Hinweis zum Urheberrecht
Bericht / Forschungsbericht / Abhandlung zugänglich unter
URL: https://epub.sub.uni-hamburg.de/epub/volltexte/2009/1447/
Evaluation ex-post de projets transnationaux pour des actions innovatrices dans le secteur de la pêche
Lacave Allemand & Associés
| SWD-Schlagwörter: |
| Frankreich , Fischerei |
| BK - Klassifikation: |
| 48.67 |
| Sondersammelgebiete: |
| 21.3 Küsten- und Hochseefischerei |
| DDC-Sachgruppe: |
| Biowissenschaften, Biologie |
| Dokumentart: |
| Bericht / Forschungsbericht / Abhandlung |
| Sprache: |
| Französisch |
| Erstellungsjahr: |
| 2005 |
| Publikationsdatum: |
| 07.05.2009 |
| Kurzfassung auf Deutsch: |
| Executive Summary
1. The objective of the ex-post evaluation of transnational projects for innovative actions in
the fisheries sector was to assess the 10 projects for innovative actions financed in the
framework of the call for proposals published in the OJ n° C 132 of 4 June 2002 (hereafter
named, IA projects) and other 5 projects for innovative actions among those financed by the
Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) in the framework of the operational
programme for 2000-2006 period (hereafter named OP projects).
Through the call for proposals for 2002, the EC intended “to reinforce mechanisms for
dialogue and concertation between the different political, administrative, scientific and
economic bodies in the sector, in order to improve relations between competing trades,
communities and activities not only at local and regional level but also at national and
Community level”.
2. The ex-post evaluation has been realised with regard to the three main selection criterias
for IA projects provided by the Call for proposals 2002 : IA project must be “highly
transnational in character”, their main goals must be “the networking” and “the exchange
of experiences, and the sharing of good practice and innovative practices”.
The evaluation process was divided in two sub-parts :
A) Evaluation of each of the 15 projects with regard to i) scope and effectiveness of the
project, ii) efficiency of the project, iii) quality of the monitoring system and final
evaluation, iv) effectiveness of the dissemination mechanism, v) operational capacity
of the organisations in charge of the project, vi) sustainability of the innovative actions
(namely in terms of capacity to finance the actions after the end of the project)
B) Provide judgement on the real added value of these actions and arguments in favour or
against continuing financial help to this type of action
The main conclusions and recommendations set out hereafter focus on the real added value of
these actions (part. B).
3. From a general point of view, with regard to the operational capacity of the organisations in
charge of the project, the scope and effectiveness, the efficiency, the quality of the monitoring
system and the sustainability, the OP projects are more performing than the IA projects.
Regarding the effectiveness of the dissemination mechanisms, both types of project presents
some weaknesses, either because the dissemination activities have been neglected, or
postponed after the end of the projects.
3. The efficiency of the IA projects is rather limited.
The “cost/results return” is relatively low for IA projects. The projects have conceived,
produced, organised, and developed studies, Internet site, CD Rom, seminars, databases,
training modules and e-training, artificial intelligence system (robot system for tagging the
fish).
But, on 5 websites, 1 is no more available, 2 are not up-dated; the CD Rom are not translated,
their dissemination is not very clear; seminars and training sessions have attracted few
DG Pêche – Contrat S12.402840
Rapport Final
____________________________________________
_Lacave Allemand & Associés –14/12/2005
5
attendants; the content of the databases is not precise, the modality of consultation not
specified; the studies don’t provide analysis on the fisheries market, there is a lack of a global
vision of the fisheries sector and of a policy vision. Most of the products are partial and
incomplete.
In addition, within some projects, the lack of contacts with professional organisations wich
are the first concerned and the legitimate relay bodies reduces the effective impact of the final
products.
The “dissemination costs / results disseminated, experiences and good practices
exchanges return” is also rather low. This appreciation is particularly relevant for the IA
projects because, among the aims laid down in the proposals submitted to the EC in 2002, the
dissemination of results to the professionals (producers, processors, fishermen, retailer, etc.),
the consumers or the public in general, as well as the networking and exchange of experiences
were strongly highlighted.
4. A lot of delays in the implementation of the IA project have been caused by some
deficiencies in monitoring systems, or by partner changes during the course of the project, or,
most often, by an under-estimation of the workload.
5. The very weak level of involvement of regional public authorities in the IA projects
has for consequence that the projects did not develop any policy dimension. The regional,
national and European objectives are not precisely identified. The projects do not have a midterm
vision of the fisheries sector and are not in keeping with the regional, national and
European context, sectoral as well geographical. Very few projects mention previous studies,
programmes and policies related to their subject (e.g. on traceability matters)
6. The EU added value of the IA projects is rather moderate. Most of the results and
outputs could have been achieved within the framework of the operational programme.
The IA projects respect the “transnationality” rule with more or less effectiveness. But, very
often, the transnationality of the project is formal, based on a formal consortium, associating
in some projects one leader and several sleeping partners.
The exchange of experiences and good practices activities has consisted in seminars,
workshops, training modules, use of ICT (website, CD Rom, video, software conception), but
the concrete exchange of experiences and good practices would be rather limited. The
attendance to the seminars and training meetings has been very low, the dissemination
activities failed to reach their targets or were inadequate and insufficient.
The networking efforts are not fully convincing. Few project consortia have involved a large
panel of actors of the supply chain: professional organisations, training/education institutes,
research centres, public authorities (national/regional/local), fisheries firms, etc.
7. With regard to these conclusions, two hypotheses for the future of the IA may be
formulated
7.1. First hypothesis. The EC may decide to reinforce the innovative actions by targeting the
IA on more specific topics, promoting their “pilot” aspect and increasing their budget, either
by increasing the total budget devoted to the IA, either by reducing the number of IA projects
selected in order to approach the budget of the OP projects. The aim is to make the IA more
attractive for the local/regional authorities of the fisheries dependent areas and the
professional organisations. It would suppose making stricter the eligibility rules (e.g. at least
DG Pêche – Contrat S12.402840
Rapport Final
____________________________________________
_Lacave Allemand & Associés –14/12/2005
6
three partners from 3 Member States, of which one public authority or one professionnal
organisation) and the selection process (detailed application form, FP 6 or Interreg “type”).
7.2. Second hypothesis. The EC may decide to stop the innovative actions after the closure of
the IA projects selected in the framework of the 2003 call. Three arguments plead for this
hypothesis:
- The operational programmes are more in line with the needs of the fisheries sector due
to their financial resources.
- The national/regional administrations are in charge of the management and the
implementation of the OPs, they are more connected to the fisheries actors, ranging
from local authorities to professional organisations or trade-unions.
- The national/regional administrations (management authorities) are able to provide
economic analysis and impact analysis of the results of the OP projects; in addition,
they have a good knowledge of the sectoral and geographic context. |
