Suche nach Schlagworten '00002740'

This guidance document is aimed at national authorities in charge of programming 2007- 2013 EFF interventions and specifically at those responsible for organising the ex ante evaluation. It provides guidance which will also be of use for the evaluators who are appointed to carry out the ex ante evaluation. The working paper clarifies, in an indicative way, the content and organisation of an ex ante evaluation. It builds on the practice gained in the ex ante evaluation during the 2000-2006 programming period while taking into account the new regulatory context for the 2007-2013 period, in terms of the content of the Operational programmes and requirements for their evaluation. Member States should use the guidance flexibly, adapting it to their specific requirements in order to ensure that the ex ante evaluation meets their needs. Copyright authors.

PART 1:
2. PART 2: EX ANTE EVALUATION – KEY COMPONENTS
3. PART 3: EX ANTE EVALUATION – THE PROCESS
ANNEX 1 : EX ANTE EVALUATION AND THE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ANNEX II – TERMS OF REFERENCE
BIBLIOGRAPHY Copyright authors.

This publication aims to inform the scientific community, administration and private industry about research organisations and main research institutes involved in fisheries and aquaculture. It completes the European Directory of Research Centres in the Fisheries Sector, edited by the Commission in 1994, which focuses more specifically on a detailed list of all institutes involved in research in the fisheries sector. All EU countries (except Luxembourg) plus three associated countries, Norway, Iceland and Israel, have contributed with a national presentation of their research scheme. Main research institute(s) is(are) listed first.[Author vide copyright]

The ad hoc EIFAC/EC Working Party on Market Perspectives of European Freshwater Aquaculture met to address the current situation of the freshwater aquaculture sector in the EIFAC region with particular focus on problems in marketing. The outcome of the workshop aims to provide key information and strategic advice on how to fulfil the production potential of the sector to (i) policy makers, administrators and legislators; (ii) future investors; (iii) consumers, and, particularly, (iv) producers. Trout and carp (about 94 per cent) dominate European aquaculture, whereas there are other promising candidates for culture that have not been profitably exploited. The freshwater aquaculture industry in Europe is product or producer driven along traditional lines and suffers particularly from a lack of vertical integration, linking producers to consumers through the marketing chain. The producers will remain at a disadvantage unless they develop better links through association or cooperation. While the preparation and implementation of marketing plans is a responsibility of the industry, and must be financed from this source, additional progress and great benefit could be derived from a comprehensive policy framework. Aquaculture as a food producing system in some cases has been perceived as being in conflict with other parts of the ecosystem. This can best be addressed by the development and dissemination of codes of good aquaculture practice. While the demand for organically produced aquaculture products is growing, certification is still largely based on the standards of private certification bodies.[Author vide copyright]

1. Background
2. Status of European freshwater aquaculture
3. Regulatory framework
4. Production, products and sales
5. Food quality and safety, traceability and labelling
6. Impact on trade of environmental and health/hygiene
Legislation: a trade barrier?
7. Markets, distribution and trade
8. New markets, new competitors and promotion
9. Conclusions and recommendations
Appendix 1 Agenda
Appendix 2 List of participants
Appendix 3 Summary of some codes of conduct and certification programmes that impact on the aquaculture sector
Appendix 4 Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats table
Appendix 5 Papers presented

The current Community legislation foresees the review of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in the course of 2002. It also provides that the Council shall decide before 31 December 2002 on any necessary adjustments to be made, in particular on access to certain Community waters1. In March 2001, the Commission published the report on the fisheries situation in the Community2, foreseen by the current legislation, and a Green Paper on the Future of the Common Fisheries Policy3, discussing the weaknesses and challenges facing the CFP and presenting a number of options for its reform.[Author vide copyright] | The current Community legislation foresees the review of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in the course of 2002. It also provides that the Council shall decide before 31 December 2002 on any necessary adjustments to be made, in particular on access to certain Community waters1. In March 2001, the Commission published the report on the fisheries situation in the Community2, foreseen by the current legislation, and a Green Paper on the Future of the Common Fisheries Policy3, discussing the weaknesses and challenges facing the CFP and presenting a number of options for its reform.[Author vide copyright]

• Employment data, including gender differentials, for each main discrete occupation within the fisheries sector i.e.: fishing, aquaculture, marketing & distribution, processing, administration & management and informal (especially unpaid spouses support). • Legal and social status; women’s legal position concerning involvement in the sector, and problems inherent in this. • Organisational, concerning how women are organised within the industry (e.g. unions), what formal support systems there are (e.g. childcare) and how education serves women in the sector. • Socio-cultural constraints, resolved into three aspects – external social factors that effect women’s decisions, the social status (thus desirability) of fisheries occupations and “internal” psychological factors related to women’s interests, aspirations and concerns. • Economic, mainly concerned with the respective earnings for various fisheries occupations, and particularly with gender related earnings discounts and economic alternatives. Copyright authors

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
2 CONTEXT
3 LITERATURE REVIEW
4 KEY SURVEYS (TORS 1 TO 4)
5 ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS (TORS 5 TO 6)
19 TABLES
5 ANNEXES Copyright authors | TOR = THE TERMS OF REFERENCE:
TOR 1 Characterisation of EU fisheries employment, specifically identifying women’s roles (including informal/unpaid work)
TOR 2 Defining social status and legal rights of women in EU fisheries, specifically identifying deficiencies
TOR 3 A comparative assessment of the women’s organisational support within EU fisheries
TOR 4 A comparative investigation of problems and obstacles preventing women’s greater involvement in EU fisheries
TOR 5 A comparative investigation of the opportunity and potential for women’s involvement in EU fisheries and adjacent activities
TOR 6 Analysis and presentation of potential interventions to solve the problems and exploit the opportunities identified above, with a view to gender equality and socioeconomic development in FDAs
TOR 7 In parallel with the above, an analysis of women’s roles in significant fisheries activities in areas not otherwise dependent upon fisheries (non FDAs) – e.g. inland aquaculture and urban fish processing

Research proposals of direct interest for DG Fish in the 5th Framework Programme (FP5) concern three key actions (KA) of the thematic programme "Quality of Life" (QoL): KA 1 (Food, nutrition and health), KA 2 (Control of infectious diseases)and KA 5 (Sustainable agriculture, fisheries and forestry). Most of the selected projects (88%) were funded under the specific Key Action 5 “Sustainable agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and integrated development of rural areas including mountain areas”. As all the calls covering QoL thematic programmes are closed, it is now possible to make an assessment of the accepted projects.The present analysis covers the field of fisheries and aquaculture under KA 5.Objectives: The main objective of the present study was to analyze the research projects funded under KA 5 and to classify them by specific scientific domains in orderto establish to what extent they covered the research objectives of the QoL Work Programme in the field of fisheries and aquaculture. The proposed classification is intended to give a clear picture of the situation and to provide research institutions and policy makers information on how theresearch projects cover the different priorities. [Laura Gagliardini Anibaldi]

1.Introduction
2.Objectives
3.Approach and Methodology
4.Results
4.1 Overview breakdown of QoL projects in KA 5
4.2 Overview breakdown of SME Co-operative projects
4.3 Clustering of projects
4.4 Classification
5.Conclusions<
br>
Annex 1: Scientific domains
Annex 2: Summary Matrix

This report evaluates impact criteria of projects from FAIR Area 5 (Fisheries and aquaculture) and from FAIR Area 3 (Generic science and advanced technologies for nutritious foods) pertaining to fisheries and aquaculture. Since impact measurements are ambiguous and no proper protocol had been established, the methodology with which these projects were evaluated is described below in detail. The basis for this report were 134 research projects from FAIR Area 5 and 24 from Area 3. Objective: The main objective of this report was to assess output variables related to impact of the FAIR programmes’ projects. The projects were classified by domains and data provided by each projects’ coordinator was compiled and analyzed in order to determine the scope and range of impact on the scientific community, the Community level, legislation and advisory boards. [Gesche Pluem]

Disclaimer
1. Introduction
2. Approach & Methodology
Step 1 - Updating Information, Step 2 - Compilation, Step 3 - Analysis.
Most frequently encountered discrepancies and problems
3. Results
4. Conclusions
Annex 1 – Documents
Annex 2 – Analysis details

Diese Broschüre erklärt, wie die Gemeinsame Fischereipolitik auf EU-Ebene verwaltet wird. Die zuständige Dienststelle der Kommission ist die Generaldirektion Fischerei: ein 290-köpfiges Team aus so unterschiedlichen Fachgebieten wie Meeresbiologie, Schiffbau, Wirtschafts-, Rechts-, Politik- und Veterinärwissenschaften.Diese Beamten verwalten die Gemeinsame Fischereipolitik in Abstimmung mit den Interessengruppen. Eine Reihe technischer Ausschüsse, die die Regierungen der Mitgliedstaaten sowie Wissenschaft, Industrie und Verbraucher vertreten, werden in alle das EU-Fischereimanagement betreffenden Fragen einbezogen. [Author vide copyright]

Fischerei und Aquakultur sind eine lebenswichtige Quelle für Nahrung, Beschäftigung, Erholung, Handel und wirtschaftlichen Wohlstand. Deshalb hat der Beratende Ausschuss für Fischerei und Aquakultur (CCPA) beschlossen, sich für eine verantwortungsvolle und nachhaltige Fischerei einzusetzen. Der vorliegende Kodex legt eine Reihe von Verhaltensstandards für die Fischwirtschaft fest mit dem Ziel, gesunde marine Ökosysteme zu erhalten und zu fördern und die Fischereitätigkeiten in verantwortungsvoller Weise auszuüben. Dieser Verhaltenskodex richtet sich an Fischereiunternehmen der Gemeinschaft innerhalb und außerhalb der Gemeinschaftsgewässer, also auch in internationalen und Drittlandgewässern. Er baut auf dem Rahmen auf, den der FAOVerhaltenskodex (3) für die Fischereibehörden abgibt, er bezieht sich besonders auf die EUFischerei und ist hauptsächlich für Fischereiunternehmen bestimmt. Ziel ist es, internationale, europäische und nationale Rechtsvorschriften durch freiwillige Standards zu ergänzen und die bestehenden Vorschriften zur Förderung der nachhaltigen Entwicklung des Fischereisektors zu vervollständigen.[Urheber s. Copyright]

Traditionally, the welfare of fish compared to welfare of other, land farmed animals has not been an important topic to consumers, producers and legislators, an attitude which is reflected in past research projects and legislation directed towards welfare, which hardly ever took fish into consideration. So why was and is fish, compared to other animals, not a hot topic regarding welfare concerns? First, there is a lack of tradition in perceiving fish as sentient beings as fish do not evoke compassion and concern in humans in the same way other, warm-blooded animals do; second, there is still no consensus among scientists wether fish are able to perceive pain and to suffer; third, large scale, industrialised aquaculture is a relatively recent farming method. Nevertheless, an increased concern for the welfare of fish in general and especially in aquaculture can be noticed in recent year, stimulated by research results suggesting awareness of pain and suffering, and reports on farming conditions detrimental to health and welfare. A Norwegian study done by the National Institute for Consumer Research in 2002 reveal that only 49% of the consumers considered welfare of aquacultured fish to be acceptable. About 40% pinpointed that they avoided buying certain fish types because they are sceptical regarding what the flesh might contain of medicines and feed additives.

The remainder of the FIFG programmes show various rates of progress. But, most should be able achieve a reasonable level of activity by the end of FIFG 2000-2006. The reasons for the relatively slow take-up of FIFG-funded programmes are multiple. A late start of the programmes in many instances and other administrative issues (cumbersome application processes, slow payments, lack of administrative resources, occasional problems with the availability of the State co-financing funds, etc) explain part of the lower-than-expected progress. More critically, a number of deeper systemic factors also appear to be at play. A lack of financially robust project sponsors, the uncertain economic prospects for the fisheries sector and the fragmentation of the industry tended to dampen the take-up of the programmes and it is not clear whether the promotion activities recommended by many mid-term evaluations will be sufficient to overcome the hesitancies of potential project sponsors. Copyright authors

Executive Summary
1 Introduction
2 Financial progress of FIFG-financed programmes
3 Use of the FIFG structural funds.
4 Outputs, results and impacts of FIFG- funded programmes
5 Programme management
6 Efficiency of the measures
7 Horizontal objectives
8 Key recommendations made by mid-term evaluations
9 The Performance Reserve
10 Concluding Remarks
Copyright authors

The over-exploitation of fish stocks has had a significant negative effect on fishermen's income, the balance of the marine ecosystem and the supply of fish to the EU market. Reliable scientific advice is necessary to achieve sustainable fisheries. To improve the basis for advice, particular attention has been devoted to support studies on data collection by direct measures (research surveys) and indirect methods (market sampling, statistical analysis, biological sampling) and other areas such as gear selectivity, discards, CPUE, monitoring and control. The Community Financial Support provided by DG FISH for the biological studies during the 1997-2000 period amounted to nearly u008076 millions, corresponding to 182 RDT projects, selected on a yearly basis. The selection of proposals in response to the calls for proposals was carried out by independent experts. The scientific quality of the research, the relevance to the call and the potential impact for the CFP were considered in priority allowing a certain degree of innovation in the proposals. The main objective of this report is to create a comprehensible classification of the 182 Biological Studies into scientific domains.[Author vide copyright]