T3_CMES_Indicators_OperationalisationPROOFREADED

Fisheries and
Maritime Affairs
FAME Support Unit
Operationalisation
of Common
Indicators
Subgroup ODP
First Draft
January 2016

FAME SU, TASK 3 Operationalisation of Common Indicators/Subgroup ODP, Working Paper,12.01.2016
– i –
Document Title: Operationalisation of Common Indicators/Subgroup ODP
Task 3
Prepared by: GM, CS, AS
Revised by: SU, CS
Linguistic Review:
Date sent to DG MARE: 13.01.2016
DG MARE reviewer(s):
Date sent to FAME:
FAME second reviewer(s):
Linguistic Review:
Date sent to DG MARE:
DG MARE second reviewer(s):
Date sent to FAME:
Status: First Draft
Copyright notice:
© European Union, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Recommended citation: (WORKING VERSION NOT YET TO BE QUOTED)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION – Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
Disclaimer:
The information and views setoutin this reportare those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflectthe official
opinion of the Commission.The Commission does notguarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report.
Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use
which may be made of the information contained therein.
Contact:
FAME Support Unit
Boulevard de la Woluwe 2
B-1150 Brussels
T : +32 2 775 84 44
FAME@fame-emff.eu

– ii –
Table of Contents
1. Background and Objectives.................................................................................1
2. Result Indicator Fiches.........................................................................................2

– iii –
Acronyms
CISE Common Information Sharing Environment
CLLD Community-led Local Development
CMES Common Monitoring and Evaluation System
CFP Common Fisheries Policy
COM European Commission
DCF Data Collection Framework
EBIT Earnings Before Interest and Taxes
EDA European Defence Agency
EEA European Environment Agency
EFSA European Food Safety Authority,
EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency
ERS Electronic Recording and Reporting System
ESIF European Structural & Investment Funds
EUMOFA European Union Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture products
FAME Fisheries and Aquaculture Monitoring & Evaluation
FAME SU FAME Support Unit
FLAG Fisheries Local Action Groups
FTE Full Time Equivalent
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GT Gross Tonnage
GVA Gross Value Added
IB Intermediate Body
IBO Inter-branch Organisation
ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
IMP Integrated Maritime Policy
IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (fishing)
JRC Joint Research Centre
kW Kilowatt
LLC Land-locked countries

– iv –
M&E Monitoring & Evaluation
MA Managing Authority
MPA Marine Protected Area
MS Member State
MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive
ODP Open Data Platform / Portal
OJ Official Journal
OP Operational Programme
PMP Production and Marketing Plan
PO Producers Organisation
STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
TAG Technical Advisory Group
UP Union Priority
VMS Vessel Monitoring System

FAME SU, TASK 3 Operationalisation of Common Indicators/Subgroup ODP, Working Paper,12.01.2016 1
1. Background and Objectives
Like all ESI Funds, the EMFF adopted a reinforced result-orientation approach. This
implies that the “point of departure” of the interventions, the results of the fund and its
interventions are documented and can be demonstrated to all stakeholders and the interested
public.
To achieve this, a Common Monitoring and Evaluation System (CMES) for the EMFF has
been introduced, comprising context, result and output indicators.
The topics of this paper are the Result Indicators and especially the Result Indicators
included in the Open Data Portal1 (https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/)
Result Indicators measure the direct gross effects of the EMFF intervention related to the
Specific Objective (as a first step, where RI may be related to more than one Specific Objective)
and Union Priority concerned. They provide information on changes in the capacity, capability
or performance due to the operations and are measured in absolute or relative terms.
The FAME SU has already developed a Working Paper on the Definitions of all Common
Context, Result and Output Indicators in December 2015. This paper is building on it.
With the present paper, the FAME SU aims to:
 Formulate indicator fiches for Result Indicators included in the Open Data Platform
as a discussion base for the COM and the MS during planned workshops and ;
 Identify weak points in the CMES and propose improvements;
 Simplify and harmonise the collection of indicators at the OP level in order to get
meaningful and comparable numbers from the beneficiaries and
 Assistthe MAs to successfully respond to the monitoring and evaluation obligations
during the OP implementation as defined by the Common Provision Regulation and in
particular ensure consistency and comparability.
NB: The considerations and proposals in this paper are working deliberations of the FAME SU
Thematic Experts. They are neither prescriptive, nor final.
Member States are invited to contribute, comment and object in any possible way.
1
The Open Data Platform also contains a number of Output Indicators. These will not be
discussed here.

2. Result Indicator Fiches
Indicator Nr. RI_UP1.4 (a) and (b)
Indicator Title Change in unwanted catches
Sub-indicators (a) Change in unwanted catches (tonnes)
(b) Change in unwanted catches (%)
Related
Measures2
Art. 38 Limiting the impact of fishing on the marine environment and
adapting fishing to the protection of species (+ art. 44.1.c Inland fishing)
Potential
Beneficiaries
Owners of active3 Union fishing vessels, active fishermen who own the gear
to be replaced, or organisations of fishermen recognised by the Member
State.
Challenges of
the indicator
 What is included under unwanted catches (i.e. catches of species
subject to the landing obligation) depends on discard plans adopted
by region and by fisheries on a fleet segment basis for a period of 3
years. New discard plans adopted after expiration of the previous
one may change the scope of unwanted catches;
 In order to be meaningful, measures of changes should be based on
comparable units of activity: similar period of time, similar fishing
fleet segments and a similar number of vessels, where the EMFF
intervention concerns a group of vessels. This is particularly
important for absolute values (sub-indicator a);
 According to our understanding of Commission’s guidance note,
records of unwanted catches may include deductions allowed by
flexibility mechanisms introduced under art. 15 of CFP basic
regulation. However, quota flexibility mechanisms may be
managed on a fleet basis by the Member State, which is beyond
beneficiaries scope of intervention;
 Decrease over time of de minimis exemptions and how they are
implemented by Member States may have a potential impact on
amounts of unwanted catches and therefore may influence result
indicators.
Expected from
the beneficiary
 For vessels of 10 m or more, the Control Regulation details the
information to be recorded and submitted to authorities concerning
unwanted catches. Information can be extracted from logbook
records.
 For vessels of less than 12 m, information available depends on
how MSs implement monitoring systems of this part of the fleet. In
2
In this section only the Measures will be listed that are relevant to the Result Indicator AND are
included in the Intervention Logic table. The latter is usually longer. For example Result
Indicator 1.4 “Change in unwanted catches” is included under Specific Objective 1. There
the Measures of Art.37, Art.38, Art.39, Art.40.1.a and Art.43.2 are included; however only
Art.38 (and by analogy Art. 44.1.c) is considered to be relevant. It should be noted that in
Re.1243/2014, Annex 1 Database Structure, Part E it is stated that in Field 22 Result
Indicators related to the operation are to be entered. Hence a beneficiary of a measure will
not consider all result indicators relevant, even if formally the measures are subordinated to
Specific Objectives linked to the respective Result Indicators.
3
Active : Fishermen that have carried out fishing activities at sea of at least 60 days during the
two calendar years preceding the date of submission of the application for support

case there are no specific obligations on recording of unwanted
catches, only estimates from beneficiaries may be available.
Suggestions for
simplification
 Eliminate quota flexibility mechanisms from scope of indicator.
Calculation The calculation is simple for sub-indicator a) but can be more demanding
for sub-indicator b) since it requires the calculation of two data series
(volume of unwanted catches and total catches).
Concerning ex-ante definition of the target, the MA must operate based on
a typology of actions financed under the operations financed in order to
establish standard change coefficients.
It is also important that the correct sign is used (i.e “-“ or “minus”).
It is suggested that the OPs contain the absolute values (see example on fuel
efficiency).
Indicator Nr. RI_UP1.5
Indicator Title Change in fuel efficiency of fish capture (in litres of fuel/tonnes landed
catch)
Sub-indicators None
Related
Measures
(Reg.508/2014)
The Result Indicator is linked to Specific Objective 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 with a large
number of Measures, but not to Specific Objective 1.5 with the related
measures:
Article 26 Innovation (+ art. 44.3 Inland fishing)
Article 41.1.a, b, c Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change – on
board investments; energy efficiency audits and schemes; studies to assess
the contribution of alternative propulsion systems and hull designs.
Article 41.2 Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change -
Replacement or modernisation of main or auxiliary engines (+ art. 44.1.d
Inland fishing).
As it would be relevant for these measures, some MS have created their own
indicators with the same contents. However, we recommend using the
method of operationalisation for the Common Result Indicator.
Potential
Beneficiaries
Beneficiaries of the measures, to which the Result indicator has been
associated in SFC2014 (via their specific objective), and for which indicator
values therefore have to be collected, are: fishermen and their recognised
organisations (including producer organisations), owners and operators of
vessels, scientific or technical public law bodies, Advisory Councils,
fishermen or organisations of fishermen which are recognised by the
Member State, or by non-governmental organisations in partnership with
organisations of fishermen or in partnership with FLAGs, Operators and
owners of fishing ports, landing sites, auction halls and shelters.
In practice the indicator can be collected only from fishermen/owners and
operators of commercial fishing vessels.
Challenges of
the indicator
 With the landing obligation, the definition of this indicator being ‘the
ratio between the quantity of energy consumed (expressed in litres of
fuel) and the quantity of output (expressed in tonnes of live weight of
landings for human consumption), it’s important to ensure that

beneficiary catches for human consumption are recorded separately
from catches destined for fish meal, pot bait, pet food or other non-
human consumption uses.
 In practice, the use of fuel per landed catch in many fisheries often
fluctuates significantly between the years, depending e.g. on the
abundance and actual location of fish stocks in a certain year, climatic
conditions, etc.
 The indicator is complex; it implies that the numerator decreases due
to the EMFF intervention, while the denominator remains constant.
This is not the case; hence, a change in the indicator might be
irrelevant to the EMFF intervention because of “uncontrollable”
change in the denominator.
 Beneficiaries must be provided with the indicator before and after
EMFF support. This might cause difficulties when the expense for fuel
is recorded but not with the exact amount in litres, especially as the
EUR/litre conversion factor is volatile. However, in such cases average
yearly prices for fuel should be readily available from fuel suppliers or
vessel operators. Also, in some MS, vessel fuel is provided in mass
and not volume units for bigger vessels (tonnes instead of litres),
therefore, the conversion factor of app. 1lt=0,82 kg applies.
Expected from
the beneficiary
To be able to provide data on fuel use in litres and tonnes of catch landed
(for human consumption only i.e. separate from any catches for non-human
consumption), both before and after EMFF support
Suggestions for
simplification
None
Calculation The calculation is simple at the single beneficiary level, dividing the total
litres of fuel used by the total catch in tonnes.
Care should be taken that: (i) both variables are for the same time periods
e.g. annual totals, (ii) that live weight catch volumes are used, and that (iii)
catches for human only consumption are used in the calculation.
While the EMFF Regulation does not explicitly require it, it is necessary at
the OP level to collect the absolute number of litres of fuel and tonnes of
fish and then calculate the ratio of the sums.
Since fish catch and fuel use/cost is collected by fleet segments under the
DCF, consideration can be given to keeping the data by DCF-recognised
fleet segments to compare them with the context indicator and DCF data,
and to compare beneficiaries with non-beneficiaries from the same fleet
segment.4 The target value can be provided as an OP aggregate, however.
It is also important that the correct sign is used (i.e “-“ or “minus”).
It is suggested that the OPs contain the absolute values.
For example, the target is to increase fuel efficiency per tonnes landed catch
for human consumption.
Let’s assume that the baseline for the result indicator is 500 litres of fuel /
tonnes landed catch for human consumption. The target is 400 litres of fuel/
4
Note: This result indicator relates only to the change in fuel efficiency, so only the change
can be compared to values recorded by DCF, no absolute values.

tonnes landed catch for human consumption, i.e. a reduction of 100 litres of
fuel/ tonnes landed catch for human consumption.
Formally, the “Change in fuel efficiency of fish capture (in litres of
fuel/tonnes landed catch)” equals |-100|.
Indicator Nr. RI_UP 1.6
Indicator Title Change in the % of unbalanced fleets (According to starting values
estimates in the EMFF OPs)
Sub-indicators None
Related
Measure
(Reg.508/2014)
Art. 34 Permanent cessation of fishing activities
Art. 36 Support to systems of allocation of fishing opportunities
Potential
Beneficiaries
Owners of Union fishing vessels or fishermen (Art. 34).
Public authorities, legal or natural persons or organisations of fishermen
recognised by the Member State, including recognised producer
organisations involved in the collective management of the systems for
allocating fishing opportunities.
Challenges of
the indicator
The indicator is based on the findings of national reports covering the
balance between the fishing capacity of their fleets and fishing opportunities
that MS have to submit to COM every year (according to Article 22 (2) of
Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013).
In these reports, MS have to assess if the individual segments of their fleet
are balanced. This has to be undertaken in accordance with the “Guidelines
for the analysis of the balance between fishing capacity and fishing
opportunities, according to Art 22 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the
European Parliament and the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy”
(COM(2014) 545 final of 2.9.2014). For this purpose, MS should use a
number of complex indicators:
 two biological indicators: a) Sustainable Harvest Indicator and b)
Stocks-at-risk Indicator
 two economic indicators: a) Return on Investment (ROI) vs next best
alternative and b) Ratio between current revenue and break-even
revenue
 two vessel-use indicators: a) Inactive Fleet Indicator b) Vessel
utilisation Indicator.
These indicators have to be considered jointly for the assessment of the
balance of a fleet segment, and there are no fixed methods on how the
individual indictors are considered or weighted in this assessment. STECF
explains that “assessing whether a fleet segment is in or out of balance with
fishing opportunities is not simply a technical or scientific issue. Such an
assessment also requires consideration of the social and economic aspects
and objectives of the fishery management policy. Furthermore, judging
whether a fleet segment is in or out of balance with the available fishing

opportunities is ultimately a judgement for the Commission and the Member
State concerned.”5
For many fleet segments, the challenge is that data are missing and the
indicators cannot be calculated. Also, some of the indicators are marked by
theoretical and practical problems (see STECF-15-02).
In addition to that, the RI refers to the starting values estimate in the OPs
(footnote 13 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1014/2014) as
a reference point. It does not refer to the year before the operation, as the %
of unbalanced fleets may fluctuate considerably, and these data may have
changed significantly before the operation has even started. Also, no
assessment of the starting value had been requested in the OPs (only Context
Indicator 5 (a) sustainable harvest indicator and 5 (b) stocks-at-risk
indicator, which, however, do not give any overall estimate on the
percentage of unbalanced fleets).
Another problem is that RI_UP 1.6 refers to the MS fleet as a whole. It
cannot be attributed to individual operations; if there are a number of
operations under Art. 34 and/or 36 in one year, it is difficult to attribute a
share of the indicator value to each operation.
Finally, to reduce the share of unbalanced fleets is a very important
objective of the CFP. However, the influence of Art. 34 (under which
support may be granted only until 31 December 2017) and Art. 36-
operations on the overall % of unbalanced fleet segments of a MS will in
most cases be relatively small as compared to other factors (other EMFF
interventions, decisions of fisheries management, general economic
developments, natural fluctuations, developments in the availability of data,
etc.).
Alternative solution: According to Art. 34.1.b, permanent cessation may
only be supported under an action plan and for vessels of a fleet segment
that is not effectively balanced with the fishing opportunities available to
that segment. Equally, systems for the allocation of fishing opportunities
often relate to a certain segment. If the indicator is linked to a progress in
the specific fleet segment concerned by the operation (i.e. a comparison of
the situation before and after the operation is done), the causal chain
between operation and result indicator would be much stronger.
Expected from
the beneficiary
The calculation cannot be undertaken by the beneficiaries. As explained
above, the assessment has to be made by the MS or the COM, based on
scientific advice and considering the six indicators for balance of the fishing
fleet for every segment (as far as data are available) as well as other factors.
5
STECF: Assessment of balance indicators for key fleet segments and review of national
reports on Member States efforts to achieve balance between fleet capacity and fishing
opportunities (STECF-15-02). 2015, p.12

Suggestions for
simplification
See alternative solutions above
Calculation The calculation is simple if
 a starting value is available (in the OP or anywhere else)
 there is a clear assessment of the state of balance of the individual
segments of the national fleet in the MS annual fleet reports.
The indicator should be calculated as:
(number of unbalanced fleet segments in reference period / number of all
fleet segments for which assessments are available for the reference period)
–
(number of unbalanced fleet segments after implementation of the operation
/ number of all fleet segments for which assessments have been made for
the relevant period after implementation of the operation).
It shall be expressed in percentage points.
Indicator Title Employment created (FTE) in the fisheries sector or complementary
activities
Sub-indicators None
Related
Measures
(Reg.508/2014)
Art. 30 Diversification and new forms of income (+ art. 44.4 Inland fishing)
Art. 31 Start-up support for young fishermen (+ art. 44.2 Inland fishing)
Article 42 Added value, product quality and use of unwanted catches (+ art.
44.1.e Inland fishing)
Article 43.1 + 3 Fishing ports, landing sites, auction halls and shelters -
investments improving fishing port and auctions halls infrastructure or
landing sites and shelters; construction of shelters to improve safety of
fishermen (+ art. 44.1.f Inland fishing)
Article 29.1 + 29.2 Promoting human capital and social dialogue - training,
networking, social dialogue; support to spouses and life partners (+ art.
44.1.a Inland fishing)
Article 29.3 Promoting human capital and social dialogue – trainees on
board of SSCF vessels / social dialogue (+ art. 44.1.a Inland fishing)
Potential
Beneficiaries
Owners of Union fishing vessels, or active fishermen, or organisations of
fishermen recognised by the Member State.
Challenges of
the indicator
 The indicator measures the gross increase of employment expressed
in number of new jobs (FTE) “due to the EMFF intervention”.
 “Gross increase” means that not all new jobs created at the
beneficiary enterprise are necessarily and/or exclusively attributable
to the EMFF intervention (since the creation of jobs is influenced by
several exogenous factors, like economic trends, other structural aid,
and the general socio-economic situation of the region).
 They are expressed in full-time equivalent (FTE) based on the
national reference level for FTE working hours. There are variations
among the MS regarding the number of annual working hours, but
this should not be a problem since an FTE must be considered in its
national context.

 There is a difference of effect between
Art.30/Art.31/Art.42/Art.43.1+3 (the effect is more direct) and
Art.29.1/29.3 (the effect is more indirect and distant).
 New jobs might be compensated by “old” jobs lost; here the
assumption is not to offset them implying that new jobs are of
“higher quality” than “old” jobs.
Expected from
the beneficiary
The beneficiary should be able to record the baseline of employment and
indicate additional new jobs (FTE) at project finalisation i.e. jobs related to
individuals being newly employed to the enterprise.
Suggestions for
simplification
Consider only gross effect without any indication of durability, quality etc.
For Art.29.1/29.3 consider also trainees with remuneration as “new jobs”.
Calculation Sum of persons newly employed multiplied by their FTE coefficient.
Indicator Title Employment maintained (FTE) in the fisheries sector or
complementary activities
Sub-indicators None
Related
Measures
(Reg.508/2014)
As in RI_UP1.7
Potential
Beneficiaries
As in RI_UP1.7
Challenges of
the indicator
Similar to RI_UP1.7
The main assumption here is that ALL jobs in fisheries sector or
complementary activities are at risk and were likely to be lost without EMFF
intervention.
Expected from
the beneficiary
The beneficiary should be able to calculate the balance of employment
before and after employment excluding new jobs created.
Suggestions for
simplification
;
Assume absolute additionality;
Assume that all jobs are at risk.
Calculation Difference between employment (FTE) before and after the operation,
excluding new jobs.

Indicator Nr. CI_UP1.9
Indicator Title RI_UP1.9 Change in the work-related injuries and accidents
Sub-indicators (a) Change in the number of work-related injuries and accidents
(b) Change in the % of work-related injuries and accidents in relation to
total fishers
Related
Measures
(Reg.508/2014)
Art. 32 Health and Safety and Art. 29 Promotion of human capital, job
creation and social dialogue
Potential
Beneficiaries
Fishermen, Member State/national health services, civil society.
Challenges of
the indicator
 The measures as defined in the Regulation 508/2014 are not directly
linked with the number of injuries and accidents. In fact, these are
related to a number of factors such as the modernization of the fleet,
safe working procedures, new technologies.
 The percentage of injuries and accidents is rather small compared to
the total number of fishers.
 The measurement of the result cannot be linked to a base line (number
of injuries or accidents) at least at a beneficiary level and is not
directly related to it. Eventually, collinearities exist but the direct
causal change is weak.
 Work-related injuries and accidents cannot be less than zero. If a “safe
beneficiary” with zero accidents invests in technical changes of the
vessel, directly related to safety improvement or in “training on safe
working procedures of the crew member/s”, then the number of
accidents remains zero. In that case the OP achieves its objectives
although the indicators illustrate stagnation. Theoretically, the MA
could decide to channel funds to “dangerous” vessels to affect a
change in the indicator.
 Last but not least, the topic has heavy “grey areas”, especially in small
scale fisheries, since only registered injuries and accidents are counted;
one assumes that all accidents are reported.
Expected from
the beneficiary
The beneficiary has to provide data on sub-indicator a) registered injuries
and accidents at an annual base compared to the baseline.
Sub-indicator b) has to be calculated by the MA based on a) and statistical
data.
Suggestions for
simplification
None (Usually registered injuries and accidents are categorised using e.g.
body zones (extremities, internal), severity and type of intrusion (acute or
repetitive strain). Due to the weak causal chain described above, the
collection of the number of incidents should be divided in two main
categories, injuries (gross) and casualties).
Calculation The calculation for sub-indicator a) is simple, both at the single beneficiary
level and at the OP level; it is a simple aggregation of absolute value.
The calculation for sub-indicator b) is the ratio of the aggregate of a) divided
by the total number of fishers in the MS.

Indicator Title Change in the coverage of marine protected areas (MPAs) relevant for
UP 1
Sub-indicators (a) Change in the coverage of Natura 2000 areas designated under the Birds
and Habitats directives (km 2 )
(b) Change in the coverage of other spatial protection measures under
Article 13.4 of Directive 2008/56/EC (km 2 )
Related
Measures
(Reg.508/2014)
Art. 40.1.b-g, i Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity –
contribution to better management, conservation, construction, installation
or modernisation of static or movable facilities, preparation of protection
and management plans related to NATURA2000 sites. Furthermore, spatial
protected areas, management, restoration and monitoring marine protected
areas, including NATURA 2000 sites, environmental awareness,
participation in other actions aimed at maintaining and enhancing
biodiversity and ecosystem services (+ art. 44.6 Inland fishing)
Potential
Beneficiaries
Scientific public law bodies, Advisory Councils, MPA Managing Bodies,
fishermen or organisations of fishermen which are recognised by the
Member State, or by non-governmental organisations in partnership with
organisations of fishermen or in partnership with FLAGs.
Challenges of
the indicator
While the corresponding Context Indicator is pretty forward, the Result
Indicator has a weak causal chain to the measure:
 the EMFF regulation does not mention an enlargement of Natura
2000 areas as an eligible activity;
 A designation of Natura 2000 areas is at the domain of the Ministry
of Environment and not to the State Authorities responsible for
fisheries (and in practice possibly in a certain conflict with the
fisheries sector and fisheries administration);
 There is limited motivation for EMFF to finance the designation of
Natura 2000 areas.
EMFF could, however, finance the management of such areas (studies,
drawing-up, monitoring and updating of protection and management plans
for fishery-related activities relating to existing NATURA 2000), where this
this is required to ensure a compatibility between fisheries and Natura 2000
protection purposes.
Hence the questions for the indicator are:
 Would there be any change in what the indicator is measuring?
AND
 Would the change be attributable to an EMFF intervention?
The answer to the first question is “we do not know” and to the second is
“probably not”.
Expected from
the beneficiary
It is assumed that beneficiaries are experienced enough to capture the spatial
extent of their measures.
Attention should be given to the correct handling of the measurement unit
(km2) and the necessary transformation from other spatial units (hectare or
acre or other).
Suggestions for
simplification
 It is recommended to interpret the “Change in the coverage” of the
Regulation in matters of a “Change in better coverage” unless the

MS is sure that there will be change in the extent BECAUSE of the
EMFF.
 For NATURA 2000, refer only to Marine Areas in case Art. 44.6
Inland fishing is not included in the OP. In case art. 44.6 Inland
fishing is included, specific inland areas should be also considered;
 MPA should be counted only once, even if a beneficiary is
included more than one time;
 MPA should be considered as a whole, i.e. the entire area should
be included (as defined in the constituting decree of the area)
regardless of the specific extent of a measure. An operation has to
have its operational location within the area.
Calculation The calculation is simple; adding up the single areas. The two issues to pay
attention to are:
 Double counting and
 Correct measurement unit.

Indicator Title Volume of production organic aquaculture (tonnes)
Sub-indicators None
Related
Measure
(Reg.508/2014)
Art. 53 Conversion to eco-management and audit schemes and organic
aquaculture
Art. 48 Productive investments in aquaculture
Potential
Beneficiaries
Aquaculture enterprises
Challenges of
the indicator
Organic aquaculture (within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No
834/2007 and in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No
710/2009) is a relatively new field of organic production compared to
organic agriculture. The rules implemented by the EU have only applied
since 1 July 2010. Given consumers’ growing interest in organic
aquaculture products, further growth in the conversion of aquaculture units
to organic production is likely. Data available from Eurostat are quite
limited, with 14 MS providing replies in 2014.
Two ongoing developments might affect this result indicator:
1. The Commission has adopted a proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on organic production and labelling of
organic products, amending Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX of the
European Parliament and of the Council [Official controls Regulation] and
repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 24.3.2014. The proposal
aims to improve the legislation on organic production.
2. ORAQUA Project (FP7): The overall vision of the ORAQUA project is
the economic growth of the organic aquaculture sector in Europe, supported
by science based regulations in line with organic principles and consumer
confidence. The EU legislation currently under review is also being
addressed by the ORAQUA project.
On Art. 53: According to Article 18.2 of the EMFF Regulation, Member
States shall detail the method of calculation of additional costs and income
already within the Operational Programme. Article 96 of the EMFF
Regulation provides that "Where aid is granted on the basis of additional
costs or income foregone, Member States shall ensure that the relevant
calculations are adequate, accurate and established in advance on the basis
of a fair, equitable and verifiable calculation."
The Commission released a guidance (Guidance 2014/5-last updated on 3
March 2015) on the “Calculation of additional cost and income forgone”
which is available on the website of DG MARE under the documents of the
EMFF expert group. MS are strongly advised to get familiar with the content
of this document before implementing the measure. The guidance helps to
clarify the terms “additional costs and income forgone”.
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/legislation/doc/2015-03-10-
additional-costs_en.pdf
Expected from
the beneficiary
Beneficiaries have to comply with the requirements of organic production
for a minimum of five years.
Under Art. 53, beneficiaries have to respect the conversion period. At the
earliest, the conversion period shall start when the farmer has notified his
activity to the competent authorities and subjected his holding to the control

system in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. Animals
and animal products produced during the conversion period referred to in
subparagraph (c) of Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007
shall not be marketed with the indications referred to in Articles 23 and 24
used in the labelling and advertising of products. Therefore organic
production can only be included into the EMFF database (and the result
indicator affected) after the conversion is finalised.
(tonnes).
Suggestions for
simplification
Not needed.
Calculation The calculation is simple:
Total volume means the total tonnes of organic production for human
consumption.

Operationalisation Fiche
Indicator Title Volume of production in recirculation system (tonnes) (under ODP:
low impact aquaculture)
Sub-indicators None
Related
Measure
(Reg.508/2014)
Art. 48 Productive investments in aquaculture
Potential
Beneficiaries
Challenges of
the indicator
Neither the CFP nor the EMFF regulations give the definition of
recirculation aquaculture. For the moment, several different definitions are
used in the aquaculture sector. Therefore, when this result indicator is
calculated, the definition given in the Eurostat Regulation (REGULATION
(EC) No 762/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL of 9 July 2008 on the submission by Member States of statistics
on aquaculture and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 788/96) should
be used.
Expected from
the beneficiary
(tonnes). The beneficiary should be informed about the definition that is
used for recirculation aquaculture.
Suggestions for
simplification
Not needed.
Calculation The calculation is simple:
Total volume means the total tonnes of production for human consumption
originated from recirculation aquaculture.

Operationalisation Fiche
Indicator Title Aquaculture farms providing environmental services (number of
farms)
Sub-indicators None
Related
Measure
Art. 54 Aquaculture providing environmental services
Potential
Beneficiaries
Art. 54 1 (c) refers only to beneficiaries who commit themselves for a
minimum period of five years to aqua-environmental requirements that go
beyond the mere application of Union and national law.
Challenges of
the indicator
The indicator itself does not mean big challenges, but operations related to
(a) and (c) of paragraph 54 need special attention from the MS because of
the following:
Support under point (a) and (c) of paragraph 1 of Art. 54 shall take the form
of annual compensation for the additional costs incurred and/or the income
forgone. According to Article 18.2 of the EMFF Regulation, Member States
shall detail the method of calculation of additional costs and income
foregone already within the Operational Programme.
The Commission released a guidance (Guidance 2014/5-last updated on 3
March 2015) on the “Calculation of additional cost and income forgone”
which is available on the website of DG MARE under the documents of the
EMFF expert group. MS are strongly advised to get familiar with the content
of this document before implementing the measure. The guidance helps to
clarify the terms “additional costs and income forgone”.
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/legislation/doc/2015-03-10-
additional-costs_en.pdf
The environmental benefits of the operation should be proved in a prior
assessment by a competent body, which means that differences in the
assessment of these benefits and in the approvable operations can occur at
MS level.
It is important to mention that for one MS, the indicator was applied as
specific indicator only because the measurement unit differs from the one
set in the regulation: instead of number of farms, the MS set the target value
in hectare. It highlights that attention should be given to the correct handling
of the measurement unit (number of farms).
Expected from
the beneficiary
Art. 54 1 (c) requires a minimum of 5 years commitment.
Suggestions for
simplification
Not needed.
Calculation The calculation (of the result indicator) is simple:
Number of farms which receive support under art. 54 of EMFF.
Indicator Title Employment created (FTE)
Sub-indicators None

Related
Measures
(Reg.508/2014)
Art. 50 Promoting human capital and networking
Potential
Beneficiaries
Aquaculture enterprises, professional organisations and other stakeholders,
including scientific and technical bodies or those promoting equal
opportunities between men and women, other public or semi-public
organisations and spouses or life partners of self-employed aquaculture
farmers.
Challenges of
the indicator
Similar to RI_UP1.7
The main difference lies in the fact that Art.50 actions can only have an
indirect effect on employment. Hence, there might be time lag until the
effect materialises; possibly after the operation finalisation.
Some MS have used the indicator as a Programme Specific Result Indicator
under Specific Objective 2, in relation to Art.48 Productive Investments in
Aquaculture, where such an employment effect might be more direct and
immediate.
Expected from
the beneficiary
The beneficiary should be able to record the baseline of employment and
indicate additional new jobs (FTE) at project finalisation, i.e. jobs related to
individuals being newly employed to the enterprise.
Suggestions for
simplification

Indicator Title Employment maintained (FTE)
Sub-indicators None
Related
Measures
(Reg.508/2014)
Article 50 Promoting human capital and networking
Potential
Beneficiaries
Aquaculture enterprises, professional organisations and other stakeholders,
including scientific and technical bodies or those promoting equal
opportunities between men and women, other public or semi-public
organisations and spouses or life partners of self-employed aquaculture
farmers.
Challenges of
the indicator
Similar to RI_UP1.8 and RI_UP2.8
The main assumption here is that, in contrast to UP1 not ALL jobs are at
risk, since in many cases aquaculture is a growing sector on an industrial
scale.
Hence, there might be two approaches in defining which jobs are at risk:
 Either jobs (including self-employment) of smaller, family-owned
aquaculture units or a similar universal criterion or
 For those types of aquaculture mentioned in the National Multi-
annual Aquaculture Plans (e.g. in the cases where extensive, less
capital-intensive aquaculture is promoted).
Expected from
the beneficiary
The beneficiary should be able to calculate the balance of employment
before and after employment excluding new jobs created.
Suggestions for
simplification
;
Assume absolute additionality.
Calculation Difference between employment (FTE) before and after the operation
excluding new jobs.
Indicator Title Employment created (FTE)
Sub-indicators None
Related
Measures
(Reg.508/2014)
Art. 62.1.a Preparatory support
Art. 63 Implementation of local development strategies (incl. running costs
and animation)
Art. 64 Cooperation activities
Potential
Beneficiaries
FLAG and related partners and stakeholders
Challenges of
the indicator
Mutatis mutandis the same applies as for the employment created indicators
under UP1 and UP2.
The guiding document for deciding whether a new job is attributed to the
EMFF intervention is the Local Development Strategy (LDS) and the
involvement of the enterprise or individual creating the job in the FLAG
activities.
The criteria to be applied can be either:

 Territorial (the territory of the LDS or a section thereof)
 Sectoral (based on sectors mentioned in the LDS as having
expansion potential)
 Or a combination of the above.
Expected from
the beneficiary
It is expected that the FLAG would be the main deliverer of information.
The information should be extracted from the Application Form used. The
beneficiaries of support actions under Art.63 should be able to record the
baseline of employment and indicate additional new jobs (FTE) at project
finalisation i.e. jobs related to individuals being newly employed to the
enterprise.
Suggestions for
simplification
Self-employed jobs to be considered as 1 FTE.
Indicator Title Employment maintained (FTE)
Sub-indicators None
Related
Measures
(Reg.508/2014)
and animation)
Potential
Beneficiaries
Challenges of
the indicator
As for RI_UP4.1
Expected from
the beneficiary
The information should be extracted from the Application Form used. The
beneficiaries of support actions under Art.63 should be able to calculate the
balance of employment before and after employment excluding new jobs
created.
Suggestions for
simplification
Self-employed jobs to be considered as 1 FTE.
Calculation Difference between employment (FTE) before and after the operation
excluding new jobs.
Indicator Title Business created (number)
Sub-indicators None
Related
Measures
(Reg.508/2014)
and animation)
Potential
Beneficiaries
Challenges of
the indicator
Similar to UP4.1
Business refers to

 any kind of organised and registered commercial activity where
goods and services are exchanged for one another or for money
 that did not exist before and
 that are created directly due to the EMFF intervention, through the
involvement of the enterprise or individual, creating the new
business in the FLAG activities.
Expected from
the beneficiary
The information might not be available in the Application Forms.
Suggestions for
simplification
Consider only gross effect without any indication of durability, quality,
turnover etc.
Self-employed jobs should not be considered if counted under RI_UP4.1
Calculation

T3_CMES_Indicators_OperationalisationPROOFREADED

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to T3_CMES_Indicators_OperationalisationPROOFREADED

Similar to T3_CMES_Indicators_OperationalisationPROOFREADED (20)

T3_CMES_Indicators_OperationalisationPROOFREADED