european commission – directorate general for maritime affairs … · 2016-09-13 · european...

European Commission – Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities Annexes

November 2010

Ernst & Young et Associés

Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes

© Ernst & Young et Associés 2

Table of Contents I.A. List of interviews at European level 3

I.B. Selected regions for country visits 5

I.C. List of interviews at national level 7

I.D. Interview guidelines 15 I.D.1. Interview guidelines for stakeholders from the Fishery and Aquaculture industry 15 I.D.2. Interview guidelines for stakeholders from the Maritime Industry 20

I.E. Online survey 25

I.F. Respondents characteristics 40

I.G. List of documents 42

I.H. Methodology and evaluation approach per evaluation question 44

I.I. Example of Newsletter 53

I.J. DG MARE list of publications (2007-2010) 54

I.K. DG MARE audiovisual production (2007-2010) 57

I.L. Overview of the survey results 59



I.A. List of interviews at European level Stakeholder Organisation Nr. of interviewed persons

European Commission services

DG MARE – Unit F2 10

DG MARE – Unit A1 2

DG MARE – Unit A2 1

DG MARE – Unit B1 1

DG MARE – Unit B3 1

DG MARE – Unit D1 1

DG MARE – Unit D2 1

DG TRADE 2

DG MOVE 2

DG DEV 1

DG COMM 1

Spokesperson 1

Office des publications 1

SCIC 1

EMSA 1

CFCA 1

European Parliament 1

Other stakeholders of the communication activities

MOSTRA 3

Media Consulta 1

Fishery industry and aquaculture

AIPCE 1

Maritime industry CESA 1

ECSA 1

ESPO 1

EBI 1

EMEC 2

MIF 1

Civil society WWF 1

Greenpeace

1

Pew 2



Stakeholder Organisation Nr. of interviewed persons

European Maritime Heritage Association 1

Eurocoop 1

Maritime research, science and education associations

European Science Foundation 1

Press European Voice 1

Ansa 1

TOTAL 49

Other representative organisations from the fishery and aquaculture industry had been contacted (AEOP, FEAP, COGECA and EAFPA) but no interviews could be arranged in the dedicated time period.



I.B. Selected regions for country visits

Member State Visited Region Rationale for the choice

Denmark Copenhagen Whole area was of interest for the Evaluation

France Western Coastal Region

Paris

Main stakeholders, even those that are acting in Brittany, are actually based in Paris.

Germany Bremen

Hamburg

Bremerhaven area is Germany's largest centre for the fish industry and for the state of Bremen the economic importance of the ports is very significant.

Ireland Dublin

Western Ireland

The West of Ireland in particular could compensate for poor agricultural development by developing its fishing industry.

Main stakeholders, even those that are acting in Western Ireland, are actually based in Dublin.

Italy Sicilia Sicilia is the main Italian region for fisheries activities: first region for fish production (20% in volume, 27% in values), first region for the fleet (24% of the boats, 32% of gross tonnage), first for sailors (28%), 2008 data.

Malta Malta Whole area is of interest for the Evaluation

Poland Pomorskie (Gdynia, Gdansk) Pomorskie Voivodeship region is situated on the Baltic Sea. The region’s clean waters are home to salmon and trout, and there is an abundance of farmed trout and carp.

Portugal Porto

Fishing has always been a major economic activity. The Port of Leixões has an important place in Portugal GDP.

Main stakeholders, even those that are acting in Porto, are actually based in Lisbon.

Spain Galicia

The fishing and maritime industries are identified as a strategic sector in the Galician economy, either in the direct way for its contribution to the GNP, to the employment creation and balance of trade, or indirect in the generation of an important volume of complementary and services activities. Moreover Galicia is considered to be the sea food capitol of Spain.



Sweden Stockholm & Swedish west coast (Göteborg)

The most important harbours in west coast are: Träslövsläge, Göteborg, Ängholmen, Smögen, and Strömstad on the west coast.

The Netherlands Flevoland

In this region, the port of Urk is divided in a commercial port and in tourist inner ports. Together they have a surface of more than ten hectare, which makes the Urker ports one of the larger inner ports of the Netherlands. Urk is situated at the sea lane between Amsterdam and the northern part of Holland and gives the port a central place.

The United-Kingdom North-east England (Newcastle)

Newcastle is one of UK's largest ports.

Main stakeholders, even those that are acting in Newcastle, are actually based in London.



I.C. List of interviews at national level Table 1: Interviews performed in Denmark

Thanks to the Baltic Sea RAC Secretary, many different types of stakeholders have been interviewed except an organisation from the Maritime Industry who did not reply to our request.

Table 2: Interviews performed in France

Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people

Fisheries and aquaculture industries

Fishing sector Union des Armateurs de la Pêche 1

Processing sector ADEPALE 1

Fishing sector DG CNPMEM 3

Aquaculture sector

Fédération Française d'Aquaculture 1

Administrations National authorities

Permanent Representation of France to the EU

1

National authorities

Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries,France

3

Civil society NGO Bloom Association 1



Fishing sector Danish Sea Food Association 1

Fishing sector Federation of National Organisations of Importers and Exporters of Fish

1

Fishing sector Denmarkd Fiskeriforening 1


Permanent Representation of Denmark to the EU

1


Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Denmark

2


Statistical department within the Directorate of Fisheries

1

Civil society

NGO Alliance of Social and Ecological Consumer Organizations

1

Consumer association

Alliance of Social and Ecological Consumer Organizations

1

Press “Fiskeritidende” (Fishing Times) 1

RAC Secretary 1

TOTAL 10




TOTAL 11

Organisation from the Maritime Research has been contacted, but the meeting was not possible in the time of the country visit. The Marine industry has also been contacted unsuccessfully.

Table 3: Interviews performed in Germany



Fishing sector Deustcher Fischerei-Verband e.V. 1

Aquaculture sector

Niedersächsische Muschelfischer GbR 1

Processing sector Bundesverband der Deutschen Fischindustrie und des Fischgrosshandels (BDFF)

1*

Maritime industries Shipbuilding Verband für Schiffbau und Meerestechnik e.V.

1

Marine technology BALance Technology Consulting 1*


Permanent Representation of Germany to the EU

1


Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

1

Civil society NGO Deutscher Nautischer Verein von 1868 e.V.

1


Verbraucherzentrale Hamburg 1


Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut - Bundesforschungsinstitut für Ländliche Räume, Wald und Fischerei (vTI)

1

TOTAL 10

Some German stakeholders (identified with *) were active at European level within European representative organisations. Thus, they have been interviewed as representatives of both organisations, European and German. Some stakeholders from the Maritime press (Schiff und Hafen and Hansa) were contacted but declined the interview.

Table 4: Interviews performed in Ireland



Fishing sector Irish Fisherman’s Producer Organisation (IFPO)

1




Fishing sector Irish Fishermen’s Organisation (IFO) 1

Maritime Industries Export Irish exporter association 2

Transport Nautical Enterprise Centre Ltd 1


BIM Irish Sea Fisheries Board 1


Marine Survey Office 1


Institute Marine Institute 1

RAC Secretary 1

TOTAL 9

Some other stakeholders from the Civil Society (2 consumers associations and 2 ONG) were contacted. One of them was active at European level within European representative organisations. They were not available during the time of the country visit.

The Fishery Attaché answered to our request but has no time for the interview.

Table 5: Interviews performed in Italy



Fishing sector FEDEROP (OP) 1

Maritime Industry AGCI (cooperative) 1


Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali (MIPAAF)

2


Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei trasporti (MIT)

2


FEDEROP (OP) 1

Regional authorities

Regione Sicilia 1

Civil society


MDC 1


Consorzio mediterraneo 1

Press Agrisole (press) 1

TOTAL 11



Sicilian stakeholders (Capitaneria di Porto Mazara del Vallo, Confederazione Imprese Pesca Mazara and COSVAP) declined the interview.

Table 6: Interviews performed in Malta



Fishing sector Koperattiva Nazzjonali Tas-Sajd 1

Aquaculture sector

P2M CO. LTD. 1

Administrations


Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment

1*

Administrations/ Scientific research

Fishing sector Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment/ Malta Centre for Fisheries Science

1

Aquaculture sector

Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment/ Malta Aquaculture Research Center

1

Civil society

NGO Nature Trust 1


Maritime Institute 1

TOTAL 7

* 1 person agreed to meet us during the country visit, but suggested to send a written official contribution on behalf of the Ministry instead of answering to our question orally. Unfortunately, no written contribution could be received on time due to very long approval process within the Ministry

Some other stakeholders from the Maritime transport (Transport Malta/ Ministry of transport) were contacted but were not available during the time of the country visit.

Table 7: Interviews performed in Poland


Fishery and aquaculture industries

Fishing sector Association of Fishermen´s of Sea 1*

Fishing sector Fisherman organisation 1*

Aquaculture sector

Polish Trout Breeders' Association 1


Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

3


Permanent Representation of Poland to the EU

1

Civil Society NGO WWF Poland 2





Institute Urząd Morski w Gdyni (Maritime office in Gdynia)

2

Institute Sea Fisheries Institute in Gdynia 1

Press PROMARE Sp. z o.o. (magazine: Namiary na morze)

1

MPR publishing house limited (magazine: Fish Industry Magazine – Magazyn Przemyslu Rybnego)

Fish Market Development Association

1

TOTAL 14

* Representants from the fishing sector were met during a national meeting that took place in Gdynia on Sept 2. This meeting also gave the opportunity to discuss with an expert from the Chalmers University of Technology (Sweden) involved in counseling the Baltic RAC members to develop the dialogue at more local level.

Table 8: Interviews performed in Portugal



Fishing sector Associação Dos Armadores das Pescas Industriais (ADAPI)

1

Fishing sector Docapesca 1

Aquaculture sector

Pescanova 1

Processing sector Associação Nacional dos Industriais de Conservas de Peixe (ANICP)

2

Maritime industries Transport Associação dos Transitários de Portugal (APAT)

1

Transport Associação. Agentes de Navegação de Portugal (AGEPOR)

1


Permanent Representation of Portugal to the EU

1


Direcção-Geral das Pescas e Aquicultura 2

Civil society Consumer association

Associação Portuguesa. para a Defesa do Consumidor (DECO)

1


Instito Superior tecnico - Centro de Engenharia e Tecnologia Naval

1

MIS Consultores 1

TOTAL 13



Portuguese NGOs have been also contacted (Quercus and LPN) but did not answer positively to the request for an interview.

Table 9: Interviews performed in Spain



Fishing sector CEPESCA (Confederación Española de Pesca)*

2

Fishing sector ARVI (Cooperativa de Armadores de Pesca del Puerto de Vigo)

1

Processing sector ANFACO (Asociación nacional de fabricantes de conservas de pescados y mariscos)

2

Aquaculture sector

Consejo Regulador de Mejillón de Galicia 1

Administrations Regional authorities

Autoridad Portuaria de Vigo – Division de operaciones pesqueras y de medio ambiente

1


Representación Permanente de España ante la UE

1


Ministerios de los asuntos exteriores - Secretario de estado para la Union Europea

1

Civil society NGO Oceana 1


OCU (Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios)

1

Press Productos del Mar 1

TOTAL 12

*The general secretary of Cepesca, also president of Europêche, has been interviewed as the representative of the Spanish organization.

The interview with the Ministry in charge of fisheries and aquaculture sector (MARM) could not be realized despite many contacts with different departments of the Ministry (Secretario General de Economia Pesquera, Gabinete tecnico del Secretario General, Prensa del MARM). They all declined the interview considering that they were not the most competent department on this topic. No relevant contact could be identified to date.

The Regional authorities (Xunta de Galicia) was contacted but no answer to the questionnaire was received to date.

Table 10: Interviews performed in Sweden



Fishing sector Swedish Fishermen's Federation (SFR) 1

Processing sector Federation of Swedish Fish Industries 1




and Trade

Processing sector Abba Seafood 1

Aquaculture sector

Federation of Swedish Aquaculture Producers

1

Maritime industries Port authority Association Ports of Sweden 1

Maritime Forum Maritime Forum Sweden 1


Ministry for Environment 1


Swedish Board of Fisheries 1


Ministry of agriculture 1


Goteborg County Council 2

Civil society NGO WWF's Baltic Program Office 2


The Swedish Consumers' Association 1


The Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment

1

TOTAL 15

Some stakeholders from the National press (Dagens Nyheter) and from the Maritime Press (Shipgazette) were contacted but never answered to the interview requests. The fish attaché was not available for the period proposed for the phone interview.

Table 11: Interviews performed in the Netherlands


Fishery and aquaculture industries

Fishing sector Pelagic Freezer Trawler Association (PFA)

1*

Processing sector Visfederatie 1*

Aquaculture sector

Productschap Vis 1

Maritime industry Port authorities Port of Rotterdam 1*


Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij

1


Interministerial Board of North Sea Affairs (IDON)

1





Ministry of Transport 1


Provincie Flevoland 1



1

Civil Society NGO Stichting De Noordzee 1


Research LEI 1

TOTAL 10

The Dutch only consumers’ association, Consumentenbond, declined the interview claiming that “the association is not involved in any themes which are linked to DG MARE”.

Some Dutch stakeholders (identified with *), very active at European level within European representative organizations (president of ACFA, president of AIPCE, president of ESPO), have been interviewed as representatives of Dutch organizations.

Table 12: Interviews performed in the United Kingdom



Fishing sector National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)

1

Aquaculture sector

British Marine Finfish Associationand Trade

1

Aquaculture sector

Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)

1

Maritime industries Transport, Shipbuilding, Marine tourism

British Marine Federation 1



1


Marine Management Organisation 3


Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

1


Marine Scotland 3

Maritime research, science and education

Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)

1




associations

Press UK Fishing News and Fishing News International

1

TOTAL 13

With regards to the Maritime Industries, some stakeholders were contacted and did not answer to the requests (e.g.: British Ports Association) or declined the interviews (e.g.: Chamber of Shipping) explaining that they “did not see the benefits”. With regards to the Consumer associations, the stakeholders from the main national associations were contacted (the National Consumer Council and Which?) but declined, explaining that they did “not feel directly concerned” by the fisheries or maritime topics. With regards to NGOs, Greenpeace UK declined explaining that the answers at the UK level would be more or less the same as at the European level (the stakeholder spoke about it with the person interviewed at the European level); WWF UK did not answer to the request; some stakeholders from Client Earth and Marine Conservation Society were contacted but not available on the period, and then, they at least answer to the survey.

I.D. Interview guidelines The following interview guides are an indicative framework. The questions has been adjusted regarding the function and organisation of the interviewed persons.

I.D.1. Interview guidelines for stakeholders from the Fishery and Aquaculture industry

Interviewee profile

Name

Stakeholder Fishery and Aquaculture industry

Entity

Unit

Function

Contact [email protected]

Review the objectives of and the methods for evaluation The Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of the European Commission (referred to below as DG MARE) entrusted Ernst & Young Government Services to conduct an evaluation of the external communication. The purpose of this quick survey is to understand your needs and to gather your opinion on the utility, effectiveness, and rapidity of access to the information provided by DG MARE since 2007.

In this framework, Ernst & Young France, in charge of this evaluation, would like to survey every current or past beneficiary of DG MARE communication:

• The general Public,

• Regional Advisory Council’s members (RAC) / Advisory Committee of Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) members,

mailto:[email protected]



• Stakeholders involved in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP),

• Stakeholders involved in the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP).

As a current or past beneficiary of DG MARE communication we thank you in advance for completing a short interview, which should take not more than 1 hour. Please note that your participation is crucial for the success and relevance of the evaluation.

The content of the interview will focus on the appreciation and perception of DG MARE communication.

This questionnaire aims to collect your opinion and will focus on the appreciation perception of DG MARE communication.

Introduction 1. Could you briefly introduce your organisation? Your function within the organisation?

2. What is your level of contact with DG MARE? What is your link with the fishing sector at the local/ regional/ national/ European level?

3. Are you directly concerned by or interested in the CFP? If so, in what way? What is your general vision/level of knowledge about what DG MARE does in term of communication?

4. Firstly, could you name spontaneously DG MARE current main communication priorities? Some key messages?

Information and communication needs: knowledge and understanding on the CFP 5. What are the main topics you are interested in with regard to the CFP:

a. Conservation measures and management of fishery resources (quotas, limitation of fishing effort, technical measures)

b. Fleet management

c. Environmental measures

d. Market policy and the Common Market Organisation (CMO)

e. Structural measures and financial support (European Fisheries Fund)

f. Eliminating destructive fishing practices

g. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU)

h. Improvement of EU fishery industry competitiveness (revenue, promotion of fishery and aquaculture products)

i. Controls

j. External relations and Fisheries partnership agreements

k. More generally: The Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy reform…

6. Do you have the feeling that you have not enough information in regards with your needs of knowledge and understanding on CFP? If so, what are they?

7. On which aspects of the CFP do you think you would need some more/clearer information?



8. Notwithstanding the European Commission's intervention, would you need some more information on the fishery sector in general? In particular, where would you get information on the following aspects? Where do you get the information from (DG MARE/not DG MARE)

a. Biological and environmental aspects

b. Social aspects (employment…)

c. Economic aspects and competitiveness (promotion, revenue, value..) of fishing, aquaculture and/or processing industries

d. Other: …

Information and communication needs: perception on the CFP 9. What is your opinion of the current CFP?

10. What has influenced your opinion? (the media, the NGOs, your personal interest, etc.)

11. If your perception/ image is negative, what is this image?

a. The CFP does not take into account local concerns

b. The CFP cost is too high

c. The CFP benefits are limited

d. With regard to more specific aspects:

i. Conservation measures are unfair

i. Environmental measures are not sufficient

ii. Other: CMO, EFF, External relations, IUU, Controls…

12. In your opinion, are there any negative and unbalanced opinions with regard to the CFP? Which ones in particular? Do you feel some of them have decreased/increased over the period 2007-2010?

13. Do you support the idea of a CFP reform? Do you think the European Commission is heading towards some relevant changes?

Effectiveness of DG MARE external communication activities: use of DG MARE communication tools i. In general, what are your main sources of information:

a. DG MARE sources: which ones in particular?

b. Not DG MARE sources: which ones in particular?

14. What kind of “user” are you of DG MARE communication with regard to:

a. Publications:

i. Do you read some of DG MARE’s publications? If so, how frequently?

ii. Do you subscribe to any DG MARE publications Do you know "Fisheries and Aquaculture in Europe"? If so, do you read it?



iii. Are publications (as communication tools) adapted to your needs?

iv. Are publications easily accessible?

v. How would you improve communication through publications?

b. Events

i. Have you been invited in some DG MARE's events/ conferences? If so, did you attend the event?

ii. Have you noticed DG MARE’s stand at some fairs you have participated in?

iii. Are events as a communication tool adapted to your needs?

iv. How would you improve communication through events?

c. Website

i. How often do you visit DG MARE’s website?

ii. What kind of information are you looking for when you visit DG MARE’s website? Do you find it easily?

iii. Have you noticed the website revamping? If so, what do you think about the new website?

iv. How would you improve communication by through website?

15. What is your general opinion on the communication tools used by DG MARE? Do you think DG MARE uses relevant and complementary tools to communicate? Do these tools meet your specific needs? Name the tool that you find the most and the least relevant to your needs.

16. What is your opinion on the content and quality of communication of DG MARE?

a. Is the basic information and/or information on EU initiatives and actions on the CFP widely available?

b. Is the information on EU initiatives and actions on the CFP well explained?

c. Is the basic information and/or information on EU initiatives and actions on the CFP easily understandable?

d. Is the information is up-to-date enough for you?

e. What is your opinion on the messages provided through these tools? What impression do you get of the CFP by reading DG MARE’s materials/ by attending DG MARE’s events or by visiting DG MARE’s website?

Effectiveness of DG MARE external communication activities: results and impacts of DG MARE external communication activities 17. Do you feel that the communication tools and media of DG MARE help you to have a better knowledge

about CFP objectives and measures?

a. If so: could you give some concrete examples?

b. If not: could you give some concrete example and express your recommendations about what could be improved?

18. On which subjects in particular would you say that DG MARE’s communication has helped you to better understand the CFP objectives and measures?



a. Conservation measures and management of fishery resources (quotas, limitation of fishing effort, technical measures)

b. Fleet management

c. Environmental measures

d. Market policy and the Common Market Organisation (CMO)

e. Structural measures and financial support (European Fisheries Fund)

f. Eliminating destructive fishing practices

g. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU)

h. Improvement of EU fishery industry competitiveness (revenue, promotion of fishery and aquaculture products)

i. Controls

j. External relations and Fisheries partnership agreements

k. More generally: The Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy reform…

19. Does DG MARE’s communication increase your awareness on priority subjects regarding CFP, and in particular?

a. On the need for a reform

b. On the importance of giving priority to the environmental and biological dimensions of sustainability.

c. On the need to tackle overfishing and the effective conservation and management of fishery resources

d. On the focus on the ecosystem approach

e. (For 2010 on the public results of the 2009 consultation and on the cost of the current policy and the need for the reform to bring down this cost for the European taxpayer?)

f. Other

20. On which successes and shortcomings of the current CFP do you think that DG MARE has contributed to increase awareness?

21. Do you feel involved in the decision process? Why?

22. Would you say DG MARE’s Communication activities contribute to develop the dialogue? Why?

23. Do you think DG MARE Communication activities succeed to sufficiently reach the general public?

a. If so, through which activities in particular?

b. If not, why?

c. What would be your recommendations to better reach the general public

24. Are you a user of communication tools and media provided by other DGs?

a. If so: which ones? Which tools do you often use? On which main topics? What is your level of satisfaction?



b. Which common points and/or differences with DG MARE do you identify?

c. Is there something that you especially appreciate in terms of communication with another DG that you do not find with DG MARE?

Effectiveness of DG MARE external communication activities: use of multipliers 25. Do you think that journalists play a significant role in building:

a. Recognition of the CFP?

b. Understanding of the CFP?

c. CFP positive image? CFP negative image ?

d. Support for CFP?

26. Do you think they effectively disseminate DG MARE’s messages?

27. Do you act yourself, as multiplier for DG MARE communication on CFP? How? (As a journalist, as an NGO, or as any other type of stakeholder, for your newsletter, conferences, etc.)

Suggestions 28. If you had one thing to change in DG MARE’s communication, what would it be?

I.D.2. Interview guidelines for stakeholders from the Maritime Industry

Interviewee profile

Name

Stakeholder Maritime industry

Entity

Unit

Function

Contact [email protected]

Review the objectives of and the methods for evaluation The Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of the European Commission (referred to below as DG MARE) entrusted Ernst & Young Government Services to conduct an evaluation of the external communication. The purpose of this quick survey is to understand your needs and to gather your opinion on the utility, effectiveness, and rapidity of access to the information provided by DG MARE since 2007.

In this framework, Ernst & Young France, in charge of this evaluation, would like to survey every current or past beneficiary of DG MARE communication:

• The general Public,

• Regional Advisory Council’s members (RAC) / Advisory Committee of Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) members,

• Stakeholders involved in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP),

• Stakeholders involved in the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP).

mailto:[email protected]



As a current or past beneficiary of DG MARE communication we thank you in advance for completing a short interview, which should take not more than 1 hour. Please note that your participation is crucial for the success and relevance of the evaluation.

The content of the interview will focus on the appreciation and perception of DG MARE communication.

This questionnaire aims to collect your opinion and will focus on the appreciation perception of DG MARE communication.

Introduction 1. Could you briefly introduce your organisation? Your function within the organisation?

2. What is your link with DG MARE? What is your link with the fishing sector at the local/ regional/ national/ European level?

3. Are you directly concerned by or interested in the IMP? If so, in what way? What is your general vision/level of knowledge about what DG MARE does in term of communication?

4. What are DG MARE current priorities, conveyed by its communication? What are the key messages?

Information and communication needs: knowledge and understanding on IMP 5. What are the main topics you are interested in with regard to the IMP:

a. Integrated Maritime Governance

b. Sea basin strategies

c. Marine knowledge

d. Maritime surveillance

e. Maritime spatial planning

f. Maritime transport

g. Maritime research

h. Law of the Sea and international cooperation

i. Marine environment

j. IMP and the Common Fisheries Policy

k. Energy (off-shore oil extraction, wave energy, etc.)

l. Competitiveness and economic growth

m. Coastal community needs

n. Integrated approach to maritime affairs: why a cooperation across different maritime sectors is needed

o. …

6. Do you consider you have a good knowledge of the IMP’s objectives, measures, initiatives, actions and stakeholders, as well as its current challenges?



7. Notwithstanding the IMP, would you need some more information on the Maritime sector in general? Where do you get the information from (DG MARE/ not DG MARE)? Is DG MARE's communication sufficient? If you need information on the maritime sectors and activities in general, where do you get the information from (DG MARE / not DG MARE)?

8. How would you define your communication needs? (Information – general/technical, dialogue, involvement, answers, networks…)

Information and communication needs: perception on IMP 9. What is your opinion of the current IMP? Why?

10. What has influenced your opinion? (The media, your personal interest, etc.)

11. If your perception/ image is negative, what is this image?

a. IMP does not take into account Regional/Local concerns

b. IMP is too abstract and the effects are not concrete enough

c. IMP benefits are limited

d. Other

12. In your opinion, what are the main misunderstandings regarding the IMP?

Effectiveness of DG MARE external communication activities: use of DG MARE communication tools 13. What kind of “user” are you of DG MARE communication with regard to:

a. Publications:

i. Do you read some DG MARE publications? If so, how frequently?

ii. Do you subscribe to any DG MARE publications (Subscription? Newsletter?)?

iii. Are publications (as communication tools) adapted to your needs?

iv. Are publications easily accessible ?

v. How would you improve communication by the means of publications?

b. Events

i. Have you been invited to some DG MARE's events/ conferences? If so, did you attend the event?

ii. Have you noticed DG MARE at some fairs you have participated in?

iii. Are events as a communication tool adapted to your needs?

iv. How would you improve communication by the means of events?

c. Website

ii. How often do you visit DG MARE’s website dedicated to IMP?

iii. What kind of information are you looking for when you visit DG MARE’s website? Do you find it easily?

iv. How would you improve communication by the means of website?



14. Do you consider that DG MARE's communication is targeted to your specific needs?

15. What is your general opinion on the communication tools used by DG MARE? Do you think DG MARE uses relevant and complementary tools to communicate? Do these tools meet your specific needs? Name the tool that you find the most and the least relevant to your needs.

16. What is your opinion on the content and quality of communication of DG MARE?

a. Is the basic information and/or information on EU initiatives and actions on IMP easily accessible?

b. Is the information on EU initiatives and actions on IMP explained well?

c. Is the basic information and/or information on EU initiatives and actions on IMP easily understandable?

d. Is the information is up-to-date enough for you?

e. What is your opinion on the messages provided through these tools? What impression do you get of IMP by reading DG MARE’s materials/ by attending DG MARE’s events or by visiting DG MARE’s website?

17. Do you have any other means to get information on IMP? What are they?

Effectiveness of DG MARE external communication activities: results and impacts of DG MARE external communication activities 18. Do you feel that DG MARE communication tools and media help you to have a better knowledge about IMP

objectives and measures?

a. If so: could you give some concrete examples?

b. If not: could you give some concrete example and express your recommendations about what could be improved?

c. Have you noticed any evolution over the last 3 years?

19. On which subjects in particular would you say that DG MARE’s communication has helped you to better understand the IMP objectives and measures?

20. According to you, which tools foster the greatest understanding of the messages?

21. Would you say that you are more aware of priority subjects regarding IMP thanks to DG MARE’s communication and in particular?

a. On the need to overcome individual policies’ boundaries in order to face current global challenges?

b. On the progress made by IMP through concrete projects? Which one?

c. The international dimension of the IMP

d. On the focus on sustainability, growth, employment and innovation

e. On the need to develop regional sea-basin strategies



f. On the Governance and redistribution of responsibility

g. On the fact that IMP offers you a platform to raise the visibility and the image of your sectors and activities

h. Other: …

22. Do you feel enough involved in the decision process? Why?

23. Would you say DG MARE’s Communication activities contribute to develop the dialogue? Why?

24. Do you think DG MARE Communication activities succeed to sufficiently reach the general public?

a. If so, through which activities in particular?

b. If not, why?

c. What would be your recommendations to better reach the general public

25. Are you a user of communication tools and media provided by other DGs?

a. If so: which ones? Which tools do you often use? On which main topics? What is your level of satisfaction?

b. Which common points and/or differences with DG MARE do you identify?

c. Is there something that you especially appreciate in terms of communication with another DG that you do not find with DG MARE?

26. How would you judge DG MARE’s external communication compared to other DGs you also use frequently? Common points? Differences? Level of satisfaction? Is there something that you especially appreciate in terms of communication with any other DG that you don’t find with DG MARE?

Effectiveness of DG MARE external communication activities: use of multipliers 27. Do you think that journalists play a significant role in building :

a. Recognition of IMP?

b. Understanding of IMP?

c. IMP positive image? IMP negative image ?

d. Support for IMP?

28. Are journalists multipliers of DG MARE’s communication? Do they effectively disseminate DG MARE’s messages?

29. Do you act as multiplier for DG MARE communication IMP? How? (As a journalist, as an NGO, or as any other type of stakeholder.)

Suggestions 30. If you had one thing to change in DG MARE’s communication, what would it be?



I.E. Online survey



I.F. Respondents characteristics The 358 respondents to the online survey have the following characteristics:

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

3

3

4

4

5

5

8

9

10

12

15

16

20

20

29

30

31

35

40

46

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

3%

3%

3%

4%

5%

6%

6%

8%

8%

9%

10%

11%

13%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Austria

Cyprus

Hungary

Latvia

Slovakia

Luxembourg

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Estonia

Finland

Lithuania

Malta

Romania

Netherlands

Sweden

Greece

Ireland

Portugal

Germany

Italy

Poland

Belgium

Denmark

Non-European country

United Kingdom

Spain

France

Country of residence

Question 1: Are you resident/a representative from?



Question 2: how old are you?

3

43

11

14

19

21

25

31

42

56

114

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

NA

Other

Press

Consumer and associative movements

Maritime industry

European Institution

General public

Non governmental environmental and development …

Marine and maritime research, science and …

National Administration

Fishing and aquaculture industry

Total is higher than number of respondents because respondents may belong to more than one type of organisation

Type of organisation

Question 3: To which type of organisation do you belong?



I.G. List of documents DOCUMENTS

YEARS CONCERNED

Annual Management Plan

2007 Annual Management Plan -Final review (October/November 2007) - ANNEXES – Final review (October/November 2007)

2007

Annual Management Plan (main part and annexes) - Final review of the AMP main part - ANNEXES – Mid-year review

2008

Annual Management Plan (main part and annexes) - Main part – Final review - ANNEXES – Midterm review

2009

2010 Management Plan – provisional 2010 2010 Management Plan – Annex 7 Communication Strategy 2010 Reference documents on communication Action Plan to improve communicating Europe” (SEC(2005) 985 – 20

July 2005) 2005

Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate” (COM(2005) 494 – 13 October 2005) 2005

Debate Europe — building on the experience of Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate 2008

White Paper on a European Communication Policy” (COM (2006) 35 – 1 February 2006) 2006

Communicating Europe in Partnership 2007 Communicating about Europe via the Internet Engaging the citizens 2008 Debate Europe 2008 Communicating Europe through audiovisual media 2008 Web Statistics 2006-2010 Activity Statement 2007-2011 Activity Statement 2010-2011 Note for the attention of director DG MARE 2008 Document de travail sur les options politiques et les scenarios pour la

réforme de l’OCM 2010

Planning ahead “catalogue” 2010 Financial and human resources used for the organisation of the European

Maritime Day 2009 2009

Facts and Figures on EMD 2009 2010 Stakeholder conference, Rome, 18-20 May: Facts and Figures 2009 Rapport sur l’état d’avancement de la politique maritime intégrée de l’UE 2009 A practical guide to press activities 2010 Media Plan 2010 The working methods of the Commission 2010-2014 Working Method Annex 3 - Working Methods Press – F2 FINAL 2010 DG MARE Strategic communication advice note (MOSTRA) 2010 Activity Statement of the European Maritime Day 2009 (MOSTRA) 2009 Action Plan to improve communicating Europe by the Commission - MOSTRA, strategic communication advice note 2010 Synthesis of the consultation on the Reform of CFP 2010

Sectoral Evaluation



DOCUMENTS

YEARS CONCERNED

Intermediate Evaluation of the Advisory Committee for fisheries and aquaculture (ACFA) – Final Report 2008

DG MARE Evaluation à mi-parcours du fonctionnement du Comité Consultatif de la Pêche et de l’Aquaculture (CCPA) – Note de Synthèse 2008

Evaluation Report on the European Maritime Day Stakeholder Conference GIJON, 18-21 MAY 2010 2010

Evaluation of DG Trade’s communication policy, strategy and activities 2008 Annual Activity Report

Annual Activity Report 2007



Events Results Sea Food Results 2008 Sea Food Results 2009 Sea Food Results 2010 Brest Results 2008 JPO Results 2008 World Fishing Exhibition Results 2009 The Maritime Industry Forum - Others Shellfish Association of Great Britain – Newsletter Sumer 2010 2010 ABAC, Budgetary commitments (period covered : 2007 -2009) 2010

List of Production Audiovisuals produced by DG MARE during the period 2007-2010 – Summary Report on results 2007-2010

Principales publications DG MARE 2007-2010 - Tirage et stock restant 2007-2010

Info – Audiovisual 2007-2010

Publications DG MARE 2007-2010

Results of the poll on “Fisheries and Aquaculture in Europe” Magazine DG MARE Programme of Publications 2010 – Publication request form 2010 Editions’ summary for - Fisheries and aquaculture in Europe - The European Fishery

2005

Reference documents on CFP and IMP

Communication on the Common Fisheries policy

External communication strategy on the integrated maritime policy

Studies & Information Files

Fisheries Partnership agreements : positive messages & Q&A 2001-2006 Information file on Shark Action Plan - 2009 -Audiovisual – positive results for the film on the Shark Action Plan

-« L’Europe agit pour protéger les requins » 2008-2009



I.H. Methodology and evaluation approach per evaluation question

A. Relevance: To what extent do DG MARE communication strategies respond to the information needs of its target audience?

Understanding of the question DG MARE has defined different target audiences to provide information and communication on CFP on the one hand, and IMP on the other hand. As described according to 2010 Communication Strategy, CFP target audiences are split into priority audiences (or primary target audiences) and other audiences IMP target audiences are split between maritime stakeholders and other.

The relevance evaluation focuses on DG MARE's audience targeting and assess to what extent these audiences are rightly chosen and classified, and check the adequacy of set objectives, messages and tools with the target audiences' information needs.

Methodology and evaluation approach Relevance analysis is based on 3 intermediate questions (Q.) related to following specific issues:

• Knowledge of the targets and their needs to be able to measure how the policy copes with divergent interests or at least with different interests expressed by the target audiences (depending on the characteristics of the sector in their country, their role in the sector, etc.) and thus potentially with different needs in terms of information (in terms of content but also of communication tools and channels) (A.1)

• Understanding of the key components of the current DG MARE communication strategy on both CFP and IMP, but also characterising it as a whole : reactive / anticipative, personalised according to the targets needs / global, technical / citizen oriented, to understand what are the main drivers of the day to day use of DG MARE communication tools and media: technical / political consideration? (A.2)

• Adequacy between both components, i.e. between targets' needs and DG MARE external communication strategy (A.3)

The analyses help providing an opinion on the following judgement criteria:

Evaluation subquestion Judgement criteria

A.1 Does DG MARE aim for clearly defined target audiences? What are the information needs of each target audience? Are they well known by DG MARE?

• The target audiences are properly defined by DG MARE

• Priority is given to some target audiences

• No other target audience should be included in the list

• The information needs of each target audience are well identified and known by DG MARE

• Some actions taken by DG MARE ensures that data on information needs are regularly collected and updated



A.2 Has DG MARE a proper external communication strategy, with clearly defined objectives, tools and messages?

• DG MARE's has defined clear communication objectives

• Communication objectives are well organised

• Objectives are neither contradictory with each other, nor with the overall objectives of the Commission’s communication policy.

• Related tools and messages are clearly defined in relation with each target audience.

• Quantitative or quantitative targets have been set up

A.3 Are communication strategy's objectives and messages in line with the information needs of each target audience? Are tools supporting DG MARE's communication objectives appropriate to reach the target audience?

• The objectives of the communication strategy are in line with the information needs of each target audience

• Priority given to certain audiences is justified

• The messages transmitted correspond to the information needs of each target audience (in terms of content, update frequency, etc.)

• The tools and media used are adapted to the situation of the target audience

• The tools and media used are considered reliable by the target audience

Main tools and data sources Several sources were used to draft the answer to this evaluation question, including:

• Secondary data:

o External communication strategy on IMP (before 2010)

o Communication on the Common Fisheries Policy (before 2010)

o DG MARE 2010 Management Plan – Annex 7 Communication Strategy;

• Interviews with all types of stakeholders

• Online survey: questions related to information needs of targeted audiences (questions 26 and 39)

Limitations One important difficulty when answering this question is it was complicated to see the evolution of the communication strategy. Indeed DG MARE developed only two strategy documents prior to 2010 and neither of these was dated.

Data about information needs from target audiences is also not easy to gather during a limited exercise in time. This may require a specific study in order to define properly a communication strategy in terms of target audiences.



B. Coherence: How coherent are the communication tools and messages in DG MARE communication strategies with their objectives, with each other and with other existing initiatives in the same field?

Understanding of the question Communication implemented by DG MARE entails a large set of tools and relates to different messages that can be either very general or much focused on one specific topic.

Methodology and evaluation approach Coherence analysis is based on 3 intermediate questions related to following specific issues:

• Assessment of vertical coherence between communication objectives on the one side, and tools and messages on the other side (B1);

• Assessment of horizontal coherence of messages and tools, by checking that messages do not contradict each other and tools complement each other (B2);

• Assessment of external coherence, by checking that coherence with related communication strategies from other DGs is ensured (B3)

The analyses help providing an opinion on the following judgement criteria:


B.1 Are messages and tools coherent with DG MARE's communication objectives? (vertical coherence)

• Transmitted messages are in line with DG MARE's communication objectives.

• Transmitted messages focus on the priority objectives, i.e. the most sensitive information needs

• The tools and media used are consistent with DG MARE's communication objectives

B.2 Are communication tools and messages coherent with each other? (horizontal coherence)

• The messages conveyed do not contradict each other.

• Tools complement each other.

B.3 Are communication tools and messages coherent with other existing initiatives in the same field? (external coherence)

• Coherence is ensured with the related communication strategies developed by other DGs (notably DG MOVE, DG ENV, DG RTD) and synergies have been developed.


• Secondary data: DG MARE 2010 Management Plan – Annex 7 Communication Strategy;

• Interviews with all types of stakeholders, especially DG MARE staff members and other European Commission’s DGs;

• Online survey: questions 36 and 37.



Limitations Main limit to be considered when answering the evaluation question about coherence is that the strategic framework is a given parameter despite potential relevance weaknesses. As a result, consistency between communication objectives, messages and tools may be ensured but the whole may still appear unsatisfying with regard to the limits of strategic framework (insufficient prioritisation and targeting).

C. Effectiveness (CFP): How effective is the communication strategy in improving the knowledge, understanding and perception of the CFP by the concerned target audiences and the public as a whole?

Understanding of the question As shown by the intervention logic analysis, communication activities on CFP aim to develop knowledge and understanding, improve perception and reinforce interest and support of those concerned by the CFP as well as “interested” stakeholders including the general public.

Methodology and evaluation approach More specifically, DG MARE communication seeks to:

• Present and explain EU initiatives and action for those concerned and for society at large, with a focus on actions demonstrating added value of common measures

• Ensure that the basic information is widely available and easily understandable

• Strengthen the dialogue with stakeholders and respond to information needs of interested group and the media by covering as much as possible specific local concerns

• Raise awareness on priority subjects, depending on the target audiences, i.e. on the need for a reform on the CFP and fisheries stakeholders and the public of the results of the 2009 consultation, and on the cost of the current policy and the need for the reform to bring down this cost for the European taxpayer

These objectives are faced with many challenges such as negative publicity from NGOs (environmental impact, socioeconomic aspects, etc.), criticism from stakeholders that do not share the common interest (exploitation of maritime resources, etc.) and wrong understanding from concerned audiences and the general public in general that might hamper the achievement of set communication activities and limit their impact.

Effectiveness evaluation relies on 4 intermediate questions (Q.) that focuses on following analyses:

• Analysis at operational level: output analysis (C1)

• Analysis at specific and general level focusing on the results and impacts achieved regarding knowledge and understanding (C2)

• Analysis at specific and general level focusing on the results and impacts achieved regarding awareness-raising and perception (C3)

• Analysis at specific and general level focusing on the results and impacts achieved regarding dialogue reinforcement, and participation with a view on the ongoing process of the CFP reform (C4)




C.1 What are the outputs and results of CFP communication activities during the 2007-2010 period? In particular, does the press communication activity contribute to enhancing the media coverage of CFP issues?

• DG MARE has implemented all planned actions under each activity (events, publications, press, Internet and others)

• Each communication activity have reached good results (expected/ non expected)

• Regarding Press activity: the communication contributes to enhancing the media coverage of CFP issues, both by specialist and general media

C.2 To what extent does DG MARE's external communication contribute to a better knowledge and understanding of the CFP objectives and measures?

• Basic information and/or information on EU initiatives and actions on CFP are widely available

• Information on EU initiatives and actions on CFP is well explained

• Basic information and/or information on EU initiatives and actions on CFP are easily understandable (or: is considered understandable by target audiences)

• Information is up-to-date

• Knowledge of the CFP objectives and measures has improved among target audiences (DG MARE's communication contributes to a better knowledge of the CFP objectives and measures)

• Understanding of the CFP objectives and measures has improved among target audiences (DG MARE's communication contributes to a better understanding of the CFP objectives and measures)

C.3 To what extent does DG MARE's external communication contribute to improve awareness and perception on CFP?

• DG MARE is accurately informed about trends and perceptions in the target audiences regarding CFP

• Target audiences are better aware on priority subjects regarding CFP

• DG MARE's communication contributes to increase awareness about the successes and shortcomings of the current CFP

• Misunderstandings have decreased over the period

• Negative assessment by the media, concerned target audiences and the general public have been reduced over the period

C.4 Do DG MARE's communication activities strengthen the dialogue with a view to reinforcing interest and support towards CFP reform?

• Feedback mechanisms allow for a dialogue with stakeholders and with the general public

• Communication strategy mobilises stakeholders around IMP issues

• Communication strategy enhances dialogue with and among stakeholders




• Secondary data:


o Activity Statement

o List of publications

o Web statistics


• Online survey: questions related to the communication tools

Limitations One of the limits when answering the evaluation question about effectiveness, was the difficulty to have all the data regarding the main realisation. Indeed, the analysis of an activity lays on the comparison between what has been realised with the results of this activity. If no data is available on what has been achieved, it is complicated to make the comparison.

The low number of data on the media and especially the press was one of the main obstacles to answer the evaluative question.

D. Effectiveness (IMP): How effective is the communication strategy in improving awareness and knowledge about the IMP amongst target audiences and the public as a whole?

Understanding of the question As shown by the intervention logic analysis, communication activities on IMP aim to develop knowledge and understanding, improve perception and reinforce interest and support of those concerned by the IMP overall among maritime stakeholders, but also among other stakeholders such as International stakeholders and the general public in coastal regions. More specifically, DG MARE communication seeks to:

• Present and explain EU initiatives and action for those concerned and for society at large, with a focus on key areas that can benefit most from the integrated approach

• Ensure that the basic information is widely available and easily understandable

• Strengthen the dialogue with stakeholders and respond to information needs of interested group and the media by covering as much as possible specific local concerns

• Raise awareness on priority subjects, depending on the target audiences, i.e. on the need to overcome individual policies’ boundaries in order to face current global challenges and on the benefits of the IMP, and of the progress made by IMP by promoting concrete projects, such as the Maritime Atlas

These objectives are faced with many challenges. Given the IMP is a new policy, DG MARE must have a communication strategy which helps reaching two short-term priorities: firstly, increasing awareness on the IMP among stakeholders (“making noise”) and secondly, developing tools for participation and mobilization around the policy (“driving progress”). And at mid-term, identify fields for development/improvement of the communication strategy towards a more content-oriented approach instead of awareness rising on the policy itself, because the stake is to increase the involvement of the stakeholders on the key priorities of the IMP. Moreover, the question of the target audiences can stands for a difficulty for DG MARE: Maritime stakeholders is not a homogeneous group and their relationship with IMP is quite loose (respective sectoral policies remain their focus of interest) and general public in coastal regions is not either, and there’s a lack efficient and effective channels to reach it.



Methodology and evaluation approach Effectiveness evaluation relies on 3 intermediate questions (Q.) that will focus on following analyses:

• Analysis at operational level: output analysis (D1)

• Analysis at specific and general level focusing on the results and impacts achieved regarding awareness-raising and perception (D2)

• Analysis at specific and general level focusing on the results and impacts achieved regarding dialogue reinforcement, support and involvement on the IMP (D3)


D.1 What are the outputs and results of IMP communication activities during the 2007-2010 period?

• DG MARE has implemented all planned actions under each activity (events, publications, press, Internet and others)

• Each communication activity has reached good results (expected/ non expected)

D.2 To what extent does DG MARE's external communication contribute to improve awareness and perception on IMP?

• Information on IMP is clear and well explained

• DG MARE is accurately informed about trends and perceptions in the target audiences regarding IMP

• DG MARE's communication contributes to increase awareness about IMP

D.3 Do DG MARE's communication activities strengthen the dialogue with a view to reinforcing interest and support towards IMP?

• DG MARE is accurately informed about trends and perceptions in the target audiences regarding CFP

• Feedback mechanisms allow for a dialogue with stakeholders and with the general public

• Communication strategy mobilises stakeholders around IMP issues

• Communication strategy enhances dialogue with and among stakeholders


• Secondary data:


o Activity Statement

o List of publications

o Web statistics


• Online survey: questions related to the communication tools

Limitations The limit is the same as the one described in the former evaluative question: missing data regarding the press.



E. Efficiency: How efficient and cost effective is the combination of tools in the communication strategies in order to convey the messages and achieve the expected impacts?

Understanding of the question To assess the efficiency of the communication activities, two main issues will be taken into consideration:

• the analyses and related conclusions on effectiveness: types and levels of impacts of the different communication tools on target audiences considering the general objectives assigned;

• the complete costs of the communication activities, including those incurred by the target audiences

The communication policy can be considered efficient if results and impacts (effectiveness) are achieved at a reasonable cost.

Thus, analyses performed on the effectiveness will be reused here and, on the other side, the complete costs of the communication policies need to be estimated. Not only the costs of the policy itself but also:

• the cost of the organisation in charge of implementing it, and

• the indirect costs incurred by target audiences so as to be able to have access to information (participation to events, subscription, ease of access on internet website, etc.).

The management costs also need to be challenged. An effective organization is a component of an efficient policy implementation: it covers a right allocation of resources, relevant organizational processes, coordination of information flow between operational units, communication unit, spokesperson and commissioner, etc.

However, the mere calculation of the ratio cost / effectiveness may not be enough to conclude on the efficiency of an activity. Therefore, trends identified in the impacts and costs for the past three years will be considered in order to determine the efficiency of communication activities. A benchmark with other DGs will provide external insights thus helping to explain the current trends.

Methodology and evaluation approach Efficiency evaluation will rely on two intermediate questions (Q.) that will focus on the following analyses:

• Are the communication activities efficiently managed (E1)?

o Analysis of the complete costs of communication activities

o Analysis of the organisational performance of stakeholders involved in the definition and implementation of communication activities

• Are the impacts of communication activities optimised, i.e. achieved at a reasonable cost? (E2)

o Analysis of the ease of access to information, events, publication, press

o Comparative analysis of the impacts and ease of access to each communication tool considering the costs incurred

It may be difficult to differentiate CFP and IMP in the costs analyses. We will attempt to allocate the costs amongst these two policies.




E.1 Are the communication activities efficiently managed?

• Total costs dedicated to communication activities (activity costs and HR costs) increased proportionally to the activities level

• Adequate skills (internal or external) are dedicated to communication activities

• Strategic planning and coordination between the communication activities (also between CFP and IMP) enables a gain in efficiency

E2. Are the impacts of communication activities optimised, i.e. achieved at a reasonable cost?

• Information supports, dialogue platforms, publications, events, etc. are easily accessible. Access to information and communication allow’ optimisation of impacts

• One communication activity that demonstrates a high level of effectiveness enables a wider audience to be reached than the others. Return on investment is higher

• The current combination of tools allows to optimise the impacts


• Secondary data: DG ABAC, Budgetary commitments (period covered : 2007 -2009);

• Interviews with DG MARE staff members and other European Commission DGs.

Limitations Analyses are mainly limited by the availability of data on both sides, costs and activity:

• DG MARE could not provide full costs related to communication and information activities, i.e. including the allocation of staff costs to each communication activity. Thus, analysed figures reflect only external costs.

• Another important limitation with regard to available figures is the absence of a robust financial programming process to compare actual expenditure to planned budget.

• DG MARE current financial monitoring does not provide sufficiently robust data to assess the efficiency of communication activities in terms of tools (media, events publications, websites and other) and policy (CFP and IMP). Thus, efficiency analysis performed relied mainly on commitments extracted from ABAC, European Commission’s accounting system, while identifying main gaps with payments.

• In terms of activities, output indicators are not clearly monitored in a dedicated system. Activity statements provide some figures to this end, but these are not satisfactory (not relevant, not current and not for all communication activities).

Both types of limitations constitute important areas for improving financial and activity monitoring.



I.I. Example of Newsletter



I.J. DG MARE list of publications (2007-2010)

PUBLICATIONS DG MARE 2007-2010 SUIVANT LE PROGRAMME ORDINAIRE DE PUBLICATIONS (POP)

Titre Versions

linguistiques Observations

POP 2007 [1] Magazine "La pêche et l'aquaculture en Europe" (34-

35-36-37) 23

[2] Carte des TAC et quotas de pêche 2008 17 5 éditions multilingues

[3] La politique commune de la pêche – Guide de l'utilisateur (brochure + fiches)

23

[4] Farde "Fonds européen pour la pêche 2007-2013" 22

[4 a]

Règlements

[4 b]

Vade-mecum

[4 c]

Mode d'emploi

[5] La politique commune de la pêche en chiffres – Édition 2008

23

[6] Thematic Fact sheets on Maritime Policy: Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom

23 Fiche dans langue du pays + EN

[7] Blue Paper for a European Maritime Policy Action Plan 23

[8] Poster "An ocean of opportunity" EN

POP 2008 [1] Carte des TAC et quotas de pêche 2009 17 5 éditions multilingues

[2] Magazine "La pêche et l'aquaculture en Europe" (38-39-40-41-42)

23

[3] Synopsis of FP6 Funded RTD Projects in the Field of Fisheries and Aquaculture

EN

[4] Contributions à la consultation sur le Livre vert sur la politique maritime (CD-ROM)

Multilingue (3 VL)

POP 2009

[1] Magazine "La pêche et l'aquaculture en Europe" (42-43-44-45-46-47)

23

[2] Carte des TAC et quotas de pêche 2010 17 5 éditions multilingues

[3] Species of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea Multilingue (23 VL)

[4] The role of maritime clusters to enhance the strength and development of the European maritime sectors

EN

[5] The role of maritime clusters to enhance the strength and development of the European maritime sectors - CD-Rom

EN

[6] Green Paper on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy – Brochure

22



[7] Green Paper on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy – Leaflet

22

[8] The economics of climate change adaptation in EU coastal areas – Summary report

EN

[9] Legal aspects of maritime monitoring & surveillance data – Summary report

EN

[10] Legal aspects of marine environmental data – Summary report

EN

[11] Legal aspects of maritime spatial planning – Summary report

EN

[12] Achievements and Assessments of the European Commission's work in the field of maritime affairs and fisheries over the period 2004-2009, Joe Borg, European Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs

EN

[13] Tourist facilities in ports Growth opportunities for the European maritime economy: economic and environmentally sustainable development of tourist facilities in ports - Study report

EN

[14] European Maritime Day Stakeholder Conference 2009 – Proceedings

Multilingue

[15] Integrated Maritime Policy - Progress report 3 (EN-ES-FR)

[16] La politique commune de la pêche en chiffres - Édition 2010

23

[17] FARNET Magazine n° 1 4 (DE-EN-ED-FR)

[18] Maritime Spatial Planning for the EU's seas and oceans: what's it all about?

3 (DE-EN-FR)

[19] Towards an IMP for better governance in the Mediterranean

8 (AR-EL-EN-ES-FR-IT-MT-SL)

POP 2010

[1] Magazine "La pêche et l'aquaculture en Europe" (48) 23

[2] Poster "Atlas of the Seas" EN

[3] "Atlas of the Seas" (dépliant format A4) 3 (DE-EN-FR)

[4] "Atlas of the Seas" (dépliant) 23

[5] "Improving stakeholders' imput to the EU maritime policy – The European maritime forum (Dépliant)

3 (DE-EN-FR)

[6] Marine Data Infrastructure EN

[7] "Integrated Maritime Surveillance – A common information sharing environment for the EU maritime domain" (Dépliant)

EN

[8] Synthesis of the Consultation on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy

5 (DE-EN-ES-FR-NL)

[9] Folder "Combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing"

[9 a]

Commission regulations 22

[9 b]

Handbook 6

[10] " Fisheries control" (Dépliant) 23

[11] " Combating illegal fishing" (Dépliant) 23

[12] Poster "Species of the North-East Atlantic" Multilingue (23 VL)

[13] Poster "Species of the North Sea" Multilingue (23 VL)

[14] Poster "Species of the Baltic Sea" Multilingue (23 VL)



[15] Poster "Species of the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea" (1)

Multilingue (23 VL)

[16] Poster "Species of the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea" (2)

Multilingue (23 VL)

[17] Poster "Species of the Deep Sea" Multilingue (23 VL)

[18] Poster "Species of Aquaculture" Multilingue (23 VL)



I.K. DG MARE audiovisual production (2007-2010)

Year/Title Policy Video News Release (VNR)

EUTube and/or Clip for the web

2006

A European vision for the seas IMP X

2007

European Fisheries – A strategy for eliminating discard

CFP X

An Integrated Maritime Policy for the EU IMP X X

The EU comes to the aid of fragile marine ecosystems

CFP X X

Illegal fishing: Blocking access to the EU market CFP X X

2008

From net to plate: making control work for Europe's fisheries

CFP X X

2009

Aquaculture – opportunities for development CFP X

Europe acts to protect sharks X X

Towards a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy CFP X X

Towards a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy

- Informing consumers

CFP X


- Overcapacity

CFP X


- The sector's economic viability

CFP X


- Small scale fishing

CFP X


- Simplifying implementation and decision making

CFP X


- Involving stakeholders

CFP X


- The external dimension

CFP X

2010



An Integrated Maritime Policy IMP X

Integrated Maritime Surveillance IMP X

Marine Knowledge 2020 IMP X

Maritime Spatial Planning IMP X

CFP Reform (ongoing – to be finalised in 2011) CFP X X



I.L. Overview of the survey results

Survey Results -- Overview

Evaluation of DG MARE Communication Activities

Respondents: 278 displayed, 278 total Status: Live

Launched Date: 20/09/2010 Closed Date: N/A

1. Are you resident/a representative from (1 answer) :

Response

TotalResponsePercent

Austria 1 0%

Belgium 26 9%

Bulgaria 3 1%

Cyprus 1 0%

Czech Republic 3 1%

Denmark 30 11%

Estonia 3 1%

Finland 4 1%

France 11 4%

Germany 17 6%

Greece 10 4%

Hungary 1 0%

Ireland 11 4%

Italy 16 6%

Latvia 1 0%

Lithuania 4 1%

Luxembourg 1 0%

Malta 5 2%

Netherlands 9 3%

Poland 20 7%

Portugal 10 4%

Romania 5 2%

Slovakia 1 0%

Slovenia 0 0%

Spain 14 5%

Sweden 9 3%

United Kingdom 36 13%

Non-European country 26 9%

Total Respondents 278

2. How old are you?

Response


<20 1 0%

20-30 45 16%

30-45 107 38%

45-60 100 36%

>60 25 9%


3. To which type of organisation do you belong?

Response


General public 20 7%

Fishing and aquaculture industry 81 29%

Maritime industry 17 6%

European Institution 17 6%

National Administration 44 16%

Non governmental environmental and development organisation 27 10%

Consumer and associative movements 12 4%

Marine and maritime research, science and education organisations 34 12%

Press 8 3%

Other, please specify 39 14%

1. Logistic, distribution, production

2. Publishers

3. European Trade Union Federation

4. Agency of Chambers of Commerce (public)

5. research

6. OECD

7. processing industry

8. European Information Consultamnt

9. Food Exhibition Organiser

10. European Documentation Centre

11. trade union

12. Local government

13. fisheries association

14. Central Bank

15. Lawyer

16. IMPORT & TRADE in fishery products (= not industry ...)

17. Machineproducer for maritime industry

18. Regional Administration

19. University

20. process and packaging consultant

21.

22. Fisheries and Food Consultancy

23. Association of fish farmers in Slovakia

24. National data collection and research

25. Non governmental aquaculture producers association

26.

27. regional administration

28. Port

29. European Studies Institue

30. Fisheries management consultant

31.

32. Recreational Fishing association

33. Frozen Fish & Seafood Supplier

34. ex teacher of fishing and acquaculture

35.

36. Local Government

37. Trade union in fisheries

38. Arms-length Government Conservation Agency

39. National Governing Body


4. How would you describe your knowledge of European policies in the area of Fisheries and Maritime affairs?

Good knowledge Partial Weak Do not knowResponse

Total

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) 46% (102) 30% (65) 23% (50) 1% (3) 220

The Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) 20% (45) 40% (87) 32% (70) 8% (18) 220


5. On which Common Fisheries Policy topic(s) would you like to have more information?

Response


Conservation measures and management of fishery resources (quotas, limitation of fishing effort, technical measures)

106 48%

Fleet management 63 29%

Environmental measures 90 41%

Market policy and the Common Market Organisation (CMO) 70 32%

Structural measures and financial support (European Fisheries Fund) 61 28%

Eliminating destructive fishing practices 64 29%

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) 74 34%

Improvement of EU fishery industry competitiveness (revenue, promotion of fishery and aquaculture products)

59 27%

Controls 54 25%

External relations and Fisheries partnership agreements 43 20%

More generally: The Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy reform…

60 27%

No, I have enough information 22 10%

Not relevant / not interested in the Common Fisheries Policy 18 8%


(skipped this question) 58

6. On which Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) would you like to have more information?

Response


Integrated Maritime Governance 67 30%

Sea basin strategies 56 25%

Marine knowledge 45 20%

Maritime surveillance 42 19%

Maritime spatial planning 70 32%

Maritime transport 26 12%

Maritime research 53 24%

Law of the sea and international cooperation 59 27%

Marine environment 68 31%

IMP and the Common Fisheries Policy 76 35%

Energy (off-shore oil extraction, wave energy, etc.) 37 17%

Competitiveness and economic growth 51 23%

Coastal community needs 56 25%

Integrated approach to maritime affairs: why a cooperation across different maritime sectors is needed

53 24%

No, I have enough information 15 7%

Not relevant / Not interested in the IMP 21 10%



7. Are there any other topics or issues related with fisheries and maritime affairs on which you would need to have more information? If so, which?



8. Do you use the Internet to get information on fisheries and maritime issues?

Response


Yes 207 95%

No 11 5%



9. If so, which websites do you use to get information on fisheries and maritime issues? How frequently?

Frequently Sometimes Rarely NeverResponse

Total

The websites of the European Commission 46% (83) 35% (63) 15% (28) 4% (8) 182

Other websites related to fisheries and maritime issues 42% (76) 38% (69) 15% (28) 5% (9) 182


10. If you use other websites related to fisheries and maritime issues, please specify:



11. Which of the following European Commission websites do you visit the most?

Frequently Sometimes Rarely NeverResponse

Total

The thematic website on Fisheries 39% (65) 27% (45) 16% (27) 17% (29) 166

The thematic website on Maritime Affairs 15% (24) 35% (56) 24% (39) 26% (41) 160

The Commissioner Damanaki's website 8% (12) 24% (37) 25% (38) 44% (68) 155

The European Atlas of the Seas website 3% (5) 20% (31) 40% (62) 37% (57) 155

The Common Fisheries Policy reform website 20% (34) 31% (52) 30% (50) 18% (30) 166

The Maritime Forum 4% (6) 17% (26) 29% (45) 51% (79) 156


12. Which pages do you visit most?

Response


News 123 70%

Consultations 62 35%

Calls for proposals and tenders 34 19%

General information on different initiatives 70 40%

Legislation and official documents 97 55%

Press releases 77 44%

Speeches 33 19%

Other, please specify 7 4%

1. IUU + Fisheries Control

2. Legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

3. Page2RSS page for DG-MARE website

4. meetings seminars

5.

6. Job Opportunities

7. if prompted by an email I visit websites for the information mentioned above.



13. How would you assess the quality and quantity of the information fromprovided in DG MARE websites?

Strongly

agree Agree DisagreeStronglydisagree No opinion

ResponseTotal

Quality: The information provided is both well explained and comprehensible 7% (12) 61% (110) 11% (20) 2% (3) 19% (35) 180

Quantity: The information provided is sufficient 3% (5) 49% (83) 22% (37) 4% (7) 22% (37) 169


14. Could you please explain your previous answer?



15. The thematic website on fisheries has just been revamped. What is your opinion on the new Fisheries website?

Response


It is better than the previous one 42 24%

It is worse than the previous one 16 9%

I have not noticed any changes 32 18%

No opinion 87 49%



16. Do you have any suggestions on DG MARE websites?



17. Which DG MARE publications / brochures do you know / read?

I know it I read it sometimes I read it often I do not knowResponse

Total

Fisheries and Aquaculture in Europe Magazine 21% (39) 22% (42) 13% (25) 44% (82) 188

Facts and Figures on the CFP 21% (39) 25% (47) 9% (16) 46% (86) 188


18. If you read any other publications, please specify:



19. How would you assess the quality and quantity of the information provided in DG MARE publications?

Strongly


ResponseTotal

Quality: The information provided is both well explained and comprehensible 6% (11) 44% (78) 8% (14) 1% (2) 40% (71) 176



20. Could you explain your previous answer?



21. Do you have any suggestions on publications?



22. Which of the following events have you attended in the past three years?

Response


European Maritime Day 33 28%

Seafood exhibition 67 58%

Other seminar / conference / fair, please specify 64 55%

1. Future of CMO, seminar

2. Seminars on CFP reform

3. CFP Reform Topics

4. EU Parliament hearings, Advisory Groups (ACFA)

5.

6. EFF related events

7. Pianeta Mare, Venice, Italy

8. ACFA meeting

9. various

10. iifet

11. ACFA

12. IIFET meeting Policy Day

13. Spring 2007

14. eg. Reform of the CMO Seminar, Brussels 7 July 2010

15.

16.

17. Lobster Conference in Canada

18. Invited presentation at Seas at Risk in 2009 and policy day at IIFET 2010

19. Fishing possibilities, hearings, and preparation meetings

20. Sometimes as a speaker

21. FARNET SEMINAR, POLICY DAY IN MONTPELLIER JULY 2010

22. Aquaculture events

23. eu seminars on CFP reform

24.

25. local congress

26. World Fishing Exhibition

27. stakeholder conferences...

28. many thematic seminars, like the series on the CFP reform (external dimension, EFF, small-scale fisheries, etc)

29.Commitee on Fisheries and aquaculture (brussels), STECF, DCF meetings, ICCAT working groups, etc., GFCM working groups, Scientific conferences etc.,

30.

31.

32. seminar on fishing stocks 2010

33. CFP Reform

34. seminar about stocks in Brussels 2009 and 2010

35. workshop in Porto

36. Policy Day at the IIFET in Montpellier, July 2010

37. IFETT 2010

38. Regional FAO-EUROFISH Workshop

39. IIFET Dolicy Day

40. EC conferences, Presidency conference, NGO/stakeholder seminars,...

41. OCEAN of Tomorrow Infoday (with RTD)

42. Many

43. most conferences organised in Brussels

44. Policy Day on CFP reform at international fisheries economics meeting

45.

46. seminars organized by the EC on different Fisheries topics

47. IIFET 2008 Vietnam, IIFET 2010 Montpellier; EU-organized Policy Day at IIFET 2010

48. IIFET EC Policy Day

49. iifet

50. EFF meetings, FARNET Managing authorities meetings or events organised by FARNET

51.

52. none

53. seminars on fisheries topics

54. Ancona international fishing fair

55. ICES annual meeting

56.

57.

58. practically all

59. IMP workshops and conferences

60.

61. Welsh Coastal and Maritime Partnership meetings

62. several EU seminar on CFP

63. Seminars on CFP Reform

64. La pesca e l'acquacoltura nell'Unione Europea - L'OCM - Brux_Oct_2010



23. How would you assess the quality and quantity of the information provided during DG MARE events?

Strongly


ResponseTotal

Quality: The information rpovided is both well explained and comprehensible 7% (11) 42% (67) 11% (18) 1% (1) 39% (62) 159



24. Could you explain your previous answer?



25. Do you have any suggestions on events?



26. From which media do you receive information about fisheries and maritime affairs?

Response


Written specialised press 108 63%

Written generalist press 60 35%

TV 41 24%

Radio 24 14%

Specialised websites 123 72%

None 16 9%



27. Please give titles of the specific media (e.g. newspaper, magazine, radio or TV station) you use most often to receive information on fisheries and maritime issues.



28. Do you communicate yourself on topics related to the Common Fisheries Policy?

Response


No 103 60%

Yes. If so, on which topics? 68 40%

1. economics and management

2. the reform, social issues, EFF, etc

3. general

4. Fisheries interests.

5. Aquaculture-related

6. fisheries management

7. Structural support

8. LTMP, Regionalisation

9. Compilation of Information Guide on the CfP

10.

11. CFP and environmental issues

12. all (except quota)

13. management, fisheries economics

14. TACs & Quotas, CMO

15. Virtually everything

16. Recovery plans, and so on.

17. Reform process, fisheries management

18. Fisheries management and conservation (books, scholarly papers, background papers/briefing documents

19. IUU

20. adaptation of fishing fleet to management measures

21. Topics related to commrcial fishery

22. All things involved with the reform

23. Certification of renovated fish processing machines(sine 15 years)

24. Aquaculture issues

25. green book

26. Reform, Technical Measures, External Policy

27.

28. Reform of the CFP

29. (indirectly) ballast water management/alien species

30. CFP

31. most topics, to the network and to the pubilic

32. the reform and why it is needed

33. Fisheries Data Collection EC 199/08, EC 949/08

34.

35. consumption, production, imports and stocks of fish

36. CFP and Fish Hygeine

37. All aspects of fisheries management

38. fisheries

39. the fisheries sector in general

40. inland aquaculture

41. all of the topics covered by the CFP

42.

43. Common Fisheries Policy

44. conservation and technical measures

45. journalist on fishing paper

46.CFP reform issues at the moment, other directives connected to marine env and that relate to (or should better relate to) the CFP.

47. Reform of CFP, Integrated Ocean Management,

48. overfishing, trawling, bluefin tuna conservation

49.

50. all CFP-related matters

51.

52. IUU

53. All

54. small scale fishery

55.

56.For example Council regulation establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy

57. overfishing, ecosystem services

58. Fishery resources and their management

59. many

60.

61. "Do you communicate yourself on topics related..." --- Who has written this questionnaire for God's sake

62. all

63. regulations, cfp

64. The reform of CFP to our membership

65. Comments on the CFP reform to EC and MS

66. Biodiversity, protection of endangered species

67. reform, environmental issues

68. How CFP links to MSFD



29. Do you communicate yourself on topics related to the Integrated Maritime Policy?

Response


No 132 77%

Yes. If so, on which topics 39 23%

1. fisheries, ports, etc

2. general

3. Fisheries interests.

4. industrial competitiveness, research, environment etc.

5. Fisheries and environment

6. Channel area Integrated Maritime Strategy - Workforce development - transport - maritime safety - clusters and innovation

7. integrated maritime policy

8. Overlap with CFP

9. Fisheries buybacks, rights based management (property rights in fisheries)

10. news

11. Shipping, vessel traffic, maritime accidents, pollution response

12. mainly environmental and spatial planning

13. Integrated Maritime Surveillance and information sharing environment

14.

15. Occasionally

16. maritime spatial planning, specific use of the sea territory etc.

17. EU maritiem programme 2018, EU space without barriers

18. CFP, MSP, environment, integrated management, holistic approach, stakeholder involvement

19.

20. General IMP issues

21.

22. Natura 2000

23. see above

24.

25. Maritime Domain Awareness, Maritime Security and Ecosystem approach

26.

27.

28. governance, control

29. CISE, maritime surveillance

30.

31.

32. all

33. Marine environment, tourism, spatial planning, regional sea convention rules

34. csr

35. coastal protection, sea erosion, salination of drinking water at coastal areas

36.

37. coodination between IMP, MSFD and CFP reform

38. MSFD



30. Accessibility and availability: Do you usually find all the information you are looking for in the different communication channels used by the European Commission?

Response


Yes, all of it 16 13%

Yes, in part 95 75%

No. Please precise what kind of information is missing 16 13%

1. Not been able to get latest quotas

2. It's not necessarily missing but is often difficult to locate!

3. On nautical and touristic affairs

4. Short, sharp, impartial info (generally, Wikipedia is better)

5. DG Mare should use one, single email list to reach stakeholders on CFP issues

6.

7.see before (info on past events). Sometimes, I find it confusing to find legislation, depending on whether I know the OJ number of the EC...number

8. For example TAC for Baltic Sea 2010

9. Information not relevant to EC is found in non-EC publications.

10. controversials with member countries and application of regulations

11.

12.

13. calls for tenders, difficult when dependent on other DG

14. current proposals and legislation used to be available on DGFISH website

15. Specific Information related to Member States

16. measures for coastal protection against erosion by the seawater



31. Adaptation of tools: Please rank the communication activities of the European Commission in the areas of fisheries and maritime affairs? Please note 1-6 :

RankingAverage

Written Press 3.1

Audiovisual 3.8

Publications 3.3

Events 3.3

Internet 3.0

Other 4.4



32. Please, explain your previous answer.



33. Do you agree with the following assumptions regarding the Common Fisheries Policy?

Fully agree Partly agreePartly

disagree Fully disagree No opinionResponse

Total

Information on the CFP is easily available 20% (25) 51% (65) 16% (20) 2% (3) 11% (14) 127

Iinformation on the CFP is well targeted to my needs 10% (13) 44% (56) 26% (33) 6% (8) 14% (18) 128

Information on the CFP is clear and well explained 15% (19) 42% (54) 23% (29) 6% (8) 14% (18) 128

Information on the CFP is up-to-date 17% (21) 44% (55) 20% (25) 4% (5) 16% (20) 126

The CFP messages have a concrete impact on my point of view 12% (15) 39% (49) 22% (28) 8% (10) 19% (24) 126


34. Do you agree with the following assumptions regarding the Integrated Maritime Policy?

Fully agreePartlyagree

Partlydisagree

Fullydisagree No opinion

ResponseTotal

Information on the IMP is easily available 12% (15) 33% (41) 19% (23) 4% (5) 32% (39) 123

Iinformation on the IMP is well targeted to my needs 7% (9) 34% (42) 16% (20) 7% (8) 36% (44) 123

Information on the IMP is clear and well explained 12% (14) 29% (35) 19% (23) 5% (6) 36% (43) 121

Information on the IMP is up-to-date 10% (12) 32% (40) 13% (16) 4% (5) 41% (51) 124

The IMP messages have a concrete impact on my point of view 9% (11) 30% (37) 13% (16) 7% (8) 41% (50) 122

The communication of the European Commission has helped improve my knowledge and understanding of the IMP 13% (16) 36% (43) 12% (15) 4% (5) 35% (42) 121


35. Does communication of the European Commission contribute towards?

Totally Partially Not really Not at allNo

opinionNot

concernedResponse

Total

Improving your knowledge and understanding on fisheries in general? 16% (20) 52% (66) 17% (21) 4% (5) 5% (6) 6% (8) 126

Improving your knowledge and understanding of maritime affairs in general? 14% (17) 52% (65) 21% (26) 3% (4) 4% (5) 6% (7) 124

Improving your understanding of what the European Commission does in the areas of fisheries and maritime affairs?

23% (29) 52% (65) 17% (21) 5% (6) 3% (4) 1% (1) 126

Fostering dialogue between the European Commission and citizens? 9% (11) 35% (44) 36% (45) 12% (15) 6% (8) 2% (2) 125


36. In your opinion what are the three main messages that the European Commission is communicating on the Common Fisheries Policy?

Response


1. 131 47%

2. 60 22%

3. 47 17%



37. In your opinion what are the three main messages that the European Commission is communicating on the Integrated Maritime Policy?

Response


1. 130 47%

2. 39 14%

3. 30 11%



38. Are you a member of:

Response


Regional Advisory Council (RAC) 23 18%

Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) 16 12%

Not a member 99 76%



39. Do you agree with the following assumptions?

Fully

agreePartlyagree

Partlydisagree

Fullydisagree

Noopinion

ResponseTotal

As a member of a RAC or of the ACFA, I feel well informed on the CFP. 38% (12) 56% (18) 0% (0) 0% (0) 6% (2) 32

As a member of a RAC or of the ACFA, I consider that I have to play an active role in disseminating the information and communication received from DG MARE.

44% (14) 38% (12) 9% (3) 0% (0) 9% (3) 32

With regards to my role as a “multiplier of information”, I consider that the Commission provides me with the appropriate information (form and content) to communicate towards the stakeholders I represent.

22% (7) 38% (12) 31% (10) 3% (1) 6% (2) 32

The RAC / ACFA contribute towards the greater involvement of a broader public in the dialogue with the European Commission. 34% (11) 41% (13) 12% (4) 3% (1) 9% (3) 32

The increasing amount of recommendations and advice to the European Commission on the RAC / ACFA reflects the improved dialogue with stakeholders

22% (7) 44% (14) 25% (8) 3% (1) 6% (2) 32



40. How would you recommend improving the involvment of RAC / ACFA members as communication multipliers?



41. If you had one thing to change in the European Commission communication (strategy, target audiences, messages, tools, etc.), what would that be?




Evaluation de la communication de la DG MARE



1. Etes-vous un résidant/un représentant de :

Response


Autriche 0 0%

Belgique 3 7%

Bulgarie 0 0%

Chypre 0 0%

République Tchèque 0 0%

Danemark 0 0%

Estonie 0 0%

Finlande 0 0%

France 35 80%

Allemagne 0 0%

Grèce 0 0%

Hongrie 0 0%

Irlande 0 0%

Italie 2 5%

Lettonie 0 0%

Lituanie 0 0%

Luxembourg 1 2%

Malte 0 0%

Pays Bas 0 0%

Pologne 0 0%

Portugal 1 2%

Roumanie 0 0%

Slovaquie 0 0%

Slovenie 0 0%

Espagne 0 0%

Suède 0 0%

Royaume Unis 0 0%

Pays non Européen 2 5%


2. Quel âge avez-vous?

Response


<20 0 0%

20-30 9 20%

30-45 10 23%

45-60 23 52%

>60 2 5%


3. De quel type d’organisation êtes-vous membre?

Response


Grand public 5 11%

Industrie de la pêche et de l'aquaculture 14 32%

Industrie maritime 2 5%

Institution européenne 4 9%

Administration 6 14%

Organisation non gouvernementale 5 11%

Association de consommateurs 1 2%

Recherche marine et maritime, organisation scientifique et universitaire 5 11%

Presse 2 5%

Autre, merci de préciser 4 9%

1. Organisation de Producteurs

2.Dans le cadre d'une reprise d'études en Master 2 Droit Public j'ai été amenée à m'interesser à la PCP, FEP, réforme de la PCP en cours ... ..

3. consultant qualité environnement dans la pêche et l'aquaculture

4. Centre de Formation a la pêche maritime


4. Comment décririez-vous votre connaissance de la politique européenne dans le domaine des affaires maritimes et de la pêche ?

Bonne connaissanceConnaissance

partielle Faible connaissance Sans opinionResponse

Total

Pour la Politique Commune de la Pêche (PCP) 69% (27) 13% (5) 18% (7) 0% (0) 39

Pour la Politique Maritime Intégré (PMI) 23% (9) 38% (15) 28% (11) 10% (4) 39


5. Sur quel(s) sujet(s) relatif(s) à la Politique Commune de la Pêche souhaiteriez-vous avoir davantage d’informations ?

Response


Les mesures de préservation et la gestion des ressources de pêche (quotas, limitations de la pêche, mesures techniques)

22 56%

La gestion de la flotte 16 41%

Les mesures environnementales 11 28%

La politique de marché et l’OrganisationCommune du Marché (OCM) 14 36%

Les mesures structurelles et le soutien financier (Fonds Européens pour la Pêche)

19 49%

La lutte contre les pratiques de pêche destructrice 13 33%

La pêche illégale et non réglementée 16 41%

L’amélioration de la compétitivité de l'industrie de la pêche (revenus, promotion des produits de la pêche et de l’aquaculture)

15 38%

Les contrôles 15 38%

L’amélioration des revenus des industries européennes de pêche, la promotion des produits issus de la pêche et de l’aquaculture

15 38%

De manière plus générale, la Politique Commune de la Pêche (PCP), la réforme de la PCP, …

12 31%

Peu intéressé(e) par la Politique Commune de la Pêche 1 3%

J'ai suffisamment d'information à ma disposition 7 18%



6. Sur quel(s) sujet(s) relatif(s) à la Politique Maritime Intégrée (PMI) souhaiteriez-vous avoir davantage d’informations ?

Response


La gouvernance de la politique maritime intégrée 13 33%

Les stratégies des bassins maritimes 13 33%

La connaissance marine 4 10%

La surveillance maritime 9 23%

La planification de l'espace maritime 16 41%

Le transport maritime 5 13%

La recherche maritime 8 21%

La législation de la mer et la coopération internationale 14 36%

L’environnement marin 10 26%

PMI et la Politique Commune de la Pêche 7 18%

L’energie (extraction pétrolière off-shore, énergie marée motrice...) 4 10%

La compétitivité et la croissance économique 5 13%

Les besoins des communautés côtières 13 33%

L’approche intégrée des affaires maritimes : pourquoi une coopération entre les différents secteurs maritimes est-elle nécessaire ?

11 28%

Peu intéressé(e) par la Politique Maritime Intégrée 7 18%

J'ai suffisamment d'information à ma disposition 5 13%



7. Y a-t-il d’autres sujets pour lesquels vous souhaiteriez davantage d’informations, si oui lesquels ?

Total Respondents 6


8. Utilisez vous internet pour obtenir des informations sur les questions concernant la pêche et le domaine maritime ?

Response


Oui 35 95%

Non 2 5%



9. Si c’est le cas, quels sites utilisez-vous et à quelle fréquence ?

Fréquemment Quelquefois Rarement JamaisResponse

Total

Le site web de la Commission Européenne 54% (20) 32% (12) 5% (2) 8% (3) 37

D'autres sites web relatifs à la pêche et aux affaires maritimes 38% (14) 30% (11) 11% (4) 22% (8) 37


10. Si vous utilisez d'autres sites web relatifs à la pêche et aux affaires maritimes, merci de préciser :



11. Lequel des sites de la Commission Européenne suivants visitez-vous le plus souvent ?

Fréquemment Parfois Rarement JamaisResponse

Total

Le site thématique relatif à la pêche 50% (18) 22% (8) 11% (4) 17% (6) 36

Le site thématique relatif aux affaires maritimes 16% (5) 28% (9) 25% (8) 31% (10) 32

Le site de la commissaire Mme Damanaki 10% (3) 21% (6) 17% (5) 52% (15) 29

Le site de l'Atlas des mers 0% (0) 23% (6) 31% (8) 46% (12) 26

Le site sur la réforme de la Politique Commune de la Pêche 33% (11) 33% (11) 15% (5) 18% (6) 33

Le Forum Maritime 11% (3) 7% (2) 7% (2) 74% (20) 27


12. Quelles rubriques utilisez-vous le plus souvent ?

Response


Actualités 23 74%

Consultations 12 39%

Les appels d'offres 5 16%

Les informations générales sur les différentes initiatives prises 17 55%

La législation et les documents officiels 23 74%

Les communiqués de presse 14 45%

Les discours 4 13%



13. Comment qualifieriez-vous la qualité et la quantité des informations des sites internet de la DG MARE ?

Entièrement

d'accord D'accord Pas d'accordEn désaccord

completSans

opinionResponse

Total

Quantité : L'information disponible est suffisante 11% (4) 51% (18) 17% (6) 6% (2) 14% (5) 35

Qualité : La qualité de l'information disponible est à la fois compréhensible et bien expliquée 9% (3) 54% (19) 20% (7) 9% (3) 9% (3) 35


14. Merci d'expliciter votre réponse précédente :



15. Le site internet vient d’être réorganisé et revu. Qu’en pensez-vous ?

Response


Il est mieux que le précédent 14 41%

Il est pire que le précédent 5 15%

Pas de changement 1 3%

Pas d’opinion 14 41%



16. Avez-vous des suggestions à faire sur les sites web de la DG MARE ?

Total Respondents 9


17. Quelles publications / brochures connaissez-vous ou lisez-vous ?

Je connais Je lis souvent Je lis parfois Ne connais pasResponse

Total

Le magazine "Pêche et Aquaculture en Europe" 50% (18) 17% (6) 17% (6) 17% (6) 36

La brochure : "La PCP en chiffres" 28% (10) 19% (7) 25% (9) 28% (10) 36


18. Si vous lisez d'autres publications ou brochures, merci de préciser lesquelles :

Total Respondents 9


19. Comment qualifieriez-vous la qualité et la quantité des informations issues des publications de la DG MARE ?

Entièrement


completSans

opinionResponse

Total

Qualité : La qualité de l'information disponible est à la fois compréhensible et bien expliquée 21% (7) 47% (16) 15% (5) 6% (2) 12% (4) 34

Quantité : La quantité d'information disponible est suffisante 15% (5) 41% (14) 32% (11) 3% (1) 9% (3) 34


20. Merci d'expliciter votre réponse précédante :



21. Avez-vous des suggestions à faire sur les publications/borichures de la DG MARE ?



22. A quels événements avez-vous assisté au cours de ces trois dernières années ?

Response


La Journée Maritime Européenne 6 23%

Seafood Exposition 19 73%

Autres, merci de préciser : 10 38%

1. Groupes de travail du Comité consultatitf de la pêche et de l'aquaculture

2. conférences et ateliers sur la réforme de la PCP

3. Les assises de la filière pêche et des produits de la mer

4. séminaire sur l'état des stocks, 14 sept 2010, Bruxelles ; conseils pêche de fin d'année

5. Conférences PCP, Politique maritime intégrée

6. Green Week

7. réunions du CCR-S

8. Sea Tech Week

9. wORLD FISHING EXHIBITION

10. Forum



23. Comment qualifieriez-vous la qualité et la quantité des informations reçues au cours des événements, conférences, séminaires organisés par la DG MARE ?

Entièrement


complet Sans opinionResponse

Total

Qualité : L'information disponible est à la fois compréhensible et bien expliquée 14% (5) 43% (15) 11% (4) 3% (1) 29% (10) 35

Qantité: L'information disponible est suffisante 14% (5) 37% (13) 20% (7) 0% (0) 29% (10) 35


24. Merci d'expliciter votre réponse précédante :

Total Respondents 8


25. Avez-vous des suggestions à faire afin d'améliorer les événements, conférences, séminaires organisés par la DG MARE ?

Total Respondents 9


26. De quels medias recevez-vous les informations sur la pêche et les affaires maritimes ?

Response


Presse écrite spécialisée 28 78%

Presse écrite généraliste 14 39%

Télévision 4 11%

Radio 2 6%

Sites internet spécialisés 26 72%

Aucun 4 11%



27. Merci de donner les titres des médias (journaux, revues, stations de radio, de télévision, …) que vous utilisez le plus souvent pour être informé(e) sur les questions relatives à la pêche et aux affaires maritimes :



28. Communiquez-vous vous-même sur les sujets liés à la Politique Commune de la Pêche ?

Response


Non 19 53%

Si oui, sur quels sujets? 18 50%

1.information auprès des membres de mon association dernièrement essentiellement sur IUU (certificats de capture) et politique des controles

2. PCP, OCM ...

3. réforme de la PCP, Tac et quotas, OCM, Mesures techniques de conservation,

4.je l'enseignais à la faculté de droit de Nantes.Je fais des conférences sur le droit des pêches dans des salons et et colloques...

5. Réglementation en vigueur et en préparation, analyse et conséquences

6. Je représente les intérêts du principal lobby de la pêche, donc je suis obligé de communiquer sur tout.

7. sur tous les sujets

8.

9. tous sujets, je suis journaliste spécialisé pêche dans un journal spécialisée sur le maritime en France : le marin

10. La Réforme de la PCP, la pêche artisanale, la place des femmes, la pêche lointaine

11. Politiques sociales et de l'emploi. Formation professionnelle dans le secteur pêche

12. gestion de pêche (flottes, quotas, stocks, etc...), environment, financements

13. -la gestion des ressources halieutiques

14. peche cotiere et peche de la coquille St Jacques > www.finemaree.com/news

15. Le marché des produits de la mer

16. Sur la réforme de la PCP

17. Politique externe

18. quels avenir pour les pecheurs



29. Communiquez-vous vous-même sur les sujets liés à la Politique Maritime Intégrée ?

Response


Non 31 86%

Si oui, sur quels sujets? 6 17%

1. Aires Marines Protégées

2. Voir ci-dessus, avec une attention particulière au 'spatial planning'

3. sur tous les sujets

4. Politiques sociales et de l'emploi. Formation professionnelle dans le secteur maritime

5. La stratégie maritime française

6. parole parole



30. Accessibilité et disponibilité : Trouvez-vous dans l’ensemble les informations que vous cherchez sur les différents canaux de communication de la DG MARE ?

Response


Oui, complètement 8 28%

Oui, en partie 18 62%

Non 3 10%



31. Adaptation des outils : Merci de noter de 1 à 6 les canaux de communication relatifs aux thématiques de la pêche et des affaires maritimes, (1 étant la meilleure note).

http://www.finemaree.com/news

RankingAverage

Presse écrite 2.3

Audiovisuel 4.4

Publications 3.1

Evènements 3.5

Sites internet 2.4

Autres 5.2



32. Merci d'expliciter votre réponse précédente :



33. Etes-vous d’accord avec les affirmations suivantesrelative à la Politique Commune de la Pêche (PCP)?

Entièrement

d'accordPartiellement

d'accordPlutôt en

désaccordEn désaccord

completSans

opinionResponse

Total

L’information de base sur la PCP est facilement disponible 28% (8) 45% (13) 10% (3) 0% (0) 17% (5) 29

L’information sur la PCP cible bien mes besoins 17% (5) 45% (13) 14% (4) 10% (3) 14% (4) 29

L’information sur la PCP est claire et bien expliquée 25% (7) 36% (10) 18% (5) 7% (2) 14% (4) 28

L’information sur la PCP est régulièrement mise à jour 34% (10) 24% (7) 10% (3) 7% (2) 24% (7) 29

Les messages de la PCP ont un impact sur mon point de vue 3% (1) 48% (14) 21% (6) 14% (4) 14% (4) 29

La communication de la DG MARE a contribué à améliorer ma connaissance et ma compréhension de la PCP

17% (5) 48% (14) 14% (4) 10% (3) 10% (3) 29


34. Etes-vous d’accord avec les affirmations suivantes relative à la Politique Maritime Intégrée (PMI) ?

Entièrement

d'accordPartiellement

d'accordPlutôt en

désaccordEn désaccord

completSans

opinionResponse

Total

L’information de base sur la PMI est facilement disponible 21% (6) 21% (6) 10% (3) 7% (2) 41% (12) 29

L’information sur la PMI cible bien mes besoins 14% (4) 21% (6) 14% (4) 10% (3) 41% (12) 29

L’information sur la PMI est claire et bien expliquée 14% (4) 24% (7) 10% (3) 10% (3) 41% (12) 29

L’information sur la PMI est régulièrement mise à jour 14% (4) 34% (10) 7% (2) 3% (1) 41% (12) 29

Les messages de la PMI ont un impact concret sur mon point de vue 7% (2) 24% (7) 17% (5) 10% (3) 41% (12) 29

La communication de la DG MARE a contribué à améliorer ma connaissance et ma compréhension de la PMI

21% (6) 21% (6) 7% (2) 14% (4) 38% (11) 29


35. La communication de la DG MARE contribue-t-elle à :

Complétement PartiellementPas

vraimentPas du tout

Sansopinion

Nonconcerné

ResponseTotal

Améliorer votre connaissance et compréhension des thématiques de la pêche en général 24% (7) 55% (16) 10% (3) 3% (1) 0% (0) 7% (2) 29

Améliorer votre connaissance et compréhension des affaires maritimes en général 14% (4) 57% (16) 11% (3) 7% (2) 0% (0) 11% (3) 28

Améliorer votre compréhension des actions menées par la Commission Européenne sur les sujets relatifs à la pêche ou aux affaires maritimes

21% (6) 62% (18) 7% (2) 7% (2) 0% (0) 3% (1) 29

Renforcer le dialogue entre l’Union Européenne et les citoyens 10% (3) 45% (13) 24% (7) 17% (5) 0% (0) 3% (1) 29


36. Selon vous, quels sont les trois principaux messages sur lesquels communique la Commission Européennes pour ce qui concerne la Politique Commune de la Pêche ?

Response


1 29 66%

2 17 39%

3 14 32%



37. Selon vous, quels sont les trois principaux messages sur lesquels communique la Commission Européennes pour ce qui concerne la Politique Maritime Intégrée ?

Response


1 29 66%

2 14 32%

3 11 25%



38. Etes-vous membre :

Response


d'un Conseil Consultatif Régional (CCR) / Regional Advisory Council (RAC)

6 21%

du Comité Consultatif de Pêche et d'Aquaculture (CCPA)/Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA)

4 14%

Non membre 22 76%



39. Etes-vous d’accord avec les affirmations qui suivent :

Entièrementd'accord

Partiellementd'accord

Plutôt en désaccord

Endésaccordcomplet

Sansopinion

ResponseTotal

En tant que membre de l’ACFA ou de CCR, je me sens bien informé sur la PCP 57% (4) 29% (2) 0% (0) 14% (1) 0% (0) 7

En tant que membre de l’ACFA ou de CCR, je considère que je dois jouer un rôle actif dans la diffusion des informations et communications reçues de DG MARE

71% (5) 14% (1) 0% (0) 14% (1) 0% (0) 7

Au vu de mon rôle de « multiplicateur de l’information », jeconsidère que la Commission Européenne me fournit les informations appropriées (dans la forme et dans le contenu) pour communiquer en direction des parties prenantes que je représente

29% (2) 43% (3) 14% (1) 14% (1) 0% (0) 7

ACFA/CCR contribue(ent) à améliorer l’implication d’un public plus large dans le dialogue avec la Commission Européenne 29% (2) 43% (3) 14% (1) 14% (1) 0% (0) 7

Le nombre croissant de recommandations et de conseils donnés à la Commission Européenne des CCR/ACFA montre le renforcement du dialogue avec les parties prenantes

29% (2) 43% (3) 0% (0) 29% (2) 0% (0) 7



40. Que recommanderiez-vous pour améliorer l’implication des membres de CCR/ACFA comme « multiplicateurs d’information » ?

Total Respondents 7


41. Si vous n'aviez qu'une seule chose à changer dans la communication de la Commission Européenne ( stratégie, cibles, messages, outils etc.) quelle serait-elle ?




Estrategia de la comunicación de la DG MARE.



1. Si usted es residente/representante de :

Response


Austria 0 0%

Bélgica 0 0%

Bulgaria 0 0%

Chipre 0 0%

República Checa 0 0%

Dinamarca 0 0%

Estonia 0 0%

Finlandia 0 0%

Francia 0 0%

Alemania 0 0%

Grecia 0 0%

Hungría 0 0%

Irlanda 1 3%

Italia 2 6%

Letonia 0 0%

Lituania 0 0%

Luxemburgo 0 0%

Malta 0 0%

Países Bajos 0 0%

Polonia 0 0%

Portugal 4 11%

Rumania 0 0%

Eslovaquia 0 0%

Eslovenia 0 0%

España 26 72%

Suecia 0 0%

Reino Unido 0 0%

País no europeo 3 8%


2. ¿Cuál es su edad?

Response


<20 0 0%

20-30 2 6%

30-45 12 33%

45-60 19 53%

>60 3 8%


3. ¿A qué tipo de organización pertenece?

Response


Público en general 0 0%

Industria de la pesca y la acuicultura 19 53%

Industria marítima 1 3%

Instituciones europeas 1 3%

Administración nacional 6 17%

Organización no gubernamental del medio ambiente y del desarrollo 0 0%

Movimientos de consumidores y asociativos 1 3%

Organizaciones de investigación marina y marítima, de ciencia y educación 3 8%

Prensa 1 3%

Otros - especificar: 6 17%

1. North Western Waters RAC

2.Organización de Productores de la Pesca. Esto es de acuerdo a la Disposición de la Política Común Pesquera, cuando se Reglamento a la Organización Común de Mercados como su eje principal, quien tiene a sus elementos para gestionar la Pesca, Las Organizaciones de Productores de la Pesca.

3. Organización Sindical

4. Oficina privada de nexo con la Comisión Europea

5. Estudiante

6. associazione pesca ricreativa in mare


4. ¿Cómo describiría su conocimiento de las políticas europeas en materia de pesca y asuntos marítimos?

Buen conocimientoConocimiento

parcial Poco conocimientoNingún

conocimientoResponse

Total

La Política Pesquera Común (PPC) 82% (27) 12% (4) 6% (2) 0% (0) 33

La Política Marítima Integrada (PMI) 9% (3) 58% (19) 27% (9) 6% (2) 33


5. ¿Sobre qué tema de la Política Pesquera Común quisiera tener más información?

Response


Medidas de conservación y gestión de los recursos pesqueros (cuotas, limitación del esfuerzo pesquero, medidas técnicas)

20 61%

Gestión de flotas 13 39%

Medidas ambientales 12 36%

Política de mercado y organización común de mercados (OCM) 20 61%

Medidas estructurales y de apoyo financiero (Fondo Europeo de Pesca) 20 61%

Eliminación de las prácticas destructivas de pesca 11 33%

Pesca ilegal, no declarada y no reglamentada (INDNR) 13 39%

Mejora de la competitividad de la industria pesquera de la UE (ingresos, promoción de los productos de la pesca y la acuicultura)

18 55%

Controles 15 45%

Relaciones exteriores y acuerdos de asociación pesquera 12 36%

En términos más generales: La

estrategia política pesquera común, la reforma de la política pesquera común …

13 39%

No, tengo bastante informaciones 4 12%

No aplicable / no está interesado en la política pesquera común 0 0%



6. ¿Sobre qué tema de la Política Marítima Integrada (PMI) quisiera tener más información?

Response


Gobernabilidad marítima integrada 12 36%

Estrategias de la cuenca marítima 6 18%

Conocimiento marino 10 30%

Vigilancia marítima 8 24%

Planificación espacial marítima 13 39%

Transporte marítimo 4 12%

Investigación marítima 13 39%

Derecho marítimo y cooperación internacional 8 24%

Medio ambiente marino 13 39%

PMI y política pesquera común 22 67%

Energía (extracción de petróleo off-shore, energía del oleaje, etc.) 8 24%

Competitividad y crecimiento económico 12 36%

Necesidades de la comunidad costera 12 36%

IUn enfoque integrado de los asuntos maritimos : Por qué es necesaria una cooperacion entre los diferentes sectores maritimos ?

8 24%

Enfoque integrado de los asuntos marítimos: ¿por qué se requiere una cooperación de los diferentes sectores marítimos?

9 27%

No, tengo bastante informaciones 0 0%

No aplicable / no está interesado en la PMI 2 6%



7. ¿Hay otros temas o asuntos relacionados con la pesca y los asuntos marítimos sobre los que quisiera tener más información? Si fuere el caso, ¿cuáles?

Total Respondents 6


8. Internet / sitios web: ¿Utiliza Internet para buscar información sobre la pesca y los asuntos marítimos?

Response


Sí 32 97%

No 1 3%



9. Si es el caso, ¿qué sitios web y con qué frecuencia?

Frecuentemente A veces Raramente NuncaResponse

Total

Sitios web administrados por la Dirección General de Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca de la Comisión Europea (DG MARE) 60% (18) 33% (10) 7% (2) 0% (0) 30

Otros sitios web relacionados con la pesca y los asuntos marítimos. Especifique. 53% (16) 33% (10) 13% (4) 0% (0) 30


10. Si utiliza otros sitios web relacionados con la pesca y los asuntos marítimos. Especifique :



11. Si utiliza los sitios web administrados por la DG MARE, ¿qué sección visita más?

Frecuentemente A veces Raramente NuncaResponse

Total

El sitio web temático sobre la pesca 59% (16) 37% (10) 4% (1) 0% (0) 27

El sitio web temático sobre las cuestiones marítimas 10% (2) 70% (14) 10% (2) 10% (2) 20

El sitio web del Comisario Damanaki 10% (2) 19% (4) 43% (9) 29% (6) 21

El sitio web del Atlas europeo de los mares 19% (4) 29% (6) 29% (6) 24% (5) 21

El sitio web de reforma de la política pesquera común 37% (10) 56% (15) 7% (2) 0% (0) 27

El foro marítimo 9% (2) 27% (6) 32% (7) 32% (7) 22


12. ¿Cuales páginas visita más? (múltiples respuestas)

Response


Noticias 18 60%

Consultas 11 37%

Licitaciones y propuestas 4 13%

Información general sobre diferentes iniciativas 16 53%

Legislación y documentos oficiales 24 80%

Comunicados de prensa 11 37%

Discursos 3 10%

Otros - especifiar 2 7%

1. Páginas de comentarios y con frecuencia comunicación directa con la DG MARE

2. solo i siti e le pagine che sono scritte in lingua italiana



13. ¿Cómo evaluaría la calidad y la cantidad de la información de los sitios web de la DG MARE?

Totalmente de

acuerdo De acuerdo En desacuerdoMuy en

desacuerdo Sin opiniónResponse

Total

Calidad: La información está bien explicada y es comprensible 10% (3) 57% (17) 20% (6) 3% (1) 10% (3) 30

Cantidad: La información es suficiente 3% (1) 52% (15) 24% (7) 10% (3) 10% (3) 29


14. Explique por favor

Total Respondents 9


15. El sitio web temático sobre la pesca acaba de ser renovado. ¿Cuál es su opinión sobre el nuevo sitio de la pesca?

Response


Es mejor que el anterior 12 40%

Es peor que el anterior 1 3%

Sin cambios 8 27%

Sin opinión 9 30%



16. Sugerencias sobre los sitios web :

Total Respondents 6


17. Publicaciones: ¿Qué publicaciones/folletos de DG MARE conoce/lee?

La conozco La leo a veces La leo a menudo No la conozcoResponse

Total

Revista Pesca y acuicultura en Europa 41% (12) 28% (8) 24% (7) 7% (2) 29

Hechos y cifras sobre la PPC 31% (9) 28% (8) 7% (2) 34% (10) 29


18. Cuales otras publicaciones/folletos de DG MARE conoce/lee?

Total Respondents 6


19. ¿Cómo evaluaría la calidad y la cantidad de la información de las publicaciones de la DG MARE?

Totalmente de



Total





Total Respondents 6


21. Sugerencias sobre las publicaciones :

Total Respondents 5


22. Eventos: ¿En cuál de los siguientes eventos ha participado en los últimos tres años?

Response


Día Marítimo Europeo 9 43%

Exposición de mariscos 7 33%

Otros seminarios/ conferencias/ ferias, especifique 14 67%

1.

2. Seminarios sobre la PPC y la OCM

3. Conxemar

4. Seminario sobre el estado de los stocks,Seminario sobre la reforma de la Política Pequera Común

5.

6.Seminarios, encuentros en Madrid, Vigo, Valencia, Bilbao, Lanzarote, grupos de trabajo, conferencias, Ferias, reuniones con las OPs, etc.

7. Recursos, Stocks, Medidas tecnicas etc....

8. World Fishing Exhibition

9.

10. Pesca Ilegal, feria de productos del mar

11.

12.Conferencias sobre comercialización (SEMINARIO DE COMERCIALIZACIÓN DE AECOC), RACS, Conxemar, Jornadas pesqueras de diferentes Federaciones de cofradías, Ops, etc... Seafood...

13.

14.



23. ¿Cómo evaluaría la calidad y la cantidad de la información de los eventos de la DG MARE?

Totalmente de



Total





Total Respondents 4


25. Sugerencias sobre los eventos :

Total Respondents 3


26. ¿De qué tipo de medios de communicacion recibe información sobre la pesca y los asuntos marítimos?

Response


Prensa escrita especializada 23 82%

Prensa escrita generalista 15 54%

TV 11 39%

Radio 4 14%

Sitios web especializados 24 86%

Ninguno 0 0%



27. Indique los títulos de los medios de comunicación específicos (por ejemplo, periódico, revista, radio o televisión) que utiliza con más frecuencia para recibir información sobre la pesca y los asuntos marítimos :



28. ¿Comunica usted mismo sobre temas relacionados con la Política Pesquera Común?

Response


No 12 43%

Sí. Si fuere el caso, ¿cuáles? 16 57%

1. A los miembros de nuestra asociación

2.Boletines de noticias electrónicos quincenales sobre todo tipo de temas relacionados con gestión de pesquerías para las zonas CIEM Vb (CE), VIa y VII. Apartados: legislación; noticias de prensa; calendario de reuniones y seminarios; otros eventos; proyectos europeos; lecturas recomendadas; enlaces útiles;

3.De forma regular estamos escribiendo artículos sobre las disposiciones de la PPC, tanto a las autoridades del Estado como de las CCAA

4. Traslado las noticias e informaciones a los Armadores integrados en mi Organización.

5. Temas de campañas de promoción

6. Control

7. por los mismos medios que la recibo.

8.

9. EL Libro Verde

10.

11. Cuanto se refiera a la revisión de la PPC y otros a través, por ejemplo, de la revista Pesca Internacional.

12. comunica a veces a los propios pescadores los cambios, noticias etc. aunque generalmente lo hace el responsable de flota.

13. A travez de www.ctaqua.es a nuestros Patronos.

14.

15. Rac Med

16.



29. ¿Comunica usted mismo sobre temas relacionados con la Política Marítima Integrada?

Response


No 22 79%

Sí. si fuere el caso, ¿cuáles? 6 21%

1. Planeamiento espacial marino y consultas sobre zonas marinas protegidas

2. Capitanías Marítima

3. Zonas Marinas Protegidas etc...

4.

5.

6. RAc Med



30. Accesibilidad y disponibilidad: ¿Suele encontrar toda la información que busca en los diferentes canales de comunicación empleados por la Comisión Europea?

http://www.ctaqua.es

Response


Sí, todas 5 21%

Sí, una parte 18 75%

No. Precise el tipo de información. 1 4%

1. otras webs complementarias



31. Adaptación de los instrumentos: Clasifique, a su parecer, las tres mejores actividades de comunicación de la Comisión Europea en los ámbitos de la pesca y los asuntos marítimos (de 1 a 6) :

RankingAverage

Prensa escrita 3.4

Audiovisual 3.8

Publicaciones 3.6

Eventos 3.4

Sitios web 3.2

Otro 3.6



32. Explique su elección :



33. ¿Está de acuerdo con las siguientes suposiciones sobre la Política Pesquera Común (PPC)?

Totalmentede acuerdo

Parcialmentede acuerdo

Parcialmenteen desacuerdo

Totalmenteen

desacuerdoSin opinión Response

Total

La información sobre la PPC está fácilmente disponible 29% (7) 54% (13) 4% (1) 8% (2) 4% (1) 24

La información sobre la PPC está bien orientada hacia mis necesidades 12% (3) 54% (13) 12% (3) 17% (4) 4% (1) 24

La información sobre la PPC está clara y está bien explicada 17% (4) 54% (13) 12% (3) 12% (3) 4% (1) 24

La información sobre la PPC está actualizada 23% (5) 41% (9) 18% (4) 9% (2) 9% (2) 22

Los mensajes de la PPC tienen un impacto concreto sobre mi punto de vista 21% (5) 29% (7) 38% (9) 8% (2) 4% (1) 24

La comunicación de la Comisión Europea ha ayudado a mejorar mi conocimiento y comprensión de la PPC 12% (3) 54% (13) 17% (4) 12% (3) 4% (1) 24

No aplicable / no está interesado en la PPC 0% (0) 0% (0) 8% (1) 42% (5) 50% (6) 12


34. ¿Está de acuerdo con las siguientes suposiciones sobre la Política Marítima Integrada (PMI)?



Parcialmenteen desacuerdo

Totalmenteen

desacuerdoSin opinión Response

Total

La información sobre la PMI está fácilmente disponible 17% (4) 38% (9) 21% (5) 4% (1) 21% (5) 24

La información sobre la PMI está bien orientada hacia mis necesidades 4% (1) 38% (9) 29% (7) 4% (1) 25% (6) 24

La información sobre la PMI es clara y está bien explicada 12% (3) 25% (6) 29% (7) 4% (1) 29% (7) 24

La información sobre la PMI está actualizada 9% (2) 30% (7) 26% (6) 4% (1) 30% (7) 23

Los mensajes de la PMI tienen un impacto concreto sobre mi punto de vista 9% (2) 35% (8) 26% (6) 9% (2) 22% (5) 23

La comunicación de la Comisión Europea ha ayudado a mejorar mi conocimiento y comprensión de la PMI 17% (4) 29% (7) 21% (5) 4% (1) 29% (7) 24

No aplicable / no está interesado en la PMI 0% (0) 8% (1) 15% (2) 15% (2) 62% (8) 13


35. La comunicación de la Comisión Europea contribuye a :

Totalmente ParcialmenteRealmente

noNo en

absoluto Sin opiniónResponse

Total

Mejorar su conocimiento y comprensión de la pesca en general 17% (4) 62% (15) 4% (1) 4% (1) 12% (3) 24

Mejorar su conocimiento y comprensión de los asuntos marítimos en general 17% (4) 54% (13) 12% (3) 4% (1) 12% (3) 24

Mejorar su conocimiento de lo que hace la Comisión Europea en materia de pesca y asuntos marítimos 21% (5) 46% (11) 17% (4) 4% (1) 12% (3) 24

Fomentar el diálogo entre la Comisión Europea y los ciudadanos 13% (3) 43% (10) 22% (5) 9% (2) 13% (3) 23


36. ¿En su opinión, cuáles son los tres mensajes principales que la Comisión Europea comunica sobre la Política Pesquera Común?

Response


1 24 67%

2 14 39%

3 9 25%



37. ¿En su opinión, cuáles son los tres mensajes principales que la Comisión Europea comunica sobre la Política Marítima Integrada?

Response


1 24 67%

2 5 14%

3 3 8%



38. Es miembro de :

Response


Un Consejo de Consultoria Regional (CCR) / Regional Advisory Council (RAC)

10 40%

Del Comité Consultivo de Pesca y Acuicultura (CCPA) / Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA)

5 20%

No soy un miembro 13 52%



39. ¿Está de acuerdo con las siguientes suposiciones?



Parcialmenteen

desacuerdo

Totalmenteen

desacuerdo

Sinopinión

ResponseTotal

Como miembro de un CCR o del CCPA, se siente bien informado sobre la PPC 33% (4) 50% (6) 8% (1) 8% (1) 0% (0) 12

Como miembro de un CCR o del CCPA, considero que tengo que desempeñar un papel activo en la difusión de la información y la comunicación recibida de parte de DG MARE

75% (9) 0% (0) 25% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 12

En cuanto a mi papel como "multiplicador de información", considero que la Comisión me proporciona la información adecuada (forma y contenido) para comunicar a los interesados que represento

0% (0) 75% (9) 8% (1) 17% (2) 0% (0) 12

Los CCR / CCPA contribuyen a una mayor participación de un público más amplio en el diálogo con la Comisión Europea 50% (6) 25% (3) 25% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0) 12

La cantidad cada vez mayor de recomendaciones y consejos a la Comisión Europea sobre los RAC / CCPA refleja un mejor diálogo con las partes interesadas

17% (2) 50% (6) 17% (2) 0% (0) 17% (2) 12


40. ¿Qué recomendación hace para mejorar la participación de los miembros de CCR / CCPA como multiplicadores de la comunicación?



41. Si hay algo que se debiera cambiar en la comunicación de la Comisión Europea (estrategia, audiencias de objetivo, mensajes, herramientas, etc.), ¿qué sería?



european commission – directorate general for maritime affairs … · 2016-09-13 · european...

Documents