-line training of fisherman on new fishing technologies (Cofradía de Barbate)

- Study on diversity of flora and fauna and on the cultivation of macroalgae

- Advice for a fish farming association regarding development of the sector (e.g. Knowledge sharing across countries: site visits to Canada and Vietnam)

- Development of software to track aquaculture products from the reproduction stage

In Estonia, strong support is given to producer organisations. Previously all companies were competing with each other on their markets (e.g. Russia, Ukraine).

Implementation of measure 3.2 - Measures intended to protect and develop aquatic fauna and flora Under Measure 3.2, the EFF can support measures of common interest intended to protect and develop aquatic fauna and flora while enhancing the aquatic environment. These measures generally relate to the construction or installation of static or movable facilities, the rehabilitation of inland waters, or the protection and enhancement of the environment in the framework of NATURA 2000.

Measure 3.2






Germany 15 286 010 10 231 720 497 057 1 397 921 39

Poland 10 449 451 7 837 089 337 507 253 130 3

Spain 8 385 665 5 526 909 2 260 974 1 436 952 na

Sweden 7 607 383 3 691 982 14 810 834 740 240 21

Denmark 6 577 181 3 288 591 700 000 300 000 na

France na 2 313 256 na 78 935 na

Portugal 2 818 995 2 114 246 0 0 2

Greece 1 400 853 1 330 810 0 0 1

Belgium 2 589 285 1 294 643 0 0 8

Czech Rep 326 048 244 536 0 0 43

Cyprus 334 814 167 407 171 305 85 652 2

76

Measure 3.2






Italy 306 000 153 000 6 808 3 404 7

Estonia 22 689 17 016 0 0 1

Finland 20 000 9 000 0 0 1

Measure 3.2 represents 11% of Axis 3 commitments, and is the second least used Axis 3 measure. As an example, Spain’s Measure 3.2 actions include installation of artificial reefs, monitoring of reefs already in place, monitoring of marine reserves. In Estonia, projects have been implemented in the area of restoration of waterways and spawning grounds.

Implementation of measure 3.3 - Fishing ports, landing sites and shelters EFF support for Measure 3.3 covers investments in existing public or private fishing ports, which are of interest to fishers and aquaculture producers using them, with the aim of improving the services offered.

The EFF may also support investments to restructure landing sites and to improve the conditions for fish landed by coastal fishers in existing fish landing sites designated by the competent national authorities.

In order to improve the safety of fishers, Measure 3.3 can also support safety related investments for the construction or modernization of small fishing shelters.

Measure 3.3






Poland 58 590 288 43 942 716 16 363 680 12 272 760 29

Portugal 39 891 764 28 727 928 8 684 672 5 836 798 63

Greece 23 499 849 22 324 857 2 980 800 2 831 760 15

Spain 45 356 454 19 536 274 17 680 928 6 455 458 na

Cyprus 16 236 883 8 118 442 11 730 110 5 865 055 3

France na 7 357 041 na 394 720 na

Denmark 13 208 054 6 604 027 4 000 000 2 000 000 na

Italy 7 215 668 3 607 834 469 042 234 521 21

Germany 3 258 620 2 848 638 1 699 529 2 700 832 5

Finland 6 496 675 2 450 901 4 693 815 1 703 393 34

Sweden 2 927 462 1 463 731 1 968 927 984 463 16

Belgium 376 282 188 141 0 0 3

In terms of Axis 3 as a whole, Measure 3.3 represents 41% of commitments which means it is the most utilised measure of Axis 3 to date. In Spain, Measure 3.3 actions put in place by the port authorities in Andalusia include:

- The construction/modernization of auction rooms

- Investment in services supplied to fishermen, e.g. supply of ice, cabins for ship owners, forklifts

The majority of Andalusian ports have benefited from these actions to varying degrees, with the creation of a new auction room being the largest investment to date.

77

In Estonia, the majority of projects concern small ports and are heavily reliant upon the mobilisation of Axis 4 groups. In 2011 there is a plan to open this measure to large fishing ports used by trawlers (30 ports).

Interestingly in Greece, projects involving the (re)development of fishing shelters have been the most successful of any axis or measure in terms of commitments. In fact, Measure 3.3 represents 83% of Greece’s total EFF commitments to date.

Implementation of measure 3.4 - Development of new markets and promotional campaigns Under Measure 3.4, the EFF can support measures of common interest intended to implement a policy of quality and value enhancement, development of new markets or promotional campaigns for fisheries and aquaculture products.

Measure 3.4






Spain 71 253 769 23 117 521 41 823 399 11 696 902 na

Czech Rep 6 141 267 4 605 950 4 669 805 3 502 353 13

France na 3 753 458 na 2 767 597 na

Poland 4 809 511 3 607 134 2 077 774 1 558 330 38

Portugal 2 015 020 1 428 850 739 473 519 338 9

Denmark 2 604 027 1 302 013 1 400 000 700 000 na

Italy 2 596 917 1 298 458 81 500 40 750 41

Estonia 1 499 329 1 124 497 953 235 714 926 17

Netherlands 2 400 000 1 000 000 900 000 400 000 22

Germany 1 797 086 905 676 557 614 571 884 19

Belgium 1 766 000 883 000 542 763 542 763 5

Sweden 1 548 977 764 079 869 407 438 258 38

Finland 931 958 396 932 110 929 45 791 14

Lithuania 502 351 376 763 254 378 190 784 4

In terms of Axis 3, Measure 3.4 represents 12% of commitments, as at 31 October 2010.

As an example, in Spain, Measure 3.4 projects include assistance for trade fairs, promotional campaigns, and advocacy. For Estonia, measure 3.4 (market promotion) is used for participation in fisheries fairs (common Estonian stand), e.g. in Brussels ESE.

Implementation measure 3.5 - Pilot projects EFF support prescribed under Measure 3.5 covers pilot projects, including the experimental use of more selective fishing techniques, aimed at acquiring and disseminating new technical knowledge and carried out by an economic operator, a recognised trade association or any other competent body designated for that purpose by the Member State, in partnership with a scientific or technical body.

Measure 3.5






Germany 24 079 527 17 063 235 2 157 197 4 964 438 57

Spain 13 612 611 4 701 483 3 623 531 1 461 419 Na

Netherlands 1 700 000 4 400 000 5 000 000 1 100 000 38

78

Portugal 5 354 179 4 008 971 695 498 521 624 8

Sweden 4 445 651 2 222 825 1 286 214 657 071 7

Denmark 3 986 577 2 187 919 900 000 400 000 Na

Italy 4 053 415 2 026 708 0 0 0

France na 1 960 820 na 165 766 na

Poland 1 983 730 1 487 798 193 945 145 459 3

Finland 1 868 242 657 879 318 786 109 996 26

Belgium 985 960 492 980 92 340 8 979 6

Czech Rep 436 168 327 126 0 0 11

Estonia 213 465 160 099 0 0 1

Measure 3.5 represents 12% of Axis 3 commitments.

As a case study, in Spain, pilot projects to date mainly concern fish farming (development of new species: yellowtail, sole, murex, cuttlefish). Actions are being implemented by private companies, in collaboration with scientific organisations who must validate the experimental protocols and results. Limited funding was allocated to this measure in Spain to avoid windfall effects. It would be easy for a company to use an innovation or experimental excuse to finance 80% of productive investment that should come from some other measure. The small budget allocated to this measure requires applying a high level of selectivity to projects, with quality as the main criterion of scientific endorsement.

In Estonia, there has only been one project implemented, which involved testing one specific fishing gear in inland waters.

Implementation of measure 3.6 - Modification for reassignment of fishing vessels Under Measure 3.6, the EFF can support the modification of fishing vessels for their reassignment, under the flag of a Member State and registered in the Community for training or research purposes in the fisheries sector or for other activities outside fishing. These operations are limited to public or semi-public bodies.

Measure 3.5






Sweden 954 026 477 013 954 026 477 013 1

Measure 3.6 represents 0.1% of Axis 3 commitments. Sweden is the only MS to have applied this measure to date, and has paid all the funds that have been committed.

Relevance and effectiveness of measures

Measure 3.1 - Collective Actions Challenges in implementation

Certain MS have faced challenges in implementing this measure. Some MS with smaller EFF programs mentioned either that budget limitations prevented execution of this measure, or that the fishery and aquaculture sectors are not yet organised into groups or producer organisations to facilitate its implementation. It was mentioned furthermore that NGOs taking part in Axis 3 implementation are suffering from a lack of financial resources given domestic economic conditions.

79

Perceptions on effectiveness

In terms of the effectiveness of this measure, it was commonly agreed that measures encouraging cooperation and collective actions remain very important in developing a sustainable fisheries sector. Some stressed the importance of concentrating financial resources for large projects to achieve greater long term impacts.

Several MS believed that whilst this measure is useful and flexible, it is too early to determine the effectiveness of this measure considering schemes have only recently been launched.

Measure 3.2 - Measures intended to protect and develop aquatic fauna and flora Challenges in implementation

MS faced similar challenges in implementation as for Measure 3.1. MS with smaller budgets mentioned the budget limitations that prevent execution of this measure. Challenges however were not limited to MS with small EFF budgets - one MS with a large EFF budget stated 3.2 was an ineffective measure due to its regulatory requirements, specifically with regard to the income received from this type of project, which impede its implementation.


As referred to above, feedback on the effectiveness on this measure was less positive.

Others said it had moderate relevance to them, and some even stated it was of little or no use, stating that the cost of actions is too high with respect to benefits. It was also mentioned that similar actions are eligible for support under the Cohesion Fund and ERDF, and therefore a view that there is potential for this measure to be discontinued.

Measure 3.3 - Fishing ports, landing sites and shelters

Challenges in implementation

There were no particular challenges encountered in implementing this measure however certain MS provided opportunities to improve the effectiveness of the measure, as detailed in the section below.


A large proportion of MS deem this measure very relevant due to the need to develop the adequacy of fisheries infrastructure. Many MS are making significant investments in infrastructure of ports, to bring them up to modern standards and increase the effectiveness of fishing and processing.

As a case study, in Andalusia, Spain Measure 3.3 concerning the (re)development of port facilities is the most favoured of the Axis 3 measures, with EUR 21 million programmed and an achievement rate of 100%.

Although others said it was too early to judge the effectiveness due to the early stage of implementation.

One particular MS stated the need to specify that investments are intended to benefit the fishing industry and should not be used as financial support for tourism and leisure boats. It was also suggested that the period allowed for the change of activity should be extended.

Another MS emphasised the need for this measure to finance other infrastructure beyond just ports, and the importance to continue the type of support under the future financial instrument provided it is no financed under regional development funding. This measure is particularly important in supporting the development of small-scale fishing.

Finally, where landing sites and ports are predominantly privately owned, it is vital that support is possible for their development where there is a common interest of fishermen present.

80

Measure 3.4 - Development of new markets and promotional campaigns

Challenges in implementation

One MS stated that there needs to be greater flexibility in order to promote regional products without Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) status. Another believes the Regulation needs to have clearer conditions, as there are several contrapositions within the regulations that need to be removed/ reworded.


Feedback for Measure 3.4 was generally positive. It is regarded by MS as at least moderately relevant, and is helpful in the development of the national economy. One MS mentioned a particular interest in collective fish production stands at international exhibitions, seeking possibilities to expand product sales abroad. Other MS have implemented a number of trade and marketing initiatives under this measure. It was added that due to the fact fish products have to compete in the food market with other foodstuffs it is important to continue to support promotional campaigns.

Some MS consider however that there are improvement opportunities for this measure. These include the suggestions made in the section above. One particular MS went as far to suggest that this measure could potentially be abandoned, since marketing is the task of private sector and the usefulness of generic campaigns is questionable.

Measure 3.5 - Pilot projects Challenges in implementation

A number of MS believe the scope of the measure is too narrow and that there needs to be greater flexibility in the future on what can be funded. An example given was the inability to finance and support research and development in the early phase to determine whether a pilot should go ahead. Another area where research needs to be funded is in the area of fish health, since fish diseases are one of the major threats to the growth of aquaculture.


Whilst several MS stated that this measure was not relevant to them, others consider it to be a useful measure, but with room for improvement. Certain MS believe that clarification is required in some areas, such as what “innovation” means and whether it is considered in terms new methods, new technologies, or some other factor. It was also considered that there is no need for a separate measure for Pilot Projects, and instead this can be covered collective under Measure 3.1.

Measure 3.6 - Modification for reassignment of fishing vessels This measure is only utilised by Sweden, and as a result there was no particular view on the effectiveness of this measure. Given that Sweden is the only MS to draw upon measure 3.6, it could be concluded that it is irrelevant to the vast majority of MS during the first 3 years of the EFF.

81


Evaluation question No 8

How far has the Axis 4 implementation process progressed in the country (groups operational, groups formed but not implementing local strategy, groups not yet formed…)? How did the national institutions, in particular the Managing Authority, adapt to the territorial character of Axis 4? To what extent did the instruments/measures of the EFF contribute to an efficient implementation process? To what extent did the support by FARNET foster the implementation of Axis 4?

Description of Axis 4:

The EFF may co-finance, complementary to other EU financial instruments, local projects for sustainable development and improvement of the quality of life in fisheries areas. These areas are defined as small territories (NUTS 3 level at most) that have to be coherent from a geographical, economic and social point of view. The local actors set up fisheries local action groups (FLAG) that bring together representatives of the local fisheries sector and other sectors, both public and private. Each local group defines its own local sustainable development strategy.

The EFF can then co-finance projects that fall under the FLAG’s strategy. These projects should aim at strengthening the competitiveness of the fisheries areas, restructuring and redirecting economic activities, diversifying activities, adding value to fisheries products, supporting small fisheries and tourism related activities, etc.

Conclusion

- Axis 4 is the main innovation of the EFF compared to FIFG, and as such was the longest to implement. At the end of 2010, the overall commitment rate only reaches 5% of the programmed EFF. Out of 21 MS with a budget line for Axis 4, only 9 have started to implement projects (Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Portugal, Latvia and Spain). The other 12 MS are still in the process of selecting and approving groups.

- Although major delays have occurred in the implementation process, there is no deadlock.

- As far as the territorial approach is concerned, the LEADER experience has been widely used across MS in the setting up of procedures as well as for the areas and groups selection. In some cases, FLAGs have even been created from existing LEADER groups.

- Despite this, the implementation of systems and procedures has been a fundamental and difficult step for Axis 4. Ensuring the bottom-up approach in the setting up of procedures, and in particular in financial procedures, has been a challenge in many MS, in both countries with centralized systems at the national level and countries with regional-based systems.

82

- The economic crisis has also caused delays, mainly by reducing sources of private funding and by resulting in cost-cutting policies and organisational changes in public administrations.

- As a consequence, the implementation of Axis 4 has really taken off in 2010 only and impacts are barely perceivable at this stage, let alone measurable. For the most part, selected projects fall under Article 44.1 (support the sustainable development of fisheries areas), while measures under 44.2 (improvement of professional skills, and equal opportunities for women) has not been implemented yet.

- However, increased networking among fisheries communities from different areas through FARNET and through national networks as well as collaborating with other stakeholders within the same territory has been generally perceived as a very positive result of this first stage of implementation.

The current state of implementation and the timeframe for this study do not allow assessing the quality of the strategies set up by the local groups or the quality of projects selected. The following analyses are mainly based on documentary review from FARNET, operational programs, annual reports and face-to-face interviews in the four selected MS. Therefore the aim here is to provide insights into the various procedures set up, the challenges encountered, the first projects planned or implemented, the first perceivable impacts and opinions of stakeholders on the most innovative axis of the EFF.






No. of groups planned

No. of groups with approved strategy


Denmark 24 922 558 12 461 279 5 946 309 48% 17 17 157

Finland 8 412 000 3 606 000 1 001 388 28% 8 7 103

Latvia 38 548 635 28 911 476 1 344 895 5% 24 24 87

Estonia 25 708 684 19 281 513 3 042 372 16% 8 8 56

Germany 33 584 000 19 438 000 3 388 402 17% 23 20 38

Sweden 16 399 440 8 199 720 686 943 8% 14 14 23

Netherlands 9 987 125 4 987 125 800 000 16% 6 6 10

Spain 77 747 121 49 212 447 7 110 392 14% 25 22 7

Portugal 23 935 917 17 403 406 2 288 288 13% 7 7 7

Slovenia 2 885 372 2 164 029 2 164 029 100% 1 0 0

Romania 100 000 000 75 000 000 1 957 809 3% 9 0 0

Lithuania 8 925 027 6 693 770 150 666 2% 8 0 0

France 11 235 580 5 699 644 8 390 0% 11 11 0

Belgium 4 800 000 1 900 000 0 0% 1 0 0

Bulgaria 16 001 941 12 001 456 0 0% 4 0 0

Greece 45 000 000 33 300 000 0 0% 8 8 0

Ireland 7 200 603 1 500 603 0 0% 6 0 0

83





No. of groups planned

No. of groups with approved strategy


Italy 46 677 712 23 338 856 0 0% 20 0 0

Poland 313 212 832 234 909 624 0 0% 38 26 0

Cyprus 2 000 000 1 000 000 0 0% 1 1 0

Total 817 184 547 561 008 948 29 889 883 5% 239 171 488

* As projects are in the process of being selected, figures at the end of 2010 are provisional.


Overall, the implementation of Axis 4 has been slow compared to other axes, with a total commitment rate of only 5% at the end of 2010.

According to the information gathered, as shown in the above table, by the end of 2010, there is a total of 254 groups planned over 21 MS, including 171 groups with already approved strategies (spread over 13 MS) and close to 500 projects approved over 9 MS.

From this it is possible to classify MS into 3 main categories, according to their Axis 4 state of implementation:

− MS with no Axis 4: These MS have not programmed any funding for Axis 4. Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Slovakia are in this category. Except for Malta, these are all landlocked countries, mainly concerned by inland fisheries. The fisheries sector is not significant in these MS, in terms of both the fleet size and employment7 and the aquaculture production of the 5 MS together accounts for less than 4% of the total EU production in volume and less than 3% in value. Their share of the total EFF programmed is 2%. Axis 4 was just not relevant for these countries.

− MS still setting up Axis 4: This group includes UK, Lithuania, Slovenia, France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland and Romania. In these MS, groups are planned and partially approved but projects have not been selected yet. In most cases, no funding commitment has been made yet, except for Slovenia, which has committed 100% of its Axis 4 budget towards its only group, according to data provided by the national authorities. Overall, these MS represent close to 50% of the EU fleet capacity and around 60% of the number of vessels and employment, 40% of the EU catches but 60% of the aquaculture production and around 50% of the processing value and employment. Behind these general figures, this group is actually quite heterogeneous as are the reasons why delays have occurred.

o Out of these 12 MS, there are 5 of the major European countries for the fisheries and aquaculture sector. France, Italy and the UK represent by themselves over 30% of the fleet capacity, close to 30% of the catches, 45% of the aquaculture production (in volume) and around 45% of the processing production (in value). Greece has one of the largest fleet in the EU, although it is mainly smaller vessels (20% of the total number of vessels for 5% of the capacity) and has a significant aquaculture production (9% of the EU production). Although it is a smaller MS, Ireland shares the same profile. In these 5 MS, at least half the boundaries are coastline. They all have a long experience of the EU fisheries policies and represent a significant share of the total programmed EFF budget (24%). Among these countries, France, Italy, and Ireland only allocated between 2 and 5% to Axis 4, compared to 13% at the EU level. The UK, Greece and Ireland are among the countries where the economic crisis has hit the strongest.

o Other MS in this category mainly belong to the EU-12, including Romania and Bulgaria. Some of these MS have allocated up to 30% of their EFF budget into Axis 4 (Poland and Romania), and, at the minimum, the allocation is 9% (Slovenia).

7 See “Facts and Figures for the Common Fisheries Policy”, edition 2010.

84

o The last two countries in this group are Belgium and Cyprus, which have fairly low EFF budgets overall and did not prioritize Axis 4.

− Advanced MS: Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Portugal, Latvia and Spain fall into this category. In these MS, all (or almost all) the groups have been approved, projects are being implemented and the commitment rates lay between 5% for Latvia and 48% for Denmark. The two leading countries are Denmark and Finland. This category represents over 50% of the EU fleet capacity, around 40% of the number of vessels, 40% of the EU employment in the fisheries sector, around a third of the EU aquaculture production and 46% of the processing value and employment. Spain and the Netherlands in particular hold a large part of the industrial fleet. Spain by itself represents 25% of the fleet capacity, 22% of the aquaculture production and 18% of the processing value. On the other hand, small-scale fisheries are more important in Finland and Portugal. In these MS, the fisheries sector is still a significant economic sector and the primary one in some regions. Although in Germany, the primary sector is not significant overall, fisheries are still important in some coastal areas. As such, the decline of this sector can have significant socio-economic impacts in the concerned areas. These 9 MS account for 47% of the total programmed EFF (26% for Spain alone). The share of EFF dedicated to Axis 4 varies among the MS. The lowest rates are found in Spain (4%) and Portugal (7%) but their total budget for the EFF is much bigger than in the other MS in this group. Other EU-15 MS in this group dedicated between 9% and 15% of the EFF to Axis 4. Estonia and Latvia allocated respectively 22% and 23% of their budget to Axis 4 (although Latvia is planning on reducing this amount).

One interesting point to mention, regarding the state of implementation, is that there does not seem to be a correlation between the average amount programmed by FLAG and the level of advancement. As a matter of fact MS in the “advanced group” tend to show lower average total programming (EFF + national co-funding) per FLAG than other MS. This amount goes from 1,052 k€ in Finland to 12,047 k€ in Poland. Some of these figures have to be used cautiously as Poland plans to create 20 more groups and Latvia for instance over-estimated the programmed budget for Axis 4 and is now planning to reduce it by 40%. Still, on average, there is around 2 million Euros planned per FLAG in the advanced countries, against 2.6 million Euros in other countries (excluding Romania and Poland that have over 10 million Euros of programmed EFF per FLAG at this stage). In some cases, the difference can be related to the capacity of the private sector to co-finance projects. For instance, among the “advanced countries”, Spain, Portugal and Estonia have programmed budgets per FLAG between 3 and 3.5 million Euros.

Even though some of the MS are still at an early stage of the process (Romania, Bulgaria, Ireland...), the implementation does not seem to be blocked anywhere. In addition, the scepticism caused in some Member States, or in some regions, by the novelty aspect of this axis seem to be fading away. According to the interviews in the four selected MS, enthusiasm over Axis 4 seems to be growing as implementation moves forward.

Systems and procedures set up to support Axis 4 implementation The implementation of systems and procedures has been a fundamental step for Axis 4, considering the novelty of the territorial approach within the EFF. FARNET was generally considered as a useful support, in particular to understand which types of projects were eligible and the different management options (centralized versus decentralized); although it arrived slightly late for MS that had commenced their implementation early (Denmark, the Netherlands).

Two major issues have to be taken into account for this analysis: changes in the organisation of the EFF as a whole that had to be implemented first (the single programme, changes in national administrations, etc) and the interpretation of the bottom-up approach.

As a matter of fact, two main options stand out when looking at the management of Axis 4: centralized and decentralized systems. The degree of centralisation, which varies among MS but also among regions in some MS (e.g. Spain), affects daily management, particularly in terms of the selection of projects and financial procedures. For instance, in Greece, where the management of the EFF as a whole is very centralized, Axis 4 relies on contracts between the MA and FLAGs, but the FLAGs actions still require the approval of the MA. On the contrary, in Andalusia, procedures were set up to ensure FLAGs autonomy. The regional Intermediate Body supported them in establishing the strategies and procedures. On an on-going basis, it validate and control selected projects, but there is

85

an advance on payments based on the annual budget, so that the FLAGs can manage their own budget and be more reactive in launching the projects.

Four phases were identified in Axis 4 implementation process.

Phase I: Establishing specific procedures for Axis 4 This was generally done by the managing authorities or the intermediate body at the regional level (Spain, Germany, UK). Although most MS built on the Leader experience or the PESCA 1994-1999 Community initiative (Germany) to implement the territorial and bottom-up approach, this phase could still take a long time as it was new to the fisheries sector. The UK, for instance, has had to go through a long process in partnership with the Commission and with regional devolved administrations to finally come up with procedures that guaranteed the bottom-up approach according to the Commission in a revised operational program in October 2010. In other cases, such as in Greece, the question was more to adapt an otherwise very centralized organisation to the Axis 4.

Establishing financial procedures and co-funding rates represents a major part of this phase. Basically two models have been adopted:

- Centralized financial procedures: in most MS or regions it is considered that despite the bottom-up approach, expenditures should be managed centrally. In that case projects can either be selected by the managing authority (or the regional intermediate body) or by the FLAGs, but payments are done directly by the payment agency to the final beneficiaries (Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Galicia, Cataluña...). In the case of Denmark for example, annual budget for projects and management are approved annually and the budget for management is allocated four times a year, but the budget for projects is managed by the payment agency.

- Decentralized financial procedures: in some cases, it is considered that managing the budget gives FLAGs more flexibility and reactivity. This is the case in Andalusia for instance, where the administration’s role is to assist and control. Budgets are advanced to the FLAGs so they can select and launch the projects faster. The Intermediate Body still validates the projects eligibility before payments is made8.

Regarding co-funding rates, too few elements are available to present a real analysis. However, from the interviews done in the four MS visited for this study, it seems that they mainly vary depending on the capacity of the private sector to provide co-funding, within the limits allowed by the EFF regulation (roughly up to 60% for productive investments by the private sector, up to 100% for other types of investment). For instance, in Denmark, the total level of public co-funding is 51%, whereas in Spain and Estonia, maximum rates allowed seem to be applied (from 60% to 100%).

Phase II: Communication towards local actors in preparation of the groups selection MS have put a lot of effort into preparing fishermen and their communities to actively participate in the constitution of the groups and the elaboration of their strategies. Communication campaigns included standard communication instruments like local and national events, web support, publication, etc. Some MS went further as in Estonia where training programs on implementing cooperation with other stakeholders were offered to the fishermen communities.

Phase III: Selection of areas, groups and strategies As analysed by FARNET9, this phase was either a one-stage or two-stage process, depending on the MS or the region. In one case, groups and strategies were approved together (Andalusia, Galicia). In the other case, groups were selected first and then had to define their strategy (Denmark). In that case, the first stage consists of a call for interest for local groups. Then in the second stage, pre-selected groups usually have access to funding to work on their strategy development, possibly using external experts. In either situation, potential or pre-selected groups received some form of support

8 Despite this observation, there is no full devolution to the FLAG in any of the case studies analysed by the evaluation (which does not necessarily mean that it does not exist anywhere). Anyway, this could be explained by the fact that FLAGs are still new within the fisheries sector (compared to LAGs) and whilst on one hand, Managing Authorities still want to oversee what is happening, on the other hand, group themselves still ask for assistance to figure out what should be eligible and what is not. This could evolve over time as experience and trust both grow. 9 “Report on the State of Play of Axis 4 in the Member States: May 2010”, FARNET

86

from the administration to define their strategy. For instance, in Andalusia, local delegations of the regional Intermediate Body assisted the groups. Axis 5 has also been used in some countries to train potential FLAG members and support the definition of the strategies (EE, LT, RO).

Selection criteria for the area and board composition also varied significantly among MS and sometimes among regions.

- Area selection: MS applied all or some of the criteria established by the regulation (low population density, decline of the fishing industry, small fishing communities and homogeneous socio-economic characteristics in the area). Indicators used to apply these criteria however could vary: fleet size, employment in the fisheries sector, number of fishermen in the area (around 500 fishermen per area in Estonia), coefficient of fisheries sector growth (combined index, Galicia), etc. As a result, the final areas selected can vary in nature and in size. FARNET distinguishes two main types of areas, small fishing communities facing rural depopulation and aging population on one hand, more urban areas experiencing development and facing increasing pressure and competition for resources on the other hand.

- Board selection: the representation of the fisheries sector is the main differentiation factor. In some MS, there is a minimum representation of the fisheries sector required (Spain – 50% minimum, Estonia), whereas in other countries, it can be more open (Scandinavian countries for instance). This can have an impact on the strategy definition as groups with a lower representation of the fisheries sector might focus more on diversification than on competiveness.

The “bottom-up” approach has been implemented in different ways among MS, regarding the area selection:

- Implementation at a regional level (Spain, UK, Germany)

- A first definition made by the Managing Authority, but a final definition made by the groups themselves (Denmark)

- Areas defined by the groups themselves (Finland: nationwide call for tenders)

Finally, as mentioned for the Phase I, MS have also drawn upon the Leader experience to a large extent for the area selection. This could be done through:

- the integration of existing Leader groups, with separate strategies and budgets: Denmark (11 out of 16 FLAGs), Asturias, Greece.

- the establishment of new groups but covering the same area (Estonia: 4 out of 8 FLAGs)

- regular communication with Leader groups of the same area/region to exchange experience (Andalusia)

Despite, the reliance on existing Leader groups and the potential overlap between the EFF Axis 4, and the EARDF, from the information gathered through site visits and questionnaires to managing authorities, there was generally no confusion between Axis 4 and Leader.

Phase IV: Selection of projects Project selection is done by the FLAGs themselves, usually with a validation by the Managing Authority or the Intermediate Body (Andalusia).

Once FLAGs have been selected and their strategies have been approved, they have to write their own manuals to establish the projects selection procedures. Again technical support has been provided for this phase by managing authorities or intermediate bodies, for instance by providing a standard manual that FLAGs could adapt to their specific needs (e.g. in Andalusia).

In terms of timeframe, Denmark planned 8 to 12 months in its operational program to complete phases 2 and 3. Considering that all FLAGs in this country were selected by the end of 2008, it seems this timeframe was respected. In Andalusia, Phase 3 alone took over 6 months for the two FLAGs interviewed during the site visit (over 2009 and 2010). In Estonia, FLAGs were established in 2009 and strategies approved over 2009 and 2010.

Overall, Axis 4 implementation has been quite complex in all MS and has resulted in a great variety in terms of systems and procedures set up, which is coherent with the idea of a bottom-up approach. At this stage it is too early to assess whether this variety corresponds to actual differences in terms of

87

local capacity, needs, culture, etc. or whether some good practices need to be identified to bring more homogeneity among MS.

Challenges encountered during the implementation of Axis 4

Number of responses Did not encounter challenge

To a small extent

To a medium extent

To a large extent

Total number of responses

Lack of local capacity 4 6 5 3 18Lack of understanding of Axis 4 3 8 3 4 18Lack of knowledge regarding territorial development at local/MA level 6 6 3 3 18Lack of interest 11 5 0 2 18Setting up of financial procedures 4 4 6 3 17Other reason(s)* 1 0 1 3 5

Source: Questionnaires to managing authorities

* Other reasons mentioned mainly concerned the setting up of procedures, in general, not only financial (interpretation of the bottom-up approach, long discussions with local authorities on their level of implication in the selection process for groups and later on for projects, the selection process of areas and groups, the definition of a clear administrative separation between the EAFRD and the EFF contributions).

According to the answers provided in the questionnaire, the 3 main challenges causing delays are related to the fact that Axis 4 brings an entirely new approach within the EFF:

− The setting up of management and financial procedures: this is mostly due to the fact that this Axis and the specific approach attached to it are completely new within the EFF. In some cases, relying on the Leader experience and existing groups have facilitated this phase (see previous chapter on systems and procedures). In other cases, on the other hand this has been aggravated by organisational issues in the EFF implementation as a whole (changes in national administrations in Romania and Bulgaria).

− Lack of local capacity: the lack of local capacity refers to both the fisheries sector and local administrations. In many MS, local administrations had some previous experience with the territorial approach, but not with the fisheries sector, which on the other hand did not have any experience with the territorial approach. This has resulted in some MS in taking a lot of time before the area and/or groups selection to inform, train and involve the different stakeholders. It is interesting to notice that this reason has been mentioned even in MS where Leader groups were used as a basis for the implementation of Axis 4.

− Lack of understanding of Axis 4: the territorial approach was new to the fisheries sector, which required some communication and training prior to the selection of groups, causing delays in the implementation. Regarding the setting up of procedures, different interpretations of the bottom-up concept has caused a lot of discussions among central and local administrations (the Netherlands). Finally, the possibility of including actions eligible under other axes of the EFF was not considered very clear (e.g. in Spain).

Beyond challenges related to the characteristics of Axis 4 itself, the economic crisis also impacted the implementation process negatively. Although these challenges did not bear on Axis 4 only, delays on Axis 4 could be worse than on other axes because of the complexity and the novelty of this particular axis:

88

- The lack of private co-funding is a primary consequence of the economic crisis. This has bore not only on axis 4 but also on other axes. Among visited MS, this was particularly significant in Spain and Greece. In Spain, where the implementation has reached a more advanced state, this impacts the type of projects presented (mostly non-productive, which can be 100% publicly financed) but also damages the FLAGs daily management as many of them rely on public funding, which is limited to 10% of the total programmed budget.

- Cost-cutting policies and in particular the reduction of human resources in public administrations (UK, Ireland) has weakened the capacity to set up the required new systems and procedures.

Expected results and impacts from Axis 4 As for other axes, but more even so for Axis 4, impacts are difficult to assess at this stage, and impossible to measure quantitatively. For most MS, the state of implementation is not advanced enough to actually have any impact. Even where projects have already been implemented, it is too early to perceive all the intended impacts. And even if there were some impacts, there are no standard impact indicators in place across MS. When looking at result or impact indicators available from the most advanced MS (Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Germany, Estonia) in the 2009 annual reports, the only indicators filled in are the following:

− Estonia: 100% of the planned percentage of fisheries areas covered with development strategies has been achieved

− Latvia: the objective has been overreached for the number of economically active units per 1000 inhabitants

− Denmark:

o Reached its objective of maintaining the number of employees and number of workplaces (latest data in 2008)

o Indicator for the number of overnight stays (for an objective of +2%, but no baseline)

o Overreached its objective of +2% (in 2015) of fishing licences for angling

− Germany:

o Number of running groups: 17/23 (at the end of 2010)

o Percentage of fisheries zones as defined in the operational programme, with active groups: 11% (at the end of 2009)

A few comments can be drawn from these elements:

− These indicators do not allow to draw comparisons among MS

− In the case of Estonia and Germany, only results indicators have been informed, not impact indicators

− In many cases, the causal link between the FLAGs actions and the indicators is not established.

Therefore, the following analyses on impacts will focus on qualitative information (types of projects in the selection process or implemented and stakeholders’ opinions) in the four MS visited.

Projects implemented under the measure 4.1: sustainable development of fisheries areas The projects being selected or implemented at this stage in Spain, Denmark and Estonia cover three main aspects:

- Improved competitiveness

- Diversification

- Environment

- Communication campaigns (in that case the FLAG itself is usually the beneficiary).

89

In Spain, diversification and productive investments have been rather difficult to implement with the economic crisis and the resulting difficulty of finding private funding. In Andalusia, projects have focused on fisheries related tourism, equal opportunities for women and young fishermen, and the environment. In this area, there are a few emerging projects around waste management for the processing sector:

- Software development for the intermediate body where enterprises could upload information about the waste they generate

- Extraction of Omega-3 from pelagic fish wastes (viscera)

- Technical training for women in waste management

The North-Jutland area in Denmark has focused on more added-value (e.g. for collateral fishing), improved marketing, and tourism.

In Estonia, the priority has been given to the renewal of small fishing ports and landing sites (53% of the overall budget in Estonia, and from 40 to 75% for individual FLAGs), which is presented as a critical point for the survival of small fishing communities. Development of tourism and regeneration and development of coastal villages represents the second budget line under Axis 4 (19%).

The information available does not allow a judgement on the impacts of this measure to be formed. However, the first impression, based on these interviews and on FARNET documents, is that actions financed seem to be in line with the concepts of Axis 4.

Projects implemented under the measure 4.210: improvement of professional skills and equal opportunities for women There are various projects for training:

- 4% of the budget in Estonia, not specifically targeted at women

- Various projects emerging around women technical training in Andalusia (waste management, anchovy freezing techniques)

Regarding equal opportunities for women, Spain seems to have focused more than other MS on this topic. This could be related to the pre-existence of active women associations. In Andalusia women tend to be involved particularly in tourism and traditional art-crafts related activities. There is no specific budget line for projects led by women or promoting women opportunities, but gender criteria are used in the selection process for positive discrimination by crediting projects led by women with more points.

Axis 4 seem relevant to promote equal opportunity between men and women as it relies not only on fishers but on their “communities”, in which women tend to be fairly involved, at least in some areas (Andalusia).

This measure has raised interest but according to the information available, the implementation has barely started, if at all.

The implementation of axis 4 has fostered networking Although networking among FLAGs was not an intended objective of Axis 4, this is the main positive perceivable impact at this stage.

From all the opinions gathered the role of FARNET in developing networking has been critical and represents one of the top achievements of FARNET. The existence of the European network has also facilitated the setting up and the dynamism of national networks.

Among the four MS visited, the three MS where groups and strategies have been approved and projects have started to be implemented (Denmark, Estonia, Spain) there is an active national network. Their activities are similar:

10 Actions that fall under Art. 44.2 of Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006

90

- Spain: annual meetings, experience-sharing, the network has a website hosted by the managing authority, including information on the different groups as well as a forum

- Denmark: daily hotline, website for programs and FLAGs, training programmes, regular meetings, manuals... It is interesting to note that in Denmark, the national network is common to FLAGs and LEADER.

- Estonia: roundtable discussions, internet cooperation, organisation of “sea week”, booklets and manuals

Experience-sharing and support on daily management are the networks main objectives in the three MS. In Denmark and Estonia, the networks also publish manuals, which would not be as relevant in Spain as procedures vary among regions.

The Spanish managing authorities also wishes to develop transnational cooperation to encourage experience-sharing on common issues in the Mediterranean zone, with France and Italy, and in the Atlantic zone, with France.

91



What are the outputs and results of Axis 5?

At the initiative of the Member State, the EFF may finance under the Axis 5 of the operational programme actions relating to the preparation, management, monitoring, evaluation, publicity, control and audit of the operational programme, as well as networking, up to a limit of 5 % of its total amount. The EFF may also finance actions under the operational programme relating to the improvement of administrative capacities of the Member State all of whose regions are eligible under the Convergence objective.

Conclusion

In line with the Commission Regulation, Axis 5 projects to date have focused both on the preparation, management, monitoring, evaluation, publicity, control and audit of the operational programme, as well as the improvement of administrative capacities for MS all of whose regions are eligible under the Convergence objective.

Overall, the implementation of Axis 5 has been slow, reflecting the delays experienced in the other 4 axes. As at 31 October 2010, EUR 27 325 232 of funds had been committed to Axis 5 initiatives, representing 19% of the funds programmed towards Axis 5 within the OPs of each MS, and 0.6% of total EFF programmed budget.

Whilst certain MS have committed a large proportion of their Axis 5 budget already – Slovenia (67%), Greece (62%), Slovakia (62%), Sweden (61%) – other MS have not yet benefited from the Technical Assistance measure – Austria, Malta, and Poland are yet to commit Axis 5 funds.

The objective and desired result of Axis 5 funding is to put in place administrations that are able to manage, monitor, audit and control the Operational Programme in an efficient and effective manner. It also seeks to support promotional activities to improve MS’ reach to, and relationship with, beneficiaries to encourage the development of the sector, as well as perform studies that allow issues and barriers to be identified and corrective action to be taken.

Some MS with smaller EFF budgets regarded the 5% cap as insufficient for operating the EFF, believing that the activities supported by the Technical Assistance budget cost a similar amount to fund regardless of the size of the EFF programme. On duly justified grounds, the threshold of 5% may be exceeded, as has been the case with Slovenia.

92







Spain 30 606 227 18 967 097 7 859 730 41% na

Greece 7 000 000 5 250 000 3 257 460 62% 4

Portugal 10 452 322 7 931 294 2 903 714 37% 18

Lithuania 3 562 327 2 671 745 2 312 471 87% 6

Romania 14 318 942 10 739 207 1 896 429 18% 9

Slovenia 2 308 296 2 596 835 1 731 221 67% na

Sweden 5 466 480 2 733 240 1 677 998 61% 52

Estonia 5 637 870 4 228 402 1 497 628 35% 7

Latvia 6 615 194 4 961 395 1 266 164 26% 49

Italy 42 434 286 21 217 143 1 051 869 5% 17

Germany 3 304 621 2 034 348 902 940 44% 36

Hungary 2 323 390 1 742 543 539 672 31% 20

Denmark 13 367 516 6 683 758 536 913 8% 1

Cyprus 700 000 350 000 480 403 137% 2

United Kingdom 6 352 544 3 384 027 431 975 13% 28

Slovakia 912 568 684 426 424 001 62% 7

Czech Rep 1 807 112 1 355 334 394 655 29% 11

Bulgaria 5 333 980 4 000 485 370 103 9% 20

Netherlands 4 795 200 2 395 200 300 000 13% 2

Belgium 2 611 648 1 300 000 291 668 22% 15

Finland 1 458 000 624 000 252 869 41% 16

France 4 867 454 2 653 318 143 060 5% na

Austria 90 000 45 000 0 0% na

Ireland 0 0 0 0% 0

Malta 456 000 342 000 0 0% na

Poland 48 939 504 36 704 628 0 0% na

Total 225 721 481 145 595 425 30 522 942 21% 320

Overall, the implementation of Axis 5 has been slow, reflecting the delays experienced in the other 4 axes. As at 31 October 2010, EUR 30 522 942 of funds had been committed to Axis 5 initiatives, representing 21% of the funds programmed towards Axis 5 within the OPs of each MS, and 0.7% of total EFF programmed budget.

Whilst certain MS have committed a large proportion of their Axis 5 budget already – Slovenia (67%), Greece (62%), Slovakia (62%), and Sweden (61%) – other MS have not yet benefited from the Technical Assistance measure – Austria, Ireland, Malta and Poland are yet to commit Axis 5 funds.

It is interesting to note that the average commitment rate amongst the 12 new MS since 2004 is 23.7%, whose focus has been on building a competent and effective administration and systems to management the implementation of the program.

Projects financed by Axis 5 funding

93

Axis 5 funding has been allocated to finance the following types of initiatives:

- Funds to manage, monitor, audit and control the Operational programme, including personnel wages, training courses, business trips, office supplies and equipment, organisation of monitoring committees and conferences, annual reports

- External expert opinions, such as interim evaluation of the EFF, short–term analyses such as of the OP absorption capacity and the OP promotional objectives, review of audit methodology, other audits

- Additional personnel to stabilize administrative capacity

- Development of an IT system for registration and assessment of projects, or programme monitoring purposes

- Public relations: studies, information and publicity actions for the beneficiaries and the general public and meetings and seminars, publication of DVD with successful projects

- Studies and impact assessments

- Outsourcing of Certifying or Audit Authority

- Facilitation scheme to work as a conduit between the administration and potential beneficiaries

- In Spain, Axis 4 national network and the Women’s Network are financed by Axis 5.

Some MS with smaller EFF budgets regarded the 5% cap as insufficient for operating the EFF, believing that the activities supported by the Technical Assistance budget cost a similar amount to fund regardless of the size of the EFF programme.

Expected results and outputs of Axis 5 The objective and desired result of Axis 5 funding is to put in place administrations that are able to manage, monitor, audit and control the Operational Programme in an efficient and effective manner. It also seeks to support promotional activities to improve MS’ reach to, and relationship with, beneficiaries to encourage the development of the sector, as well as perform studies that allow issues and barriers to be identified and corrective action to be taken.

It is expected that Axis 5 funds will be consumed in line with the increase in implementation activity across axes 1 to 4 in the second half of the funding period.

94

4 Conclusion and recommendations

Analysis/Finding Conclusion Recommendation

Partnership principle

− Programme preparation involves consultation of a broad range of actors

− 15 of 23 MS surveyed have less than 10% of their MC represented by environmental stakeholders

− 7 of 23 MS surveyed have a representative from a women’s organisation on the MC

− Partnership principle is generally well applied, despite under-representation of Women’s and Environmental organisations.

− Address under-representation of key interest groups in the monitoring and implementation of OPs by reviewing the composition of the Monitoring Committee to ensure there is sufficient representation of particularly NGOs, Women’s organisations and Environmental organizations.

− MC meet twice a year on average

− Several MS consider that coordination at programme level is too formal (annual meetings and Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture), and more informal exchanges could prove more effective.

− Partnership between EC and MS is satisfactory, but coordination is slightly too formal.

− Create an opportunity for more informal and frequent exchanges between the EC and MS, beyond the annual review meetings and Monitoring Committee. This could be done through technical assistance developed and managed at EC level (such as FARNET for axis 4) which contributes to developing networking, the exchange of views and good practices between MS.

National Strategic Plan

− NSP is an important step in defining the priorities and vision for the sector

− NSP is a high level document and does not provide utility on an ongoing basis

− For smaller MS, it was noted that the administrative effort required in developing an NSP may outweigh the benefit.

− NSP is a broad document which enables a better strategic view on the development of the sector in line with the CFP, but it entails a time-consuming process and is disregarded once the OP is in place.

− Revise the format of the National Strategic Plan and clearly define the purpose and value of each document (NSP/OP) to minimise duplication of work. NSP could be synthesised and included in the Operational Programme.

Setting up an MCS

− New MCSs and their associated compliance assessments have improved the robustness and reliability of OP management.

− As at December 2010, the MCS of 4 Members States were not yet approved by the EC. For 9 other MS, approval was only granted in 2010.

− Delays were mainly due to an unsatisfactory initial MCS description, a lack of audit capacities (especially for MS with minimal experience in managing EU programmes) and overlaps with FIFG closure (same staff resources working on both

− Although useful in enhancing the reliability of OP management, the set up and assessment of the MCS was a lengthy and costly process (for both EC and MS).

− In certain MS, human resources were focused more on the closure of the FIFG programme(s) rather than the launch of the EFF programme.

− Use external teams to work with the MA during busy periods (such as the period when the new programme must be prepared while the former one is not yet finalised).To the greatest extent possible, appoint different resources to work on separate funding programs, i.e. clearly distinguish between resources contributing to the closure of the EFF programme and the commencement of the new financial instrument.

95


programmes).

Shift towards one single programme per MS

− A common perception among most MS is that “simplification at the Commission level ultimately necessitates more onerous duties at the national and programme levels”. Moreover slightly over 50% of MS surveyed disagree that the change to one single OP and one specific MCS dedicated to the EFF programme has simplified EFF management

− Shift to one single OP proved difficult in most decentralised-managed States: in the UK, the devolved nature of management means there are issues in presenting a single MS view; in Germany, the programme and MCS are actually divided into 11 regional programmes and management systems. As a result the central managing authorities experience difficulties in coordinating these programmes and reporting a single view.

− Any simplification and administrative cost decrease has mainly been perceived in small or medium-sized MS having centralized management rules, as well as in the new Member States, where experience gains, as well as simplification of procedures and application forms have contributed to reducing the administrative burden.

− The shift towards one single OP has mainly benefited the EC whilst, on the whole, it has increased the management costs for most MS. Only some of these costs can be considered as “one off” costs (those used during the programming phase and to set up a MCS)

− Shift to one single OP has significantly increased the programme complexity as well as administrative burden in Federal States (and more generally MS having a decentralised management such Germany, Italy, Spain, France, UK and Belgium).

− Consider possible ways to establish a better coordination mechanism for Federal States. This could be achieved through strengthening the central coordination capacity. Another option would be to provide flexibility for distinct programmes per Federal State.

− Organise a forum to enable Member States to share experiences regarding management costs and administrative burden arising from the mid-term review, in order to enable a revision of human resource allocation within Member States for the second half of the funding period and to assist in budgeting for human resources for the new financial instrument.

Management costs and workload at MS level

− Several stakeholders noted the increased robustness of audit and controls under the EFF, which on the one hand provides greater assurance in the financial management of the programme, but on the other hand, has created additional requirements and administrative processes.

− Often “to be on the safe side”, an excessive amount of controls are implemented, increasing the workload in terms of the audit function.

− The workload in terms of the audit function has significantly increased since FIFG. Although enabling better control and lowering financial risks, the administrative burden is too high for small MS that have to establish the same structures and systems regardless the programme size.

− Analyse financial control requirements and audit burden so as to check whether it would be possible to better apply proportionality to administrative systems based on allocation and risk rather than applying blanket measures.

− Investigate applicability of the three simplified cost options (flat rate for indirect costs, standard scale of unit costs, lump sums) in terms of management, control and audit, as a means to lighten the administrative burden on beneficiaries and management bodies thus contributing both to more efficient and correct use of funds. These are outlined in the ERDF and ESF Regulations.

− MS are currently required to establish the same structures and systems

− Management costs are on the whole much higher in MS

− Improve application of the principle of proportionality, i.e.

96


whether their allocation of funds is €1m or €1bn.

− This explains differences in the average management cost per EFF €. For instance, it is estimated that managing Czech, Slovak or Austrian programmes is 7 times more expensive than the average, i.e. 3.5 FTE per million € against 0.45 in average

with small OP than in big MS provide greater flexibility to MS whose EFF programme is below a certain threshold to implement a common Management and Control System across funds, in order to alleviate the administrative burden. However this common system should be funded from one source.

− Regarding the programming process, ensure that MS with smaller EFF programmes are not disadvantaged by the high administrative and set up costs. This could be done by revising the requirements of the NSP and OP for smaller MS.

Implementation process and administrative burden for final beneficiaries

− Several MS have sought to reduce the amount of support documentation required, and the length of application forms, e.g. Spain has gained in experience and achieved more efficient internal processes.

− Administrative burden for the final beneficiaries has generally been reduced. It remains higher in new MS where the required paperwork to accompany applications may prevent potential beneficiaries from applying.

− Continue to identify opportunities to reduce the administrative burden of the project application process (e.g. number of attachments required, length of application forms, reduction in number of questions, use on online application functionality, streamline use of electronic systems) for both potential beneficiaries and the administrative authorities.

− Few MS could cite structured programs in place to assist potential beneficiaries in accessing funding

− However, in England the Seafood Industry Authority provides a National Facilitation Service for the EFF in England. This service is funded by Axis 5 Technical Assistance, and acts as a conduit between the potential applicant and the Managing Authority.

− Some good practices are observed in assisting and reaching potential beneficiaries which is a key factor for fostering new projects. This is all the more important as OP are increasingly focused on developing innovative projects, which require more technical assistance to potential beneficiaries.

− Organise a knowledge and experience sharing forum that focuses on initiatives to assist potential beneficiaries in defining projects and accessing funding. A successful example of this type of initiative is the UK National Facilitation Service, financed by Axis 5.

Monitoring system

− A broad comparison of existing indicators and available data at 31 October 2010 confirm that existing systems of indicators are not fully operational to allow adequate monitoring of the OP.

− The extensive data listed in Annex III of the EFF Implementing Regulation are not relevant to all MS or users at the different levels, and they do not fully meet MS monitoring needs

− Existing indicators required by the EC are focused on output. They are numerous, not relevant for all MS, lack a common definition of the units to be measured, and are therefore not completely reliable.

− Indicators are not reported upon systematically nor verified, so they may be incomplete and contain errors

− Reduce the number of output indicators monitored at MS level (list of Annex 3 of Reg. No 498/2007), for example in processing and marketing of fish (merging indicators hygiene, environment and production systems to a common indicator).

− Ensure that indicators are SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound).

− The European Commission does not have any common framework for monitoring indicators on results and impacts

− Results and impacts indicators are heterogeneous from one MS to another, and therefore cannot be consolidated or compared.

− Develop a common framework for a set of monitoring indicators on results and impacts together with MS, to assist in achieving a degree of homogeneity with regard to set

97


− Indicators are very heterogeneous in terms of quantity and quality as they were generally chosen according to the data available which differs widely from one country to another.

indicators.

Programme effectiveness

− M€ 1.4 EFF are committed at 31 October 2010 (32.7% of total budget). Commitments have significantly increased in 2010, and particularly in the last trimester of 2010, since the quantitative analysis was performed within this report.

− A commonly experienced delay amongst MS related to unfavourable domestic economic conditions making it difficult to obtain co-financing.

− Low commitment rates under some measures are linked with the issue of access to private co-financing.

− Develop financial engineering within the framework of EFF programmes to solve the issue of access to private co-financing

− Establish an efficient instrument, within the CFP if not within the EFF to handle an economic crisis, in order to react as the crisis occurs rather than after the crisis, and to avoid diverting structural instruments from their original purpose.

− Some MS mentioned that certain measures overlapped with other EFF measures as they are broad and not sufficiently targeted. For example, m3.1 (collective actions) could also cover m3.4 (pilot projects).

− Certain measures are not clearly defined and thus not well understood by some MS. This could explain why certain MS have called for the discontinuation of a few measures that they deemed less relevant to their needs, e.g. 3.2 or 3.4

− The list and organisation of current EFF measures requires review, so that the fund can be tailored in the future to avoid overlapping and respond to the most relevant needs of the potential beneficiaries.

− Certain measures are not clearly defined whilst others are not sufficiently targeted.

− Work towards simplify the structure of the Fund and avoid “collection” of disparate measures that have the potential to lead to misinterpretation and lack of user-friendliness

− Clarify the content of the eligible measures and ensure adequate technical assistance (facilitators, experts, etc.) Given the large scope of potential actions to be financed, develop monitoring of these measures to allow adequate follow up of their outputs and outcomes.

− At this stage, it is too early to conclude on results and impacts of EFF projects due to the early stage of OP implementation.

− More focus is given to simple replacement investments instead of innovative and environmentally friendly investments that encourage a collective approach to addressing environmental sustainability of fisheries

− Whilst simple ‘replacement’ measures have been effective in terms of commitments, their focus is too individual and short term. This might limit the expected impacts in terms of environmental sustainability of the sector.

− Withdraw simple replacement investments and put more the stress on longer term impact, technologically and environmentally innovative investments (e.g. recirculation systems in aquaculture). Analyse the innovation deficit and support projects which contribute to reducing it.

− The size of certain EFF programmes relative to the size of the fishing sector in several MS, such as in Bulgaria and Romania, was disproportionate. This was particularly due to the fact that these two countries fall entirely under the Convergence objective.

− The convergence/non-convergence region categorisation does not necessarily encourage the optimal absorption of EFF funds in certain MS due to other regional factors

− Certain MS have faced difficulties in absorbing EFF funds due to disproportionally high funding allocated to the MS at the beginning of the funding period.

− Use allocation criteria more linked to the size of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, including the level of employment in the sector and productivity.

98

5 Annexes

5.1 Annex 1: General tables on effectiveness Analysis by MS and Axis as at 31/10/2010 Source: Questionnaire of Member States conducted in December 2010. Nb. October data was provide by all MS through the questionnaire with the exception of France (04/11/2010), Germany (17/09/2010) and Belgium (1/12/2010).

Member State Axis Programming Total

Programming EFF Commitments EFF - as at 31.10.2010

EFF Commitment rate – % as at 31.10.2010

Payments EFF - as at 31.10.2010

EFF Achievement rate – % as at 31.10.2010

No. of projects

TOTAL 10 393 753 5 259 318 3 444 546 65% 2 532 075 48% 261

Axis 1 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0

Axis 2 10 203 753 5 164 318 3 444 546 67% 2 532 075 49% 261

Axis 3 100 000 50 000 0 0% 0 0% 0

Axis 4 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0

Austria

Axis 5 90 000 45 000 0 0% 0 0% 0

TOTAL 48 077 854 26 100 000 13 553 955 52% 8 077 057 31% 105

Axis 1 14 777 854 11 500 000 9 671 041 84% 7 372 065 64% 59

Belgium11

Axis 2 8 500 000 3 500 000 137 047 4% 0 0% 3

11 Combined Wallonia and Flanders data as at 1/12/2010

99






No. of projects

Axis 3 17 388 352 7 900 000 3 454 199 44% 624 392 8% 28

Axis 4 4 800 000 1 900 000 0 0% 0 0% 0

Axis 5 2 611 648 1 300 000 291 668 22% 80 600 6% 15

TOTAL 106 679 608 80 009 708 3 859 965 5% 318 285 0% 35

Axis 1 10 667 961 8 000 970 22 743 0% 3 680 0% 2

Axis 2 48 005 824 36 004 371 3 467 119 10% 229 672 1% 13

Axis 3 26 669 902 20 002 426 0 0% 0 0% 0

Axis 4 16 001 941 12 001 456 0 0% 0 0% 0

Bulgaria

Axis 5 5 333 980 4 000 485 370 103 9% 84 933 2% 20

TOTAL 39 448 836 19 724 418 2 653 171 13% 8 697 676 44% 680

Axis 1 4 400 000 2 200 000 2 970 453 135% 1 818 543 83% 645

Axis 2 6 500 000 3 250 000 1 967 716 61% 893 534 27% 28

Axis 3 25 848 836 12 924 418 8 285 849 64% 5 950 707 46% 5

Cyprus12

Axis 4 2 000 000 1 000 000 0 0% 0 0% 0

12 Cyprus has applied for an amendment of the allocation of funds in two of the axis of the Fisheries OP and approval was granted by the EU. Cyprus is now awaiting the reallocation to take place, specifically for an amount of 6 million euro to be reallocated from Axis 3 to Axis 1.

100






No. of projects

Axis 5 700 000 350 000 480 403 137% 34 892 10% 2

TOTAL 36 142 234 27 106 675 15 705 083 58% 7 055 855 26% 473

Axis 1 0 0 0 0% 0 0%

Axis 2 15 902 583 11 926 937 9 867 301 83% 3 322 622 28% 376

Axis 3 18 432 539 13 824 404 5 443 127 39% 3 506 073 25% 86

Axis 4 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0

Czech Republic

Axis 5 1 807 112 1 355 334 394 655 29% 227 160 17% 11

TOTAL 237 650 338 133 675 169 74 939 597 56% 29 000 000 22% 246

Axis 1 53 730 684 40 365 342 33 275 168 82% 19 700 000 49% 68

Axis 2 75 299 048 37 649 524 11 436 242 30% 3 000 000 8% 24

Axis 3 70 330 532 36 515 266 23 744 966 65% 4 700 000 13% 71

Axis 4 24 922 558 12 461 279 5 946 309 48% 1 100 000 9% 82

Denmark

Axis 5 13 367 516 6 683 758 536 913 8% 500 000 7% 1

TOTAL 112 757 386 84 568 039 38 212 107 45% 15 109 695 18% 398

Axis 1 20 352 708 15 264 531 8 319 195 55% 4 736 611 31% 215

Estonia

Axis 2 32 778 572 24 583 929 16 356 881 67% 4 517 343 18% 91

101






No. of projects

Axis 3 28 279 552 21 209 664 8 996 031 42% 4 192 119 20% 29

Axis 4 25 708 684 19 281 513 3 042 372 16% 852 125 4% 56

Axis 5 5 637 870 4 228 402 1 497 628 35% 811 497 19% 7

TOTAL 91 848 827 39 448 827 17 031 179 43% 10 323 468 26% 1 876

Axis 1 7 985 000 3 445 000 1 060 742 31% 656 566 19% 332

Axis 2 39 520 000 16 990 000 7 631 898 45% 4 588 027 27% 453

Axis 3 34 473 827 14 783 827 7 084 282 48% 4 648 113 31% 972

Axis 4 8 412 000 3 606 000 1 001 388 28% 320 023 9% 103

Finland

Axis 5 1 458 000 624 000 252 869 41% 110 739 18% 16

TOTAL 556 847 277 216 053 084 86 958 204 40% 47 519 923 22% 0

Axis 1 178 916 909 65 621 494 46 400 668 71% 34 987 205 53% na

Axis 2 123 768 207 59 029 212 9 210 974 16% 3 431 481 6% na

Axis 3 238 059 127 83 049 416 31 195 112 38% 9 007 219 11% na

Axis 4 11 235 580 5 699 644 8 390 0% 0 0% na

France

Axis 5 4 867 454 2 653 318 143 060 5% 94 018 4% na

102






No. of projects

TOTAL 247 156 680 155 865 417 51 211 171 33% 18 161 200

12% 796

Axis 1 13 283 334 8 145 000 441 987 5% 411 669 5%

46

Axis 2 92 875 634 57 560 225 14 661 696 25% 7 401 826 13%

549

Axis 3 104 109 091 68 687 844 31 816 146 46% 9 836 156 14%

127

Axis 4 33 584 000 19 438 000 3 388 402 17% 346 638 2%

38

Germany

Axis 5 3 304 621 2 034 348 902 940 44% 164 911 8%

36

TOTAL 274 105 143 207 832 237 26 913 127 13% 2 897 838 1% 20

Axis 1 97 767 605 77 272 459 0 0% 0 0% 0

Axis 2 80 661 538 59 689 538 0 0% 0 0% 0

Axis 3 43 676 000 32 320 240 23 655 667 73% 2 831 760 9% 16

Axis 4 45 000 000 33 300 000 0 0% 0 0% 0

Greece

Axis 5 7 000 000 5 250 000 3 257 460 62% 66 078 1% 4

TOTAL 46 840 816 34 850 860 10 337 251 30% 3 535 267 10% 84

Axis 1 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0

Hungary

Axis 2 32 524 903 24 163 925 9 797 579 41% 3 258 308 13% 64

103






No. of projects

Axis 3 11 992 523 8 944 392 0 0% 0 0% 0

Axis 4 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0

Axis 5 2 323 390 1 742 543 539 672 31% 276 959 16% 20

TOTAL 66 355 603 42 266 603 27 861 697 66% 27 453 772 65% 65

Axis 1 46 355 000 34 766 000 27 453 772 79% 27 453 772 79% 46

Axis 2 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0

Axis 3 12 800 000 6 000 000 407 925 7% 0 0% 19

Axis 4 7 200 603 1 500 603 0 0% 0 0% 0

Ireland

Axis 5 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0

TOTAL 848 685 708 424 342 854 69 103 787 16% 24 172 808 6% 5 239

Axis 1 330 987 428 165 493 714 38 801 910 23% 19 603 991 12% 4 762

Axis 2 212 171 426 106 085 713 21 737 888 20% 4 021 040 4% 371

Axis 3 216 414 856 108 207 428 7 512 120 7% 305 797 0% 89

Axis 4 46 677 712 23 338 856 0 0% 0 0% 0

Italy

Axis 5 42 434 286 21 217 143 1 051 869 5% 241 980 1% 17

Latvia TOTAL 166 687 419 125 015 563 61 072 811 49% 32 778 608 26% 683

104






No. of projects

Axis 1 27 814 590 20 860 942 14 347 750 69% 14 277 501 68% 330

Axis 2 61 505 000 46 128 750 30 188 961 65% 11 279 829 24% 193

Axis 3 32 204 000 24 153 000 13 925 041 58% 6 644 819 28% 24

Axis 4 38 548 635 28 911 476 1 344 895 5% 133 064 0% 87

Axis 5 6 615 194 4 961 395 1 266 164 26% 443 395 9% 49

TOTAL 71 256 575 54 713 408 26 001 124 48% 12 209 718 22%

143

Axis 1 16 528 892 13 667 647 4 264 834 31% 4 157 653 30% 62

Axis 2 29 908 007 22 431 005 17 922 996 80% 6 178 178 28% 52

Axis 3 12 332 322 9 249 241 1 350 157 15% 466 995 5% 13

Axis 4 8 925 027 6 693 770 150 666 2% 127 568 2% 10

Lithuania

Axis 5 3 562 327 2 671 745 2 312 471 87% 1 279 324 48% 6

TOTAL 11 163 105 8 372 329 0 0% 0 0% 0

Axis 1 2 900 000 2 175 000 0 0% 0 0% 0

Axis 2 2 347 000 1 760 250 0 0% 0 0% 0

Malta

Axis 3 5 460 105 4 095 079 0 0% 0 0% 0

105






No. of projects

Axis 4 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0

Axis 5 456 000 342 000 0 0% 21 962 6% 0

TOTAL 120 578 417 48 578 417 20 900 000 43% 11 500 000 24% 218

Axis 1 44 613 233 16 913 233 8 700 000 51% 8 500 000 50% 66

Axis 2 17 179 398 7 379 398 3 200 000 43% 900 000 12% 50

Axis 3 44 003 461 16 903 461 7 900 000 47% 1 900 000 11% 90

Axis 4 9 987 125 4 987 125 800 000 16% 100 000 2% 10

Netherlands

Axis 5 4 795 200 2 395 200 300 000 13% 100 000 4% 2

TOTAL 978 790 099 734 092 574 203 547 079 28% 89 721 864 12% 3 776

Axis 1 225 121 723 168 841 292 67 861 005 40% 62 692 216 37% 3 145

Axis 2 195 758 020 146 818 515 77 632 195 53% 12 637 105 9% 540

Axis 3 195 758 020 146 818 515 58 053 879 40% 14 392 543 10% 91

Axis 4 313 212 832 234 909 624 0 0% 0 0% 0

Poland

Axis 5 48 939 504 36 704 628 0 0% 0 0% 0

TOTAL 325 013 154 246 485 249 116 887 164 47% 43 327 090 18% 1 395 Portugal

Axis 1 66 966 211 53 065 134 31 373 314 59% 26 742 059 50% 1 137

106






No. of projects

Axis 2 105 073 320 78 058 495 36 187 014 46% 7 545 051 10% 104

Axis 3 118 585 384 90 026 920 44 134 834 49% 7 521 784 8% 129

Axis 4 23 935 917 17 403 406 2 288 288 13% 168 651 1% 7

Axis 5 10 452 322 7 931 294 2 903 714 37% 1 349 545 17% 18

TOTAL 307 618 942 230 714 207 32 218 077 14% 2 646 243 1% 80

Axis 1 13 300 000 9 975 000 1 209 732 12% 1 190 019 12% 11

Axis 2 140 000 000 105 000 000 27 154 107 26% 278 091 0% 35

Axis 3 40 000 000 30 000 000 0 0% 0 0% 0

Axis 4 100 000 000 75 000 000 1 957 809 3% 1 178 133 2% 25

Romania

Axis 5 14 318 942 10 739 207 1 896 429 18% 0 0% 9

TOTAL 18 922 750 13 688 528 3 417 153 25% 1 570 338 11% 38

Axis 1 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0

Axis 2 14 628 459 10 467 810 2 993 152 29% 1 257 531 12% 31

Axis 3 3 381 723 2 536 292 0 0% 0 0% 0

Slovakia

Axis 4 0 0 0 0% 0 0% 0

107






No. of projects

Axis 5 912 568 684 426 424 001 62% 312 807 46% 7

TOTAL 28 853 712 21 640 283 21 640 283 100% 197 654 1% 18

Axis 1 2 885 372 2 164 029 2 164 029 100% 0 0% 0

Axis 2 10 675 876 7 141 293 8 006 907 112% 5 846 0% 15

Axis 3 10 098 796 7 574 097 7 574 097 100% 31 673 0% 3

Axis 4 2 885 372 2 164 029 2 164 029 100% 0 0% 0

Slovenia

Axis 5 2 308 296 2 596 835 1 731 221 67% 160 135 6% 0

TOTAL 2 115 720 052 1 131 890 907 381 610 723 34% 201 651 692 18% Na

Axis 1 778 357 590 442 907 458 172 689 149 39% 131 920 626 30% Na

Axis 2 633 009 952 322 048 245 107 794 316 33% 31 761 035 10% Na

Axis 3 595 999 162 298 755 660 86 157 136 29% 35 055 364 12% Na

Axis 4 77 747 121 49 212 447 7 110 392 14% 54 900 0% Na

Spain

Axis 5 30 606 227 18 967 097 7 859 730 41% 2 859 767 15% Na

TOTAL 104 774 205 54 664 803 29 557 165 54% 19 206 411 35% 1 195 Sweden

Axis 1 22 777 001 13 666 201 12 129 424 89% 12 030 235 88% 824

108






No. of projects

Axis 2 21 865 922 10 932 961 3 944 506 36% 2 293 619 21% 182

Axis 3 38 265 362 19 132 681 110 06 584 58% 3 932 585 21% 114

Axis 4 16 399 440 8 199 720 686 943 8% 117 803 1% 23

Axis 5 5 466 480 2 733 240 1 677 998 61% 832 169 30% 52

TOTAL 246 888 645 137 827 889 60 031 382 44% 20 974 319 15% 758

Axis 1 73 960 646 39 634 805 10 996 052 28% 4 202 474 11% 383

Axis 2 57 566 891 33 589 711 20 019 777 60% 7 279 822 22% 152

Axis 3 87 882 476 49 620 896 28 583 578 58% 9 114 160 18% 195

Axis 4 21 126 088 11 598 450 0 0% 0 0% 0

UK

Axis 5 6 352 544 3 384 027 431 975 13% 377 863 11% 28

TOTAL 7 219 257 138 4 304 787 366 1 409 607 342 33% 640 638 858 15% 18 636

Axis 1 2 054 449 741 1 215 945 251 494 152 968 41% 382 456 886 31% 12 218

Axis 2 2 068 229 333 1 237 354 125 444 760 818 36% 118 612 037 10% 3 556

Axis 3 2 032 545 948 1 133 285 167 410 280 731 36% 124 662 258 11% 2 101

Axis 4 838 310 635 572 607 398 29 889 883 5% 4 498 904 1% 441

TOTAL

Axis 5 225 721 481 145 595 425 30 522 942 21% 10 408 773 7% 320

109

5.2 Annex 2: Objectives’ tree of EFF

110

111

5.3 Annex 3: List of interviews

EU level Name Organisation Position BEAZ HIDALGO Victoria DG MARE Programme Manager EU policies – Back-up Desk Officer (Spain, Portugal)

FERNANDES Alcino DG MARE Programme Manager EU policies – Desk Officer (Portugal)

DOIGNON Gilles DG MARE Programme Manager EU policies - Desk Officer (France)

ROSARIO Rui DG MARE Programme Manager EU policies - Desk Officer (France/DOM, back-up Portugal)

NICOLAI Lorenzo DG MARE Programme Manager EU policies - (Italy)

GALETTI Fabio DG MARE Programme Manager EU policies - Desk Officer (Italy)

KIITSAK Kristi DG MARE Programme Manager EU policies - Desk Officer (United Kingdom)

O'SHEA Brendan DG MARE Programme Manager EU policies - Desk Officer (Ireland, Peace)

SPYROU Georges DG MARE Programme Manager EU policies - Desk Officer (Greece, Cyprus)

HOEHNKE Alexander DG MARE Programme Manager EU policies - Desk Officer (Slovenia, Malta)

AASKIVI Signe DG MARE Programme Manager EU policies - Desk officer (Estonia, Hungary)

HOSTENS Jan DG MARE Programme Manager EU policies - Desk officer, FIFG Closure (BE,NL, Lux)

MURINA Ilze DG MARE Programme Manager EU policies - Desk officer (Latvia, Sweden)

TUPTOVA Martina DG MARE Programme Manager - EU policies - Desk officer for EFF National Programme (Slovakia, Czech Republic, Denmark)

SWIATKOWSKA Jolanta DG MARE Programme Manager - EU policies - Desk Officer for national programme including operational initiation of payments and Back-up (Poland)

GENZBIGELYTE Ramune

DG MARE Programme Manager - EU policies - Desk officer for EFF National Programme (Lithuania)

AMINKOVA Albena (telephone interview)

DG MARE Programme Manager - EU policies - (Bulgaria)

LOVEN Hannu DG MARE Programme Manager - EU policies - Desk Officer or Back-up for national programme including operational initiation of payments (Finland, Germany, Austria)

TILLIEUT Michel DG MARE Policy Officer, Operational Verificator and Deputy “ordonnateur sub-délégué” for Northern or Baltic Sea and landlocked MS

VEITS Veronika DG MARE Head of Unit C3 : Structural actions :Ireland, Spain, France, Portugal and United Kingdom; Horizontal management of data collection

LEVIEIL Dominique Philippe

DG MARE Deputy Head of Unit C3 - Desk Officer (Spain)

SAMARAS Stephanos DG MARE Head of Unit D3 : Structural actions: Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Romania, Slovenia

GUTIERREZ GONZALEZ Antonio

DG MARE Policy Officer D3: Structural actions: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy Malta, Romania and Slovenia

112

Name Organisation Position NIKOLIAN Frangiscos DG MARE Unit F1 - Ex post Control

SOTO Paul FARNET Team Leader

VAN DE WALLE Gilles FARNET Territorial and thematic coordinators

TOKARSKI Slawomir DG MARE Head of Unit, A3

FALTER Christine DG MARE Policy Officer: Structural Policy and Economic Analysis

LINDEBO Erik DG MARE Economic Analyst; Structural policy and economic analysis

MS Level

Denmark Organism Name Function Date Type of

interview

Authorities Morten Lautrup-Larsen Managing Authority 21/12/2010 Face to face Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries

Anne-Marie Knuth-Winterfeldt

Managing Authority

21/12/2010 Face to face

Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Peter Bonne Rasmussen Audit Authority 21/12/2010 Face to face

Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Marie Mindedal Certifying Authority 21/12/2010 Face to face

Stakeholders Danish Fishermens Association Niels Wichmann Director 20/12/2010 Face to face

Danish Aquaculture Organisation Brian Thomsen Director 20/12/2010 Face to face

Fiskeri LAG Nord Lars Hedegaard Manager 10/01/2011 Face to face

Estonia Organism Name Function Date Type of

interview

Authorities Agricultural Registers and Information Board Mrs. Piret ILVES,

Head of Fisheries Aid Unit

Intermediate Body 14/12/2010 Face to face

Financial Department

Ministry of Agriculture

Mrs. Astra TIKS, head of Financial department

Mrs. Marika ARO, Head of Financial External Financial Resources Bureau

Certifying Authority 15/12/2010 Face to face

Fisheries Economics Department


Mr. Madis REINUP, Head of Department

Managing Authority 14/12/2010

15/12/2010

Face to face

113

Organism Name Function Date Type of interview

Mr. Juhani PAAP, Head of Fishery Development Bureau

Mrs. Jaana PIILPÄRK, Chief specialist

Mrs. Eve KÜLLMALIK,

Councellor (Axis IV)

Internal Audit Department


Mrs. Krista JAKOBSON,

Deputy Head of Internal Audit Department

Audit Authority 14/12/2010 Face to face

Stakeholders Estonian Fishermen’s Association Mr. Mart UNDREST Director 15/12/2010 Face to face

Estonian Association of Fishery Mr. Valdur NOORMÄGI Director 15/12/2010 Face to face

Estonian Fish Farmers Association Mr. Silvar IRVAL President 15/12/2010 Face to face

Estonian Association of Distant-Water Fishing Mr. Mati SAREVET Director 15/12/2010 Face to face

Greece Organism Name Function Date Type of

interview

Authorities Vassiliki Kastani Managing Authority 16/12/2010 Face to face Management Organisation Unit of Development

Programmes S.A. Georgios Giannakopoulos

Managing Authority 16/12/2010 Face to face

Management Organisation Unit of Development Programmes S.A.

Lamprakis Avdelas Intermediate Body 16/12/2010 Face to face

Rural Development & Fisheries Directorate – OPEKEPE

Maria Varela Certifying Authority 16/12/2010 Face to face

EDEL – Programming and Audits Directorate (D56)

Ourania Sachini, Sofia Katsantoni, Maria Fakidou, Eleni Trimmi, Vasiliki Palli, Sevasti Diamantopoulos, Sarrou Konstantinia, Ioannis Mitropoulos

Audit Authority 17/12/2010 Face to face

Spain Organism Name Function Date Type of

interview

Authorities Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino (MARM)

José Luis Gonzalez Serrano

Managing Authority 16/12/2010 Face to face

Intervencion General de Administracion del Maria Angeles Salvador Audit Authority 16/12/2010 Face to face

114

Organism Name Function Date Type of interview

Estado (IGAE)

Consejeria de Agricultura y Pesca – Andalucia Jose Manuel Gaiteiro Intermediate Body 29/12/2010 Face to face

Stakeholders Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Costa Occidental de Huelva “COSTALUZ”

José Ramón Bustelo Estévez

FLAG 29/12/2010 Face to face

GDP Cádiz Estrecho Maria Jose Domínguez Corrales

FLAG 29/12/2010 Face to face

APROMAR – OP 3° (Asociación Empresarial de Productores de Cultivos Marinos)/ ASEMA (Asociación de Empresas de Acuicultura Marina de Andalucía)

Antonio Concepción Toscano

Alfonso Macías Dorado

Aquaculture Sector 29/12/2010 Face to face

115

5.4 Annex 4: Acronyms

Acronym Description AA Audit Authority

CA Certifying Authority

CFP Common Fisheries Policy

EC European Commission

EFF European Fisheries Fund

EQ Evaluation question

FAS Fleet Adaptation Schemes

FEAP Fishing Effort Adjustment Plan

FIFG Financial instruments for fisheries guidance

IB Intermediate Body

MA Managing Authority

MC Monitoring Committee

MCS Management and Control System

MS Member State

NSP National Strategic Plan

OP Operational Plan

EFF-Interim Evaluation En

Documents