EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 30.1.2024

SWD(2024) 22 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EVALUATION

Accompanying the document

Recommendation for a

COUNCIL DECISION

authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the European Union for a new Implementing Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire

{COM(2024) 48 final} - {SWD(2024) 25 final}

Table of contents

1.Introduction

Purpose and scope of the evaluation    

2.What was the expected outcome of the intervention?

2.1    Description of the intervention and its objectives    

2.1.1    Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs)    

2.1.2    Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire    

2.2    Point(s) of comparison    

3.How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period?

3.1.    Utilisation of fishing opportunities    

3.2.    Catches    

3.3.    Scientific Cooperation    

3.4.    Technical Measures    

3.4.1.    Monitoring, control and surveillance    

3.4.2.    Embarkation of seamen    

3.4.3.    Observers    

3.5.    Sectoral support    

3.6.    Monitoring of sectoral support    

3.7.    Financial aspects:    

4.Evaluation findings (analytical part)

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

4.2.How did the EU intervention make a difference?

4.3.Is the intervention still relevant?

5.What are the conclusions and lessons learned?

5.1.Conclusions

5.2.Lessons learned

6.Ex-ante evaluation

6.1.Problem analysis and needs assessment

6.2.Current and future needs of Côte d’Ivoire

6.3.Current and future needs of the EU

6.4.Current and future needs of Côte d’Ivoire and the EU together

6.5.Current and future needs of the EU fleet

6.6.EU added value

6.7.Policy and management objectives

6.8.Policy options, including associated risks

6.9.Results and impacts

6.9.1.Environmental

6.9.2.Economic impacts

6.9.3.Social impacts

6.10.Preferred option

6.11.Monitoring of a future implementing Protocol

Annex I: Procedural Information

Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used

Annex III. Evaluation matrix

1    Effectiveness – The extent to which the objectives of the Implementing Protocol to the Agreement were achieved    

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

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

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

5    Coherence – The extent to which the Agreement and its Protocol do not contradict and is coherent other interventions with similar objectives    

6    The EU added value – The extent to which the intervention brings EU added value    

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

Annex IV. Overview of benefits and costs

Annex V. Stakeholders consultation - Synopsis report

Glossary

Purpose and scope of the evaluation

The evaluation’s purpose is determined by the following legislations:

-Article 31(10) of the Common fishery policy Regulation5 requires the European Commission to arrange for ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of each implementing protocol to a Sustainable Fishery partnership Agreement (SFPA) before it submits to the Council of the EU a recommendation to authorise the opening of negotiations for a successor protocol.

-Article 34 of the Financial Regulation 1 , requires Commission Services to undertake both ex-ante and ex-post evaluations for all programmes and activities which entail significant spending.

These evaluations aim to inform decision makers before adopting a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations on behalf of the EU.

These evaluations should serve demonstrating how financial instruments have been effective for the achievement of the policy objectives of the Union, based on performance review, analysis of relevance and of added value of Union involvement.

Policy objectives pursued by Union with the SFPA instrument are defined in section 2.1.

The evaluation draws upon an external ex post and ex ante evaluation study of the current implementing Protocol 2018-2024, performed by an external consultant through a specific contract, whose final report is published on the EU bookshop 2 .

The ex-post evaluation study covers the period of application of the current implementing Protocol of the Agreement, starting from 1st August 2018 to May 2023 (while the protocol expires in August 2024). The geographical scope is Côte d’Ivoire and concerned Member States are France, Spain and Portugal (as per the fishing opportunities allocation 3 ).  

The evaluation covers the 5 criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value, as well as economy (together with efficiency) and acceptability, through specific questions and suggested indicators for each criteria.

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

Two policy scenarios are considered in the ex ante evaluation study:

·A renegotiation of the current implementing Protocol for the Agreement (statu quo with some adaptations if needed);

·No negotiation of a successor implementing protocol for the Agreement.

Methodology of the evaluation

The results of this SWD are mainly informed by an evaluation study conducted by an external consultant. This evaluation study took place from February to September 2023 under the guidance of an interservice group established by different services of the European Commission and within the framework of the terms of reference of specific contract number 3 under the framework contract MARE/2021/OP/0001.

The study’s methodology is an information and data gathering from literature, Commission data base, targeted questionnaires and semi directed interviews of a limited number of stakeholders (fishing operators, fish processors, fishery authorities in EU Member States and Partner Third country, Civil society representatives 4 ), synthesis of their satisfaction or dissatisfaction on the implementation of the Protocol, and a standardised economic analysis establishing the repartition of the generated economic added value. EU stakeholders were consulted between March and May 2023. Côte d’Ivoire stakeholders were consulted during the consultant’s field mission to Abidjan. See details in Annex II.

The methodology is deemed to be reasonably robust. Its limitations are related to the time constraint for the evaluation, the incomplete period of the initiative submitted to the evaluation (given the target date for the study’s final report, nearly one year of the implementation period is not covered), the lack of available reliable official data in third country statistics, or within operators due to commercial secret.

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives

2.1.1    Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs)

1The Common Fishery Policy (CFP) 5 provides that the Commission negotiates and implements Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs) with third countries to create a legal, environmental economic and social governance framework for fishing activities carried out by Union fishing vessels in third country waters 6 .

2Union fishing activities outside Union waters should be based on the same principles and standards as those applicable under Union Law and promote a level playing field for Union operators and non EU country operators.

3Union fishing activities in third country waters should be based on the best available scientific advice and relevant information and relevant information exchange.

4They should ensure a sustainable exploitation of the marine biological resources, transparency as regards the determination of the surplus and, consequently, a management of the resources that is consistent with the objectives of the CFP. SFPA should provide for access to resources commensurate with the interests of the Union fleet in exchange for a financial contribution from the Union.

SFPA should ensure, in particular, efficient data collection, monitoring, control and surveillance measures.

5The EU is to provide the partner country with a financial compensation for access to its waters and a financial assistance to implement a national strategy for fisheries and the blue economy. The EU contribution is complemented by fees payable by EU vessel owners.

6In the case of Côte d’Ivoire, access has been sought for the EU industrial fleet targeting tropical tunas, which are entering the global food chain as a large scale commodity, participating to international trade, including EU supply of fish.

7According to Article 3(1)(d) and (e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the EU has exclusive powers on the conservation of marine biological resources under the CFP and the common commercial policy, the European Commission is therefore responsible for the negotiation and implementation of the SFPAs.

8Under Article 31(5) of the CFP Basic Regulation5, Union vessels cannot fish if there is no protocol implementing an SFPA between the EU and a third country. In order for Union vessels to continue fishing under an SFPA after an implementing protocol expires, a successor protocol must be negotiated.

2.1.2    Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire

The Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (CIV), and its current implementing Protocol, provide fishing opportunities to fish for Union fishing vessels in CIV’s waters and establishes the principles on the economic, financial, technical, and scientific cooperation in the fisheries sector. It promotes responsible fishing in CIV, conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources and through sectoral support contributes to develop the CIV fisheries sector.

The sectoral support component is used for programmed activities in the following areas: (1) reinforcing the monitoring, inspection and surveillance of fisheries activities and the fight against illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing; (2) improved scientific knowledge on fish stocks; (3) improved fisheries statistics; (4) support for small-scale fisheries; (5) strengthening international cooperation and (6) strengthening blue economy and aquaculture.

Figure 2 provides a visual description of the intervention logic. It seeks to connect the needs, objectives, actions and expected achievements. The latter is discussed in terms of the outputs, results and impacts of the implementing Protocol.

Figure 2. Intervention logic of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (CIV) and its current implementing Protocol

2.2Point(s) of comparison 

The most relevant and accessible point of comparison is the previous implementing Protocol under the same Fishery Partnership Agreement. Indeed, the situation in the absence of Fishery agreement would date from more than 30 years ago.

Under the Protocol 2013-2018 (evaluated from 2013-2017) (reference pages in this section are to the evaluation report of SCn° 2 under MARE2015/23 framework contract: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/49b6a33f-d02a-11e8-9424-01aa75ed71a1  

-EU fleet access to the waters of Côte d’Ivoire was granted to 22 purse seiners (mean 2014-2016), no longliners were authorised.

-The annual mean of tropical tuna catches is at 3406t (51% of reference tonnage), generated income for Côte d’Ivoire of 852.528 euros (in the year 2016, table 3 p.34). Public contribution transferred to Côte d’Ivoire: 2 885 000 EUR in July 2017 (p.35).

-The fishery resource targeted by the Union fleet is scientifically evaluated by the relevant RFMO ICCAT.

-The status of the 3 main targeted stock is (indicators relate to biomass for overfished status and to fishing mortality for overfishing status, for a concerned specie cf p.10):

oYellow fin tuna: slightly overfished, no overfishing

oBig eye tuna: overfished, oversfishing

oSkipjack and swordfish: likely not overfished, likely no overfishing

-Calculation turnover for the EU fleet 4.8 million EUR, added value 3.7 million EUR, of which 1.6 goes to EU and 1.8 goes to Côte d’Ivoire (pp. 44 and 45)

-Level and repartition of the generated added value: it is estimated that for each euro of public investment, 5.6 EUR are generated in added value, broken in 2.4 EUR for EU and 2.8 EUR for Côte d’Ivoire. (p.iv résumé paragraph 27).

-Situation of the control and surveillance system in Côte d’Ivoire: a Surveillance center had been rehabilitated and equipped but not yet made fully functional (p.41).

-Direct and indirect employment: estimated 117 at the end of the evaluated period, mostly indirect (p. 46).

-Sectoral support contribution transferred to Côte d’Ivoire 772 500 EUR up to July 2017 (p.35).

Reference pages in this section are to the evaluation report of SC n° 3 under MARE 2021/OP001 framework contract.

With regard to the implementation of the Protocol, the current state of play is the following:

3.1.Utilisation of fishing opportunities

On an annual average, almost 75% of the maximum number of 28 fishing licenses for EU tuna seiners were granted in the period 2018-2023. This percentage was significantly lower (18%) in the category of surface longliners with only 1 authorisation granted per year on average. Consequently, total utilisation rate amounted to approximately 61% 7 .

Average annual fishing authorisations granted to EU vessels (per vessel category) in the SFPA fishing zone

3.2.Catches 

On average, EU tuna vessels caught 66% of the reference tonnage of 5500 tons agreed under the Protocol. EU catches varied between 41% of the reference tonnage caught in 2021 and 125% in 2022, with, hence, one year during which total catches were higher than the reference tonnage, confirming the highly migratory nature of the tuna species and the unpredictability of the catches in Côte d’Ivoire waters. EU purse seiners represented almost 100% of the total catches, with longliners having zero or close to zero catches 8 .

Annual catches by EU vessels in the SFPA fishing zone (tonnes) per calendar year under the 2019-2024 Protocol

3.3.Scientific Cooperation 

The fishery resources targeted by the EU fleet is scientifically evaluated by the relevant RFMO, namely ICCAT, to which both the EU and Côte d’Ivoire are active members, and which has provided sufficient scientific base for the management decisions taken by Joint Committee.

Scientific cooperation between the EU and Côte d’Ivoire takes place within the multilateral framework of ICCAT, whereas sectoral support is also granted for the participation of Côte d’Ivoire delegates in ICCAT meetings.

Tuna and tuna-like species are under the management mandate of ICCAT. The status of the three main targeted stock (yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, skipjack and swordfish) was assessed as follows 9 (p.24):

·Yellowfin tuna: not overfished, no overfishing,

·Bigeye tuna: overfished, no overfishing,

·Skipjack and swordfish: not overfished, no overfishing.

Stock management and conservation measures are decided and implemented within the multilateral framework of ICCAT (inter alia fishing capacity limits, catch limits, restrictions on the use of FADs) and they apply to all parties.

3.4.Technical Measures 

3.4.1.Monitoring, control and surveillance 

The Protocol lays down the monitoring, control and surveillance regime (Chapter V of the Annex to the Protocol) applying to all EU tuna vessels operating in Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing zone.

The Joint Committees’ minutes indicate a generally satisfactory level of compliance with the relevant clauses. The Surveillance center is functional and was reinforced to ensure a 24/7 functioning. Satellite positioning of the national fleet was extended and inspections activities were supported by the sectoral support spending 10 . In particular, the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) has been reported to be functional, enabling national authorities to monitor the movements of the EU vessels within the fishing zone. EU tuna vessels have also complied with the Protocol’s requirements for reporting entering/leaving the zone and prior notifications of entry to the port of Abidjan.

No infringements of the applicable rules have been identified by the Ivorian authorities against EU tuna vessels since the beginning of the Protocol.

Nonetheless, problems have been observed in the functioning of the Electronic Reporting System (ERS), preventing the submission of EU vessels’ reports to the partner country’s authorities regarding the exact nature of activities taking place in the fishing zone. In particular, the catch declaration data transmitted to Côte d’Ivoire’s authorities were found to be inconsistent, hence not usable. Reception of data by the flag Member States was, however, deemed satisfactory. DG MARE, together with the partner country and Côte d’Ivoire’s service provider held several technical meetings to identify a solution to this problem with the most recent one held in May 2023. Nevertheless, until this problem is resolved, Côte d’Ivoire can only take into account data transmitted by DG MARE 11 .

3.4.2.Embarkation of seamen

In quantitative terms the EU vessels are required to employ a minimum of 20% of seamen who are ACP nationals, while Côte d’Ivoire nationals should have priority where possible. From a qualitative point of view, the Protocol provides for the application of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work in the context of employment contracts with the seamen. Notably, the level of pay cannot be lower than the minimum wage and, in any case, not lower than ILO standards.

In general, the two parties agree that the clauses regarding embarkation of seamen have been respected by the EU vessels. Seamen from ACP countries represent the majority of employed seamen on board, while Côte d’Ivoire nationals account for 40% of total seamen in French tuna seiners and 20% in Spanish tuna seiners. Annual statistics are however currently lacking. From a qualitative aspect, main issues raised by consulted stakeholders concern remuneration levels (considered lower than the ILO minimum wage). The EU, acting through DG MARE, stepped forward to create a working group including representatives from the fisheries sector and from the seafarers' associations, while informal consultations also took place between MIRAH and the Ministry of Transport. The formal establishment of the working group is still to be adopted by an inter-ministerial decree.

3.4.3.Observers

The Protocol’s clauses regarding embarkation of observers on EU vessels, designated from Côte d’Ivoire against a contribution of 400 EUR annually per vessel for financing the observers, were not fully implemented.

The main issue raised was that EU shipowners would not employ observers designated by the partner country. Nevertheless, their contributions to financing the observers programme were duly paid.

Regarding the degree of coverage of fishing activities, all activities conducted by EU vessels in the third country’s fishing zone were monitored by scientific observers, while EU shipowners ensured that the data collected during the observers’ trips were of sound scientific quality, meeting simultaneously the requirements of the EU data collection programme 12 and ICCAT’s standards 13 . EU shipowners confirm that the results of the scientific data collection are transmitted to Côte d’Ivoire’s authorities upon request.

With regard to the employment of observers appointed by Côte d’Ivoire, the shipowners of French tuna vessels have confirmed that they have included nationals designated by the competent authorities in their observer pool (23 observers over the last five years). The appointed observers have followed the prior training given to all observers.

On the contrary, regarding Spanish tuna vessels, the shipowners have taken on board observers who are nationals of Côte d’Ivoire but not the ones officially appointed by the authorities. The shipowners’ associations concerned have confirmed their agreement to take on board designated observers after specific training, but indicated that they have not received notifications from applicants from the authorities.

3.5.Sectoral support

The current implementing Protocol has earmarked a budget of EUR 352 000 per year for the first two years and EUR 407 000 per year for the subsequent years. – or approximately EUR 2.3 million over a period of six years – to contribute to the implementation of the national strategy for fisheries and aquaculture and support the sustainable management of fishery resources and the development of the fisheries sector in Côte d’Ivoire.

3.6.Monitoring of sectoral support 

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

The management of the funds granted under the sectoral support component was carried out by the Support Programme for the Management of Human Resources (PAGDRH) which is subject to national public financial management rules.

As agreed in the first Joint Committee (November 2018), Côte d’Ivoire has submitted three reports on activities implemented with sectoral support funds. These reports include information about technical and financial aspects of the activity implemented as well as challenges that were encountered. At the time of this evaluation, the following reports have been submitted:

·The Progress Report on the Sector Programme 2018-2019 (version February 2020)

The progress report on the sectoral programme 2019-2020 which also covers the activities implemented over the period 2020-2021 affected by the health crisis (version January 2022)

·The Progress Report on the Sector Programme 2022-2023 (version March 2023).

3.7.Financial aspects:

·Generated income on average for Côte d’Ivoire of 994 088 EUR (EU yearly public contribution + shipowners contributions average, table 15 and 16 p31 ).

·Calculation turnover for the EU fleet 5,067 million EUR (p 46), added value 3,002 million EUR (table 20 and 23 p.47 and 48), of which 0,836 goes to EU and 1,755 goes to Côte d’Ivoire (pp. 49).

·Level and repartition of the generated added value: It is estimated that for each euro of public investment, 7,56 EUR are generated in added value, broken in 2,76 EUR for EU and 4,8 EUR for Côte d’Ivoire. (p.51).

·Direct and indirect employment: estimated 130 Full time equivalent at the end of the evaluated period, mostly indirect (p.53 ).

·Sectoral support contribution transferred to Côte d’Ivoire 1 111 000 EUR up to March 2023 (p.39).

·Situation of the control and surveillance system in Côte d’Ivoire: the Surveillance center is functional and was reinforced to ensure a 24/7 functioning. Satellite positioning of the national fleet was extended and inspections activities were supported by the sectoral support spending (p. 62)

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

4.1.1.Effectiveness

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

Objective 1: contribute to the conservation of resources and environmental sustainability through rational and sustainable exploitation of Côte d’Ivoire’s fisheries resources

Objective 2: to contribute to the continuity of fishing activities of the EU distant-water fleet and of employment linked to fleets operating under the FPA and its Protocol

Objective 3: Supporting the development of a sustainable fisheries sector in partner countries

(Through the governance framework created by the Agreement and through sectoral support; cooperation on the blue economy, the development of small-scale and artisanal fisheries, the creation of direct and indirect jobs, the development of local and national sectoral policies, etc.)

In general, the assessed Protocol is found to have been effective in reaching the objectives of halieutic resource conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries given the current status of the stocks targeted under the Protocol by the EU fleet, in the context of implementation by both parties of the ICCAT recommendations when carrying out the activities that are foreseen in the Protocol. The stock status of tuna species exploited in the fishing area is satisfactory, apart from bigeye tuna, which is assessed as overexploited but not overfished. The management measures addressing the EU fleet activities (Fishing Aggregating Devices –FAD- restrictions, temporary closure of fishing with FADs, voluntary Fisheries Improvement Projects – FIPs) have also contributed to the general effectiveness of the Protocol, along with the reporting of catches and data collection onboard EU vessels. Sustainable exploitation of fisheries is further guaranteed by the presence of observers onboard EU vessels under operators’ voluntary programs and for a percentage of fishing trips, under the Data Collection Framework obligations.

The EU fishing fleet activities were conducted in compliance with the relevant standards and obligations and no infringements were reported by the authorities of Côte d’Ivoire.

The Protocol is also effective in ensuring a continuity of the fishing operations of EU vessels in the covered area; the present protocol entered into force immediately after the previous one, ensuring predictability, stability and full continuity of fishing operations in the EEZ of Côte d’Ivoire and consistently with the interest of the fleet to be able to access the port of Abidjan coupled with fishing activities in Côte d’Ivoire.

The sectoral support component of the Protocol included some areas of importance for the government of Côte d’Ivoire and was in line with the objectives that the EU was intending to achieve through sectoral support for the development of a sustainable fisheries policy.

Finally, the Protocol was effectively contributing to supporting local employment, as nationals of Côte d’Ivoire are well represented in crews of the EU fleet based in Abidjan Port. Landings of tuna contribute to the local economy and local employment in canneries supplied by EU vessels.

4.1.2.Efficiency and Economy 14

This implementing Protocol has been efficient in the sense that it has generally achieved the expected outcomes at reasonable costs. The overall EU financial contribution for access was above needs until 2021, as fishing opportunities were not fully utilised. However, in 2022, the financial contribution was well aligned with the EU fleet needs. Nonetheless, the EU’s investment in access still generates a positive return on investment, as it is estimated that for every euro invested by the EU towards the access component, an added value of EUR 7,56 is created, of which EUR 2,76 for the EU and EUR 4,80 for Côte d’Ivoire. It has to be noted that the financial contribution of this programme remains very modest (less than 0,3 Million EUR in public spending by year for access).

The fees paid by the EU tuna seiners in the context of the implementing Protocol represented 6% if their turnover and 18% of the added value 15 . Therefore, it was possible for the EU shipowners to maintain an acceptable degree of profitability despite the reduction of days at sea because of the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring economic viability for the shipowners. Moreover, the system for setting the level of access fees for EU vessels provided for in the Protocol also allows a certain proportionality of the fees to the actual catches given that it includes a variable share based on the quantities caught.

Moreover, in total, Côte d’Ivoire’s share of added value from the activities of the EU tuna vessels within its fishing zone represents 53% of the generated added value, compared to 25% for the EU. This high percentage of added value for the partner country is largely related to the economic impact of the activities (landings) of the EU vessels in the Abidjan Port.

Regarding absorption of the sectoral support funds by Côte d’Ivoire, the implementation pace has not been matching the levels envisaged in the Protocol, with only 48 16 % of the maximum budget provided for in the Protocol actually disbursed by the EU after five years of implementation of the Protocol. These delays are mainly due to internal administrative issues in the third country, to unforeseen problems in mobilising technical resources within the anticipated deadlines and to the additional studies required during the implementation of sectoral support activities.

Efficiency:

Economy:

As mentioned above, MIRAH encountered several difficulties in using sectoral support funds under the current Protocol and the previous Protocol in accordance with the agreed timetables and the EU only disbursed installments for the tranches of the sectoral support when the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Protocol were met.

4.1.3 Coherence:

The FPA and the implementing Protocol are overall aligned with the CFP as they include the fundamental principles of governance of fisheries agreements, they identify fishing opportunities that are aligned with the ICCAT conservation and management rules, they contribute to the sustainable development of Côte d’Ivoire’s fisheries sector, and they help to maintain the activities of the EU tuna fleet in the region through a network of SFPAs that allows EU vessels to have access to several fishing areas stretching from Angola to the south and Mauritania to the north.

Several EU interventions outside the scope of the fisheries agreement seem to be compatible, consistent and complementary to the activities provided for in the Protocol. More specifically, the Protocol is found to be consistent with the PESCAO regional programme which strengthens the control and surveillance framework, research, the development of sectoral policy and the structuring of non-state actors in Côte d’Ivoire. Strategically, the actions implemented under the Protocol for the development of a sustainable fisheries sector in Côte d’Ivoire contribute to the EU’s objectives on ocean governance. The activities implemented under sectoral support for capacity building for monitoring, control and surveillance, as well as activities implemented under the PESCAO regional programme, specifically contribute to the fight against IUU fishing.

Moreover, the activities financed under the sectoral support component are consistent with the priorities identified by Côte d’Ivoire under the PONADEPA sectoral policy 2022-2027, promoting the sustainable, responsible and participatory management of fisheries resources and the improvement of the productivity and competitiveness of fishery products. The intervention carried out through the implementing Protocol further contributes to the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14 (life below water) and particularly targets 14.b (access to markets through EU supplies of canning vessels and planned sectoral support measures for the artisanal sector), 14.4 (regulating levies and ending overfishing and IUU fishing as a result of sectoral support activities for strengthening Côte d’Ivoire’s monitoring, control and surveillance capacities) and 14.a (increasing scientific knowledge as a result of data collected on the activities of EU tuna seiners and planned sectoral support activities for stock evaluation campaigns). The Protocol also contributes to SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), and in particular to its target 8.8 (protection of workers’ rights) through the inclusion of the social clause for the employment of seafarers.

4.2.How did the EU intervention make a difference?

The EU added value lies mainly in the possibilities for access to Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing zone:

- under a framework binding on both parties,

-aligned with applicable international obligations

-and also with provisions of other agreements in the region,

-with the possibility for the European Commission to supervise the activities implemented.

The lack of access to the area would have had a negative impact on the EU tuna seiners fleet, which bases its exploitation strategy on access to all fishing areas of Eastern African coastal States and the high seas. Without an SFPA the EU fleet would face difficulties in accessing the resource when it is located in this region of the Eastern Atlantic, and a reduction in profitability if not travelling to/from the port of Abidjan.

The availability of a budget of EUR 2,3 million over the six years of the Protocol targeting capacity building in the fisheries sector under the joint supervision of the EU and Côte d’Ivoire is also adding value to the EU intervention compared to the direct access under national law of Côte d’Ivoire.

Such direct access is in theory possible but would require:

-a denunciation of the FPA so that the exclusivity clause foreseen in the agreement and in Art 31 of the CFP does not apply

-a direct negotiation with incurred costs for the shipowners or shipowners associations,

-payments of direct authorisations fees and related taxes

These conditions costs are not possible to assess, as related information is not available.

4.3.Is the intervention still relevant?

The Agreement and its current implementing Protocol are relevant insofar as they satisfactorily meet the needs of both Parties through the interventions provided for under the access and sectoral support components of the current Protocol.

The fishing opportunities provided for in the Protocol generally meet the needs of the EU tuna seiners operating in the fishing zones covering the waters between Angola in the south and Mauritania in the north. Nevertheless, regarding relevance for EU longliners, the envisaged fishing opportunities do not seem to correspond to their needs, as shown by the virtually zero utilisation rate for this category of the Protocol. With regard to Côte d’Ivoire, the available fishing opportunities contribute to the capitalisation of its strategic position on the route of tuna migration by granting access to foreign vessels within the limits set by ICCAT and by upgrading the role of the Port of Abidjan as the main port chosen by EU shipowners. In this way, the Agreement and its implementing Protocol are in line with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy by generally responding adequately to the needs of both parties.

The Protocol is also relevant to promote the strategies for the operation of EU vessels under the binding framework of bilateral fisheries agreements. It ensures that the management and conservation measures applicable to tuna fishing in the waters of Côte d’Ivoire are aligned to those adopted by ICCAT to which both sides are contracting parties. Sectoral support funds directed to the participation of the partner country in the ICCAT meetings and to the payment of its annual contribution further facilitate the integration of Côte d’Ivoire into regional fisheries organisations.Due to the exclusivity clause applicable under Article 6 of the SFPA, EU vessels would not be allowed to fish in Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing zone without the signature of an implementing Protocol. This would create an interruption in the spatial continuity of operations in the region with a negative impact on the EU tuna seiners fleet. Moreover, without an implementing Protocol, the EU fleet would not be able to generate less profit in the use the port of Abidjan which increases the profitability of the EU fleet’s operations due to its strategic significance. Regarding the partner country, the intervention is still considered relevant and no objections to a the negotiation of a new implementing Protocol has been raised by the Côte d’Ivoire authorities.

5.1.Conclusions

Based on the evaluation, several conclusions can be drawn based on objective analysis of the information gathered. Furthermore, specific and relevant recommendations for future negotiations on the new protocol between the EU and Côte d’Ivoire can be made.

Among all options considered, the renewal of the Protocol at the end of its implementation period (31 July 2024) clearly appears to be in the interest of both parties and as the most beneficial policy option. On the other hand, the option of not renewing the Protocol would not be beneficial for any of the parties 17 .

Regarding access conditions, for the future Protocol, the reference tonnage is recommended to be set taking into consideration the level of utilisation of fishing opportunities of the current implementing Protocol.

With regard to technical measures, striving for the effective implementation of the ERS system for Côte d’Ivoire is a matter of great importance. As far as the embarkation of national seamen is concerned, the EU should push for the conclusion of collective agreements that govern the employment conditions of non-EU seafarers on board EU vessels, while both parties should monitor the employment of Côte d’Ivoire and ACP nationals and communicate this information to each other.

Concerning the sectoral support component, the future Protocol should provide for clauses on monitoring and evaluation, including the submission by Côte d’Ivoire to the Joint Committee of annual progress report and a final evaluation report (before the expiration of the Protocol) about the impact of the sectoral support on the development of their sectoral fisheries policy. Clauses related to the visibility/communication of the sectoral support activities should also be included. Particular attention should further be attributed to the efficient programming of the sectoral support activities, refraining from very complex objectives that hinder implementation and seeking external technical expertise when necessary. The programming of sectoral support should be guided by the activities identified by the national sectoral policy for the coming period (PONADEPA 2022-2026), while the possibilities for supporting the implementation of this national policy will depend on the budget availability which will be the result of the negotiation process.

5.2.Lessons learned 

The ex-post evaluation of the Protocol implementing the Fisheries Partnership Agreement for the period 2018-2024 shows that the Protocol has generally succeeded in achieving its main objectives.

The main learnings stemming from this ex-post evaluation are three:

·Monitoring of the activity of the EU vessels during their fishing operations in Côte d’Ivoire waters needs room for improvement as certain provisions of the Protocol have not been fully implemented. This improvement should particularly address the issues of autonomous receipt of catch declarations and the embarkation of designated observers;

·Despite the fact that quantitative targets of the Protocol regarding the employment of national seamen have been exceeded, qualitative targets do not follow the same trend, particularly concerning compliance with the ILO minimum wage. This issue has been raised by several seafarers unions and has leaded to mediatised social conflicts that could be harmful to the parties involved.

·The implementation of the activities funded under sectoral support by Côte d’Ivoire has been subject to noticeable delays despite the relatelivy modest annual budgets (around EUR 400 000 per year). These delays were partly explained by cyclical events outside the control of the authorities responsible, administrative problems, but also by difficulties linked to the implementation of the multiannual programme adopted at the beginning of the Protocol. It is therefore much needed to prepare a clear and detailed programme for a future sectoral support component aiming at improving the pace of implementation, meeting both national and EU priorities.

The ex-ante evaluation of the current implementing Protocol provides a forward-looking perspective that is complementary to the ex-post evaluation. Expressly, it reflects on the lessons learned and outlines the possible ways forward, through a set of available policy options, for the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and Côte d’Ivoire.

6.1.Problem analysis and needs assessment  

·Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing zone is an attractive zone as it is on the route of migration of highly migratory species from the Atlantic. Access agreements with foreign interests enable the country to exploit its fishing potential and strategic position on the tuna migratory routes through budgetary revenue and spillover effects on the employment of national seafarers and the supply of domestic industrial and artisanal industries.

6.2.Current and future needs of Côte d’Ivoire

·Due to the development of infrastructure and the availability of goods and services that meet the needs of EU shipowners and other flags, the port of Abidjan is the main port of call of the fleets of tuna seiners operating in the Atlantic Ocean. Côte d’Ivoire needs to maintain a high level of attractiveness of its port by acting on all the factors contributing to it in order to be able to cope with competition from other ports in Africa. One of these factors is the possibility for tuna vessels to fish en route to/from the port of Abidjan.

·The large volume of fishery products transiting through the port of Abidjan (almost 900 000 tonnes per year) puts Côte d’Ivoire under significant responsibility as a port State in the overall fight against IUU fishing. Côte d’Ivoire thus has the need and the duty to be able to implement inspection arrangements for vessels that use the port and raise them at the level of the international standards, which Côte d’Ivoire has ratified 18 .

·Côte d’Ivoire has just adopted a new National Policy for the Development of Livestock, Fisheries and Aquaculture for the period 2022-2026 (PONADEPA 2022-2026) with the strategic objectives of (i) improving the governance of the sector, (ii) improving the productivity and competitiveness of environmentally friendly sectors and (iii) improving the livelihoods of stakeholders. PONADEPA 2022-2026 sets ambitious objectives for the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, particularly in relation to the need to improve the coverage of market needs by national production in order to improve the food security of its population (25,5 million inhabitants).

·The implementation of this sectoral policy requires significant financial resources estimated at more than EUR 600 million over five years, which the State cannot assume on its own. Côte d’Ivoire therefore needs to be able to secure multiannual budgetary resources in order to meet the priorities identified for the sustainable development of the sector.

6.3.Current and future needs of the EU 

·The European Union is committed to improving international ocean governance 19 . The European Union has made the global fight against IUU fishing one of its main objectives, given concrete expression of support for numerous development programmes aimed at strengthening governance mechanisms in the fisheries sector in West Africa, including the PESCAO programme implemented under the 11th Regional EDF. As such, EU vessels must behave exemplary behaviour regardless of their fishing areas, with management mechanisms that allow the EU and the Member States concerned to assume their responsibilities as flag States. The EU therefore needs mechanisms to regulate the activity of European fleets in Côte d’Ivoire waters in accordance with international law and the objectives and requirements of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy.

·The EU’s international ocean governance agenda promotes the sustainability of fish stocks and increased compliance. In addition to its activities at ICCAT, the Union may, through the network of fisheries agreements it signs, promote coherent measures to ensure the application of international management conservation rules and promote the transparency of the agreements. The agreement with Côte d’Ivoire complements a network of agreements covering a large part of the fishing zones of coastal States bordering the western tropical Atlantic.

·As part of its external action, the EU has committed itself to the international community to take a leading role in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations in 2015. The EU therefore needs to be able to mobilise an instrument that contributes to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, in particular the objectives relating to aquatic life (SDG 14) in Côte d’Ivoire waters, in synergy with other interventions by the EU and its Member States.

6.4.Current and future needs of Côte d’Ivoire and the EU together

·The creation of a framework for sectoral policy dialogue with dedicated funding in synergy with other EU interventions enables both parties to jointly exchange and implement initiatives to promote the sustainable development of the fisheries sector, including initiatives to cooperate in the fight against IUU fishing and to strengthen fisheries research.

6.5.Current and future needs of the EU fleet

·For tuna seiners, fishing activities shall take place throughout the Eastern Atlantic, between Angola’s southern latitude and Mauritania to the north. Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing zone is one of the moderately productive areas, but it is important to have access to it in order to be able to track the movements of highly migratory species from the Atlantic.

·EU tuna seiners have made the port of Abidjan their preferred port of call for decades. Vessels need to be able to carry out fishing operations by navigating to/from the port in order to make the time spent at sea profitable as much as possible.

·Finally, irrespective of the type of EU vessel concerned, there is a need to obtain stable access agreements for multiannual durations, allowing vessels to plan their regional fishing strategies over several seasons. The fleets also need access conditions framed by a robust legal instrument that clearly sets out the rights and obligations of each of them (vessels and coastal states) with the possibility of fair arbitration in the event of a presumption of non-compliance by one of the two parties.

6.6.EU added value  

Only the Union is competent to negotiate under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Beyond this obligation stemming from the TFEU, the involvement of the EU in the negotiation of a new Protocol brings a clear added value similar to that identified in the ex-post part of the evaluation (see paragraph 8.6 p.72). This is related to:

(i) a mandate from the EU to ensure that the Protocol and its implementation are in line with international and CFP standards and consistent with other agreements concluded with coastal States in the region,

(ii) the possibility for the EU to have an instrument to implement its sectoral policy at sub-regional level through the leverage effect given by a network of agreements and its interventions within ICCAT, and

(iii) a specific instrument for bilateral sectoral cooperation with Côte d’Ivoire, as well as the possibility of coordinating with its other Member States’ cooperation and Côte d’Ivoire, will be able to have an instrument enabling it to implement its sectoral policy at sub-regional level by means of the leverage given by a network of agreements and its interventions within ICCAT.

6.7.Policy and management objectives  

The objectives of fisheries agreements are guided by Articles 31 and 32 of the Basic Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), taking into account the 2012 Council conclusions 20 on the external dimension of the CFP. In line with EU policy on fisheries agreements, the objectives of future intervention under the Fisheries Partnership Agreement concluded between the EU and Côte d’Ivoire in 2008 must be based on the general and specific objectives which guide the EU’s intervention logic for all FPAs and SFPAs, namely:

General objective 1: a contribution to resource conservation and environmental sustainability through the rational and sustainable exploitation of marine resources in Côte d’Ivoire waters, with the following specific objectives (SOs):

·SO1.1: Ensure the conservation of tuna stocks through the application of conservation and management measures adopted within the ICCAT multilateral framework.

·SO1.2: Promote the same principles and apply the same standards as those applied in EU waters for fisheries management.

·SO 1.3: Improve the scientific and technical evaluation of fisheries in Côte d’Ivoire waters, in particular through support for data collection and transparency of the management framework.

·SO 1.4: Ensure compliance with the applicable rules and combat IUU fishing.

General objective 2: support for the activity of the EU distant fishing fleets and the maintenance of employment linked to the activities of these vessels, with the following specific objectives (SOs):

·SO 2.1: Obtain an appropriate share of available fishery resources in full proportion to the interests of around 20 EU tuna seiners in Côte d’Ivoire waters

·SO 2.2: Ensure that fees paid by EU armaments for fishing activities are fair, non-discriminatory and proportionate to the benefits of access conditions while avoiding any discriminatory treatment towards EU vessels by promoting a level playing field between different fleets

·SO 2.3: Securing supply to the EU market and certain developing third countries

·SO 2.4: Encouraging the creation of a favorable environment for private investment and economic activities in Côte d’Ivoire

General objective 3: support for the development of a sustainable fisheries sector in Côte d’Ivoire, with the following specific objectives (SOs):

·SO 3.1: contribute to the capacity building of Côte d’Ivoire (in particular by improving the management framework, control and surveillance and the collection of scientific data)

·SO 3.2: the definition of annual and multiannual objectives to be achieved in order to support the implementation of the national sectoral policy

·SO 3.3: evaluation of the results achieved in terms of impact, as well as on budgetary and financial needs

·SO 3.4: promote the employment of national seamen under conditions aligned with those of international standards, and encourage landings, support Côte d’Ivoire in the development of the national fisheries sector and the processing industry.

6.8.Policy options, including associated risks  

Two options are available:

·Renewal of the current protocol – option A (status quo with adaptations where necessary),

·Non-renewal of the Protocol – option B.

Option A focuses on a renewal of a Protocol allowing access to highly migratory species only, as is the case with the current Protocol. Access to other species is not envisaged due to the lack of scientific information on a possible surplus available to EU fishing fleets.

Under option A, the EU will be able to implement new provisions for access by EU vessels and support to Côte d’Ivoire’s fisheries sector under the conditions laid down in Article 31 of the EU CFP 21 Regulation, with the mobilisation of the financial instruments provided for in Article 32. These cover the financial compensation for access and a specific amount for the EU contribution to the implementation of the national sectoral policy decoupled from the financial compensation for access.

The renewed Protocol under option A will be the result of negotiations between the two parties. The characteristics of this future instrument cannot be known at this stage, in particular the amount of the associated financial commitments.

Under option B, the FPA concluded in 2008 becomes dormant, i.e. without an implementing protocol and therefore without mobilising the instruments provided for in Article 32 of the EU CFP Regulation (see above). However, the general provisions of the FPA remain in force, in particular Article 6, which limits the framework for issuing fishing authorisations to EU vessels within the framework of the FPA and its Implementing Protocol (exclusivity clause). In other words, EU vessels may not apply for direct fishing authorisations from the Côte d’Ivoire authorities. They may navigate in the area but have no right to fish there.

6.9.Results and impacts  

6.9.1.Environmental

Whichever option is considered, EU tuna vessels will have to carry out their fishing activities in compliance with the conservation and management rules adopted in the ICCAT multilateral framework.

Compared to Option A, Option B could result in a shift of fishing effort deployed in Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing zone to other areas of the Atlantic Ocean. This carry-over of fishing effort will probably have no impact on exploited stocks, as these are distributed across the Atlantic without particular vulnerabilities in one area compared to another.

Option B will no longer make available to both parties the sectoral dialogue framework available under option A. This could have the effect of affecting Côte d’Ivoire’s capacity to contribute to the overall fight against IUU fishing in a sector (inspections in port and rade Abidjan) where Côte d’Ivoire has an important role to play as a port State considering the large quantities of fishery products passing through its ports (approximately 900 000 tonnes per year). The impact may ultimately be an increase in the negative impact of IUU fishing on the sustainability of stocks, but also on the economic and social pillars of sustainability.

6.9.2.Economic impacts

Compared to Option A, the main result of Option B may be a reduction in the rate of EU tuna seiners’ use of the port of Abidjan. As pointed out during the consultations, the possibility of fishing in the Côte d’Ivoire area contributes to the attractiveness of the port of Abidjan. Without possible access to resources in Côte d’Ivoire’s fishing zone, combined with the current lack of access to resources in Liberia’s adjacent fishing zone 22 , EU tuna seiners will seek to diversify the places of call to ports, by choosing the ports of Senegal, Ghana and Cabo Verde which are already alternative landing places, when the fishing season takes place in the northern part of the East Atlantic, or the Gabonese port if it is able to become attractive for tuna fleets, as is the ambition of the Gabonese authorities.

Under this scenario, the economic impact will be unfavorable for Côte d’Ivoire, which will lose part of the added value generated by the port calls of EU tuna seiners to the benefit of its economy.

Local canneries in Côte d’Ivoire sourcing tuna landed by EU tuna vessels, part of their raw material will have to be imported by transport vessels or containers, resulting in an increase in costs and, without real possibility to pass on such increased costs to products finally exported to the EU market, a reduction in the economic profitability.

The situation will be comparable for local industries which source from the bycatches landed in Abidjan. These associated species to tuna catches landed in other ports may be transported to Abidjan, but will be accessible at higher prices due to higher transaction and transport costs.

EU tuna seiners will diversify their stopovers but will not be able to stop in Abidjan in the medium term due to the existence of logistical bases on site and the unpreparedness of other African ports to increase reception opportunities within a reasonable timeframe (rearrangements will probably be necessary). Compared to Option A, EU tuna seiners will still be able to come to Abidjan, but without being able to fish in the area, with the impact of lower profitability.

As regards the result of option B on public commitments, the savings made by the EU side on the public budget of fisheries agreements will be insignificant (around EUR 0.7 million saving from an annual public budget of EUR 135 million 23 , or 0.5 %). For Côte d’Ivoire, the loss of current Protocol revenue will not have any significant impact on the national budget balance (current Protocol revenue accounts for 0.01 % of government revenue, see section 2.2.2 of the study, p.82). However, Côte d’Ivoire will have to identify other financing mechanisms under the PAGDRH, whose budget is partly based on current Protocol payments. A first possible source is the revenue paid by non-EU tuna vessels in exchange for access to the fishing zone, which for the time being is not paid from the PAGDRH budget.

6.9.3.Social impacts

The reduction in the profitability of canneries considered as a possible result of option B compared to option A may have the impact of compromising some of the 3 000 jobs, 70 % of which are women. The decrease in the number of port calls will also have an impact on the other 3 000 jobs in port companies supplying goods and services to EU tuna seiners.

With regard to national seamen, the result of option B, which is likely to lead EU tuna seiners to make more calls at ports in other African countries, may encourage armaments to make greater use of seamen from those countries who are available locally. In particular, EU armaments will be able to replace part of the 220 jobs occupied by Ivorian seamen by Senegalese or Ghanaian seamen who already form a significant part of the workforce.

Ivorian seamen who no longer sign on EU tuna seiners will be able to find alternatives on tuna vessels flying other flags, but with the result of not being protected by the social clauses of the EU Protocols and as an impact in the long term, a deterioration in their working conditions.

6.10.Preferred option 

The following table compares the options in terms of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency coherence and added value.

The result of the comparison indicates that a scenario of further implementation of the FPA between the EU and Côte d’Ivoire through a new implementing protocol is likely to have a positive impact compared to a scenario of an FPA without an implementing protocol. The non-renewal of the Protocol is a worst-loss scenario.

6.11.Monitoring of a future implementing Protocol 

The monitoring framework should continue to incorporate indicators on the use of fishing opportunities (fishing authorisations issued, catches obtained). During the consultations, one EU Member State suggested that the periods taken into account for the calculation of the EU counterpart’s access payments and access fees should be aligned in order to facilitate monitoring.

The monitoring framework should also add indicators for the periodic monitoring of the application of the Protocol’s provisions on the embarkation of national seamen and designated observers in compliance with the rules applicable to the protection of personal data, so that both parties have the same objective basis for information on the application of these measures.

As regards the sectoral support component, the monitoring framework should continue to take into account indicators relating to EU disbursements and the implementation of funds disbursed by Côte d’Ivoire to measure progress in implementation. Where possible, it would be appropriate for the monitoring framework to add more systematically indicators on the number of direct beneficiaries of activities (disaggregated by gender) and, where appropriate, indicators on the economic benefits of activities.

In accordance with the requirements of the EU Financial Regulation and the CFP, the Protocol will have to be the subject of an independent ex-post evaluation, which it will be necessary to implement approximately 18 months prior to the date of expiry of the Protocol in order to give the European institutions time to prepare for a possible renewal under the ordinary legislative procedure without interruption of access possibilities.

-DG MARE, Decide reference PLAN 2022/ 1928.

-Derogations granted : No impact assessment and no open public consultation, considering the low value of the spending evaluated.

-Organisation and timing.

-The results of this SWD are mainly informed by an evaluation study conducted by an independent consultant. This evaluation study took place from 20.12.2022 to 08.09 2023 under the guidance of an interservice steering group established by different services of the European Commission and within the framework of the terms of reference of specific contract number 3 under the framework contract MARE/2021/OP/0001. The evidence base of this evaluation study consisted of two main components: analysis of available documentation and consultations with stakeholders in the EU and in the Partner Country.

Elements presented in this SWD are mainly taken from the above mentioned evaluation study conducted by an independent consultant.

The methodology is based on data collection, targeted consultations, data analysis and synthesis of this analysis and consultations outputs.

1.Data collection

The external study had to collect information on the;

-Fishing sector in the third country

-Activities of EU and other fleets in the partner country

-Stock assessments for the main concerned species

-Institutional set up relevant on fishery issues

-Trade figures and data collected on the spot on local processing facilities

-Fishing data and economic data collected from EU companies as well as in other studies (costs structures)

-Reports of technical meetings, local fishery attaché reports and joint committee meetings

-Structured interviews with stakeholders: representatives from administrations, fishery sector, civil society.

The information was then analysed and fed an evaluation

-Critical review of the appropriateness and performance of the use of EU funds under sectoral support component

-Critical review of compliance to the binding provisions of the Protocol for each Party.

Data used were provided by the Commission (database fed by Member States for authorisations and catches; Commission database on payments amounts and timing), by the Third country, by EU or third countries companies (economic results) or by other public sources (COMEXT data, EUMOFA selling price database, RFMOs reports).

2. Consultations 

The consultations carried out for the purposes of this evaluation study, with the assistance of the independent consultants, according to a strategy validated by the ISG, and included : 

·Consultation of stakeholders in the EU: administrations of the flag Member States of EU vessels benefiting from fishing opportunities, the professional associations grouping EU operators using the negotiated fishing opportunities and civil society. The consultation period ran from May to June 2023; 

·Consultation of stakeholders in Côte d’Ivoire: a mission was organised in Côte d’Ivoire between 22 and 28.05.2023. During the mission, face-to-face discussion sessions were held with the various departments of the Ministry of Fisheries involved in monitoring the Agreement, representatives of the private sector in the industrial and artisanal sectors and representatives of the EUD in Abidjan (as well as remotely with the fishery attaché based in Kenya DEL). 

·

3. Preparation of the evaluation study  

The preparation of this evaluation study takes into account the guidelines and tools recommended by the EU in this area, as well as the methodological elements specific to the external dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy, such as those concerning the methods for evaluating the socio-economic impact of EU SFPAs.

Uncertainty in the analytical results and their robustness are influenced by:

-The evaluated period which is by necessity shorter than the full period of the initiative (more than one year of implementation is not evaluated)

-The lack of available information (such as precise and accurate data distinguishing landings and transhipments of EU catches in Abidjan, discrepancies between different data sources, or confidential economic information such as selling prices or precise costs structure per individual companies).

-Use of aggregated data.

The evaluation matrix applied has been the following:

1    Effectiveness – The extent to which the objectives of the Implementing Protocol to the Agreement were achieved

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

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

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

5    Coherence – The extent to which the Agreement and its Protocol do not contradict and is coherent other interventions with similar objectives

6    The EU added value – The extent to which the intervention brings EU added value 

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

The answers are presented in the section 5 of the document. Further details are available in the report of the consultant, in its chapter 8.

As the initiative submitted to the evaluation is not applying to EU citizens, and only to a very small number of EU companies, costs and benefits have been identified and assessed for those EU companies benefitting from the initiative, and for the partner third country, as well as the EU generally (EU institutions), as a partner to the agreement.

A simplified table accompanied with an explanatory narrative present an overview of these costs and benefits.

The cost/benefit analysis of the current implementing Protocol, for the EU budget and for the partner country, is based on the access component and for the periods for which complete economic data are available. The cost/benefit ratio of the sectoral support component cannot be estimated at this stage, as this would require the identification and measurement of the impacts of the various projects, which is not possible within the framework of this evaluation. 

The ratios recommended by the economic evaluation methodology in order to harmonise the elements for comparing the economic performance of the various agreements are set out in the tables below.

As regards the relative cost of access in view of actual catches, it is around EUR 160/tonne of fishery product caught, borne 52 % by the EU (EUR 83/tonne) and 48 % by EU arms benefiting from fishing opportunities (EUR 77/tonne). The indicators for sharing the cost of access between the EU public authorities and EU shipowners in the case of the current Protocol are different from the planned ex-ante allocation. This is the result of catch levels significantly lower than the reference tonnage established by the Protocol for fixing the amount of the flat-rate part of the contribution for access until 2021. For 2022, in which catches exceeded the reference tonnage, the distribution of access costs converges to that provided for in the Protocol (EUR 70 per tonne to be borne by the EU, EUR 70 to be borne by EU shipowners).

Tableau 1 : Indicateurs relatifs au coût de l'accord par rapport aux captures obtenues (valeur moyenne 2018-2021)

Source : consultant calculation ; average on 4 years 2018-2022

EU companies which chose to take advantage of the fishing opportunities offered by the Protocol are facing costs and deriving benefits from their activities in the waters of Côte d’Ivoire. These costs and benefits are analysed using a common method applied to all SFPAs, using catch data (ACDR data base) and first sell price (Eurostat and EUMOFA database) and data from the annual economic report of STECF to calculate successively: turn-over, direct added value and gross operating surplus for the fleet. Indirect added value is also calculated upstream and downstream. Direct, indirect, and total added value shares between EU and Côte d’Ivoire are calculated.

Table2: Estimated distribution of direct and indirect value added between the different beneficiary entities (average 2018-2021)

Source: Consultant estimates see Annex 5 of the external study report for more details on the methodology used and the results

Note:    * average value over the first four years

With regard to value-added ratios, the main lesson to be taken is that each euro invested in financial compensation for access to the resource generated EUR 7,56 of total added value, of which EUR 2,76 for the EU and EUR 4,80 for Côte d’Ivoire. The Protocol therefore has an important leverage effect for Côte d’Ivoire as a result of the direct interaction between EU tuna vessels and the local fishing sector resulting from the majority use of the port of Abidjan for port calls and the delivery of part of the catch to Ivorian operators.

Table3: Cost/benefit indicators on added value generated by EU fleets benefiting from fishing opportunities (average value 2020-2021)

Source: Consultant elaboration based on the outcome of the previous sections of the report

Note:    (I) The data carried over refer to the average for the years 2019 to 2021

   (II) the amount of financial compensation for access shall be considered as direct added value for the benefit of Côte d’Ivoire. The amounts of sectoral support are not taken into account in the calculations

Background   

In line with the Terms of Reference and the Better Regulation ‘toolbox’, a consultation strategy was elaborated by the independent consultant to obtain evidence from relevant stakeholders. The strategy defined the best means of achieving relevant stakeholders both in the EU and in the partner country concerned.    

Objectives   

The aim of the consultation:    

1.To obtain stakeholders’ views on the implementation of the ongoing protocol, as well as on the possible renewal of the protocol, including the different options;    

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

Results of the stakeholder consultation  

The views of the 15, out of 19 organizations consulted, are synthesized in the evaluation study by the independent consultant. The answers to the stakeholders’ consultation reflect the interests generally defended by the consulted stakeholder, and reveals some diametrically opposed positions (such as related to the social clause). Comments received also required some improvements on specific points, none denying the interest of negotiating a new Protocol  The following list of entities, in tables 1 and 2, were consulted by the independent consultants for the purposes of the evaluation study. 

Table 1:  Consultation report with stakeholders and civil society in the European Union and internationally

 Table 2: List of organisations consulted in Côte d’Ivoire

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

(2) https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6a0dbe7d-60d5-11ee-9220-01aa75ed71a1/language-fr/format-PDF/source-296919898  

(3) Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1095 of 26 July 2018 on the allocation of fishing opportunities under the Protocol on the implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (2018-2024) OJ L 197, 3.8.2018 ,

(4) A feedback period on the “have your say” portal, from 01 June 2023 - 29 June 2023, resulted in one limited and non relevant comment (advertising content) https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13736-EU-Côte-dIvoire-fisheries-agreement-negotiation-mandate-for-a-new-protocol_en

(5)  Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy ( OJ L354, 28.12.2013, p. 22 )

(6) SFPA’s policy objectives and reform proposals are detailed in the Commission’ Communication to the European parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions on the external dimension of the CFP (COM(2011)424 final of 13 July 2011). The Council adopted Conclusions regarding the External Dimension of the CFP on 19 March 2012 ( http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/129052.pdf ) and the European Parliament expressed its views in European Parliament’s report on the External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy of 22 November 2012.

(7) See report, page 28

(8) See report, page 29

(9)

(10) See report, page 62

(11) See report, page 30

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

(13)  ICCAT Recommendation 16-04 to establish minimum standards for scientific observer programmes on board fishing vessels

(14) See page 84 of the evaluation report

(15) See Table 22

(16) See Table 18

(17)

See report, page 76

(18) In particular the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures and ICCAT Recommendation 18-09 on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing

(19) Joint Communication TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Setting the course towards a sustainable blue planet – Joint Communication on the EU agenda for international ocean governance. JOIN/2022/28 final

(20) Council conclusions on the external dimension of the CFP. 19.03.2012, 7086/12

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

(22) The fisheries agreement between the EU and Liberia has been dormant since the end of 2020, and will remain so until the IUU procedure launched by the European Commission in 2017 (yellow card) is resolved.

(23) Source: DG MARE (2019): EU sustainable fisheries partnership agreements. Online document

(24) International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), The Ministerial Conference on fisheries cooperation among African States bordering the Atlantic Ocean (ATLAFCO/COMHAFAT)

(25) Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF)