Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 3
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
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 4
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.
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 5
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.
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 6
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.
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 7
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
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
Fisheries and aquaculture industries
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
Administrations National authorities
Permanent Representation of Denmark to the EU
1
National authorities
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Denmark
2
National authorities
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
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 8
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
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
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
Fisheries and aquaculture industries
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*
Administrations National authorities
Permanent Representation of Germany to the EU
1
National authorities
Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
1
Civil society NGO Deutscher Nautischer Verein von 1868 e.V.
1
Consumer association
Verbraucherzentrale Hamburg 1
Maritime research, science and education associations
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
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
Fisheries and aquaculture industries
Fishing sector Irish Fisherman’s Producer Organisation (IFPO)
1
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 9
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
Fishing sector Irish Fishermen’s Organisation (IFO) 1
Maritime Industries Export Irish exporter association 2
Transport Nautical Enterprise Centre Ltd 1
Administrations National authorities
BIM Irish Sea Fisheries Board 1
National authorities
Marine Survey Office 1
Maritime research, science and education associations
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
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
Fisheries and aquaculture industries
Fishing sector FEDEROP (OP) 1
Maritime Industry AGCI (cooperative) 1
Administrations National authorities
Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali (MIPAAF)
2
National authorities
Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei trasporti (MIT)
2
National authorities
FEDEROP (OP) 1
Regional authorities
Regione Sicilia 1
Civil society
Consumer association
MDC 1
Maritime research, science and education associations
Consorzio mediterraneo 1
Press Agrisole (press) 1
TOTAL 11
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 10
Sicilian stakeholders (Capitaneria di Porto Mazara del Vallo, Confederazione Imprese Pesca Mazara and COSVAP) declined the interview.
Table 6: Interviews performed in Malta
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
Fisheries and aquaculture industries
Fishing sector Koperattiva Nazzjonali Tas-Sajd 1
Aquaculture sector
P2M CO. LTD. 1
Administrations
National authorities
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 research, science and education associations
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
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
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
Administrations National authorities
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
3
National authorities
Permanent Representation of Poland to the EU
1
Civil Society NGO WWF Poland 2
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 11
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
Maritime research, science and education associations
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
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
Fisheries and aquaculture industries
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
Administrations National authorities
Permanent Representation of Portugal to the EU
1
National authorities
Direcção-Geral das Pescas e Aquicultura 2
Civil society Consumer association
Associação Portuguesa. para a Defesa do Consumidor (DECO)
1
Maritime research, science and education associations
Instito Superior tecnico - Centro de Engenharia e Tecnologia Naval
1
MIS Consultores 1
TOTAL 13
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 12
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
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
Fisheries and aquaculture industries
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
National authorities
Representación Permanente de España ante la UE
1
National authorities
Ministerios de los asuntos exteriores - Secretario de estado para la Union Europea
1
Civil society NGO Oceana 1
Consumer association
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
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
Fisheries and aquaculture industries
Fishing sector Swedish Fishermen's Federation (SFR) 1
Processing sector Federation of Swedish Fish Industries 1
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 13
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
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
Administrations National authorities
Ministry for Environment 1
National authorities
Swedish Board of Fisheries 1
National authorities
Ministry of agriculture 1
Regional authorities
Goteborg County Council 2
Civil society NGO WWF's Baltic Program Office 2
Consumer association
The Swedish Consumers' Association 1
Maritime research, science and education associations
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
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
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*
Administrations National authorities
Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij
1
National authorities
Interministerial Board of North Sea Affairs (IDON)
1
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 14
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
National authorities
Ministry of Transport 1
Regional authorities
Provincie Flevoland 1
National authorities
Permanent Representation of Portugal to the EU
1
Civil Society NGO Stichting De Noordzee 1
Maritime research, science and education associations
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
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
Fisheries and aquaculture industries
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
Administrations National authorities
Permanent Representation of Portugal to the EU
1
National authorities
Marine Management Organisation 3
National authorities
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
1
Regional authorities
Marine Scotland 3
Maritime research, science and education
Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
1
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 15
Stakeholder Target group Organisation Nr. of interviewed people
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,
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 16
• 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?
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 17
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?
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 18
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?
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 19
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?
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 20
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).
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 21
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?
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 22
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?
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 23
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
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 24
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?
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 25
I.E. Online survey
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 26
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 27
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 28
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 29
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 30
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 31
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 32
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 33
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 34
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 35
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 36
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 37
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 38
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 39
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 40
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?
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 41
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?
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 42
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
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 43
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
Annual Activity Report 2008
Annual Activity Report 2009
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
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 44
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
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 45
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.
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 46
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:
Evaluation subquestion 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.
Main tools and data sources Several sources were used to draft the answer to this evaluation question, including:
• 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.
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 47
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)
Evaluation subquestion Judgement criteria
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 48
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
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 49
Main tools and data sources Several sources were used to draft the answer to this evaluation question, including:
• Secondary data:
o DG MARE 2010 Management Plan – Annex 7 Communication Strategy;
o Activity Statement
o List of publications
o Web statistics
• Interviews with all types of stakeholders
• 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.
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 50
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)
Evaluation subquestion Judgement criteria
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
Main tools and data sources Several sources were used to draft the answer to this evaluation question, including:
• Secondary data:
o DG MARE 2010 Management Plan – Annex 7 Communication Strategy;
o Activity Statement
o List of publications
o Web statistics
• Interviews with all types of stakeholders
• 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.
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 51
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.
Evaluation subquestion Judgement criteria
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 52
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
Main tools and data sources Several sources were used to draft the answer to this evaluation question, including:
• 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.
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 53
I.I. Example of Newsletter
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 54
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
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 55
[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)
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 56
[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)
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 57
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
Towards a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
- Overcapacity
CFP X
Towards a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
- The sector's economic viability
CFP X
Towards a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
- Small scale fishing
CFP X
Towards a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
- Simplifying implementation and decision making
CFP X
Towards a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
- Involving stakeholders
CFP X
Towards a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
- The external dimension
CFP X
2010
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 58
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
Interim evaluation of DG MARE external communication activities - Annexes
© Ernst & Young et Associés 59
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
TotalResponsePercent
<20 1 0%
20-30 45 16%
30-45 107 38%
45-60 100 36%
>60 25 9%
Total Respondents 278
3. To which type of organisation do you belong?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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
Total Respondents 278
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
Total Respondents 440
5. On which Common Fisheries Policy topic(s) would you like to have more information?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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%
Total Respondents 220
(skipped this question) 58
6. On which Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) would you like to have more information?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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%
Total Respondents 220
(skipped this question) 58
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?
Total Respondents 47
(skipped this question) 231
8. Do you use the Internet to get information on fisheries and maritime issues?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
Yes 207 95%
No 11 5%
Total Respondents 218
(skipped this question) 60
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
Total Respondents 367
10. If you use other websites related to fisheries and maritime issues, please specify:
Total Respondents 92
(skipped this question) 186
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
Total Respondents 964
12. Which pages do you visit most?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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.
Total Respondents 175
(skipped this question) 103
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
Total Respondents 349
14. Could you please explain your previous answer?
Total Respondents 66
(skipped this question) 212
15. The thematic website on fisheries has just been revamped. What is your opinion on the new Fisheries website?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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%
Total Respondents 177
(skipped this question) 101
16. Do you have any suggestions on DG MARE websites?
Total Respondents 47
(skipped this question) 231
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
Total Respondents 376
18. If you read any other publications, please specify:
Total Respondents 29
(skipped this question) 249
19. How would you assess the quality and quantity of the information provided in DG MARE publications?
Strongly
agree Agree DisagreeStronglydisagree No opinion
ResponseTotal
Quality: The information provided is both well explained and comprehensible 6% (11) 44% (78) 8% (14) 1% (2) 40% (71) 176
Quantity: The information provided is sufficient 4% (7) 42% (72) 11% (19) 1% (2) 42% (71) 171
Total Respondents 347
20. Could you explain your previous answer?
Total Respondents 33
(skipped this question) 245
21. Do you have any suggestions on publications?
Total Respondents 26
(skipped this question) 252
22. Which of the following events have you attended in the past three years?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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
Total Respondents 116
(skipped this question) 162
23. How would you assess the quality and quantity of the information provided during DG MARE events?
Strongly
agree Agree DisagreeStronglydisagree No opinion
ResponseTotal
Quality: The information rpovided is both well explained and comprehensible 7% (11) 42% (67) 11% (18) 1% (1) 39% (62) 159
Quantity: The information provided is sufficient 6% (9) 39% (60) 14% (22) 1% (1) 41% (63) 155
Total Respondents 314
24. Could you explain your previous answer?
Total Respondents 32
(skipped this question) 246
25. Do you have any suggestions on events?
Total Respondents 24
(skipped this question) 254
26. From which media do you receive information about fisheries and maritime affairs?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
Written specialised press 108 63%
Written generalist press 60 35%
TV 41 24%
Radio 24 14%
Specialised websites 123 72%
None 16 9%
Total Respondents 172
(skipped this question) 106
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.
Total Respondents 171
(skipped this question) 107
28. Do you communicate yourself on topics related to the Common Fisheries Policy?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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
Total Respondents 171
(skipped this question) 107
29. Do you communicate yourself on topics related to the Integrated Maritime Policy?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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
Total Respondents 171
(skipped this question) 107
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
TotalResponsePercent
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
Total Respondents 127
(skipped this question) 151
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
Total Respondents 132
(skipped this question) 146
32. Please, explain your previous answer.
Total Respondents 45
(skipped this question) 233
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
Total Respondents 642
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
Total Respondents 740
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
Total Respondents 505
36. In your opinion what are the three main messages that the European Commission is communicating on the Common Fisheries Policy?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
1. 131 47%
2. 60 22%
3. 47 17%
Total Respondents 131
(skipped this question) 147
37. In your opinion what are the three main messages that the European Commission is communicating on the Integrated Maritime Policy?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
1. 130 47%
2. 39 14%
3. 30 11%
Total Respondents 131
(skipped this question) 147
38. Are you a member of:
Response
TotalResponsePercent
Regional Advisory Council (RAC) 23 18%
Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) 16 12%
Not a member 99 76%
Total Respondents 131
(skipped this question) 147
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
Total Respondents 160
(skipped this question) 118
40. How would you recommend improving the involvment of RAC / ACFA members as communication multipliers?
Total Respondents 32
(skipped this question) 246
41. If you had one thing to change in the European Commission communication (strategy, target audiences, messages, tools, etc.), what would that be?
Total Respondents 126
(skipped this question) 152
Survey Results -- Overview
Evaluation de la communication de la DG MARE
Respondents: 44 displayed, 44 total Status: Live
Launched Date: 20/09/2010 Closed Date: N/A
1. Etes-vous un résidant/un représentant de :
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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%
Total Respondents 44
2. Quel âge avez-vous?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
<20 0 0%
20-30 9 20%
30-45 10 23%
45-60 23 52%
>60 2 5%
Total Respondents 44
3. De quel type d’organisation êtes-vous membre?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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
Total Respondents 44
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
Total Respondents 78
5. Sur quel(s) sujet(s) relatif(s) à la Politique Commune de la Pêche souhaiteriez-vous avoir davantage d’informations ?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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%
Total Respondents 39
(skipped this question) 5
6. Sur quel(s) sujet(s) relatif(s) à la Politique Maritime Intégrée (PMI) souhaiteriez-vous avoir davantage d’informations ?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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%
Total Respondents 39
(skipped this question) 5
7. Y a-t-il d’autres sujets pour lesquels vous souhaiteriez davantage d’informations, si oui lesquels ?
Total Respondents 6
(skipped this question) 38
8. Utilisez vous internet pour obtenir des informations sur les questions concernant la pêche et le domaine maritime ?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
Oui 35 95%
Non 2 5%
Total Respondents 37
(skipped this question) 7
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
Total Respondents 74
10. Si vous utilisez d'autres sites web relatifs à la pêche et aux affaires maritimes, merci de préciser :
Total Respondents 15
(skipped this question) 29
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
Total Respondents 183
12. Quelles rubriques utilisez-vous le plus souvent ?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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%
Total Respondents 31
(skipped this question) 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
Total Respondents 70
14. Merci d'expliciter votre réponse précédente :
Total Respondents 12
(skipped this question) 32
15. Le site internet vient d’être réorganisé et revu. Qu’en pensez-vous ?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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%
Total Respondents 34
(skipped this question) 10
16. Avez-vous des suggestions à faire sur les sites web de la DG MARE ?
Total Respondents 9
(skipped this question) 35
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
Total Respondents 72
18. Si vous lisez d'autres publications ou brochures, merci de préciser lesquelles :
Total Respondents 9
(skipped this question) 35
19. Comment qualifieriez-vous la qualité et la quantité des informations issues des publications de la DG MARE ?
Entièrement
d'accord D'accord Pas d'accordEn désaccord
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
Total Respondents 68
20. Merci d'expliciter votre réponse précédante :
Total Respondents 13
(skipped this question) 31
21. Avez-vous des suggestions à faire sur les publications/borichures de la DG MARE ?
Total Respondents 10
(skipped this question) 34
22. A quels événements avez-vous assisté au cours de ces trois dernières années ?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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
Total Respondents 26
(skipped this question) 18
23. Comment qualifieriez-vous la qualité et la quantité des informations reçues au cours des événements, conférences, séminaires organisés par la DG MARE ?
Entièrement
d'accord D'accord Pas d'accordEn désaccord
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
Total Respondents 70
24. Merci d'expliciter votre réponse précédante :
Total Respondents 8
(skipped this question) 36
25. Avez-vous des suggestions à faire afin d'améliorer les événements, conférences, séminaires organisés par la DG MARE ?
Total Respondents 9
(skipped this question) 35
26. De quels medias recevez-vous les informations sur la pêche et les affaires maritimes ?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
Presse écrite spécialisée 28 78%
Presse écrite généraliste 14 39%
Télévision 4 11%
Radio 2 6%
Sites internet spécialisés 26 72%
Aucun 4 11%
Total Respondents 36
(skipped this question) 8
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 :
Total Respondents 37
(skipped this question) 7
28. Communiquez-vous vous-même sur les sujets liés à la Politique Commune de la Pêche ?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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
Total Respondents 36
(skipped this question) 8
29. Communiquez-vous vous-même sur les sujets liés à la Politique Maritime Intégrée ?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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
Total Respondents 36
(skipped this question) 8
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
TotalResponsePercent
Oui, complètement 8 28%
Oui, en partie 18 62%
Non 3 10%
Total Respondents 29
(skipped this question) 15
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).
RankingAverage
Presse écrite 2.3
Audiovisuel 4.4
Publications 3.1
Evènements 3.5
Sites internet 2.4
Autres 5.2
Total Respondents 29
(skipped this question) 15
32. Merci d'expliciter votre réponse précédente :
Total Respondents 12
(skipped this question) 32
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
Total Respondents 173
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
Total Respondents 174
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
Total Respondents 115
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
TotalResponsePercent
1 29 66%
2 17 39%
3 14 32%
Total Respondents 29
(skipped this question) 15
37. Selon vous, quels sont les trois principaux messages sur lesquels communique la Commission Européennes pour ce qui concerne la Politique Maritime Intégrée ?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
1 29 66%
2 14 32%
3 11 25%
Total Respondents 29
(skipped this question) 15
38. Etes-vous membre :
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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%
Total Respondents 29
(skipped this question) 15
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
Total Respondents 35
(skipped this question) 9
40. Que recommanderiez-vous pour améliorer l’implication des membres de CCR/ACFA comme « multiplicateurs d’information » ?
Total Respondents 7
(skipped this question) 37
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 ?
Total Respondents 28
(skipped this question) 16
Survey Results -- Overview
Estrategia de la comunicación de la DG MARE.
Respondents: 36 displayed, 36 total Status: Live
Launched Date: 20/09/2010 Closed Date: N/A
1. Si usted es residente/representante de :
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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%
Total Respondents 36
2. ¿Cuál es su edad?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
<20 0 0%
20-30 2 6%
30-45 12 33%
45-60 19 53%
>60 3 8%
Total Respondents 36
3. ¿A qué tipo de organización pertenece?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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
Total Respondents 36
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
Total Respondents 66
5. ¿Sobre qué tema de la Política Pesquera Común quisiera tener más información?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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%
Total Respondents 33
(skipped this question) 3
6. ¿Sobre qué tema de la Política Marítima Integrada (PMI) quisiera tener más información?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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%
Total Respondents 33
(skipped this question) 3
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
(skipped this question) 30
8. Internet / sitios web: ¿Utiliza Internet para buscar información sobre la pesca y los asuntos marítimos?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
Sí 32 97%
No 1 3%
Total Respondents 33
(skipped this question) 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
Total Respondents 60
10. Si utiliza otros sitios web relacionados con la pesca y los asuntos marítimos. Especifique :
Total Respondents 15
(skipped this question) 21
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
Total Respondents 138
12. ¿Cuales páginas visita más? (múltiples respuestas)
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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
Total Respondents 30
(skipped this question) 6
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
Total Respondents 59
14. Explique por favor
Total Respondents 9
(skipped this question) 27
15. El sitio web temático sobre la pesca acaba de ser renovado. ¿Cuál es su opinión sobre el nuevo sitio de la pesca?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
Es mejor que el anterior 12 40%
Es peor que el anterior 1 3%
Sin cambios 8 27%
Sin opinión 9 30%
Total Respondents 30
(skipped this question) 6
16. Sugerencias sobre los sitios web :
Total Respondents 6
(skipped this question) 30
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
Total Respondents 58
18. Cuales otras publicaciones/folletos de DG MARE conoce/lee?
Total Respondents 6
(skipped this question) 30
19. ¿Cómo evaluaría la calidad y la cantidad de la información de las publicaciones 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 14% (4) 62% (18) 7% (2) 3% (1) 14% (4) 29
Cantidad: La información es suficiente 7% (2) 61% (17) 11% (3) 7% (2) 14% (4) 28
Total Respondents 57
20. Explique por favor
Total Respondents 6
(skipped this question) 30
21. Sugerencias sobre las publicaciones :
Total Respondents 5
(skipped this question) 31
22. Eventos: ¿En cuál de los siguientes eventos ha participado en los últimos tres años?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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.
Total Respondents 21
(skipped this question) 15
23. ¿Cómo evaluaría la calidad y la cantidad de la información de los eventos 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 3% (1) 59% (17) 10% (3) 7% (2) 21% (6) 29
Cantidad: La información es suficiente 7% (2) 48% (14) 14% (4) 10% (3) 21% (6) 29
Total Respondents 58
24. Explique por favor
Total Respondents 4
(skipped this question) 32
25. Sugerencias sobre los eventos :
Total Respondents 3
(skipped this question) 33
26. ¿De qué tipo de medios de communicacion recibe información sobre la pesca y los asuntos marítimos?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
Prensa escrita especializada 23 82%
Prensa escrita generalista 15 54%
TV 11 39%
Radio 4 14%
Sitios web especializados 24 86%
Ninguno 0 0%
Total Respondents 28
(skipped this question) 8
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 :
Total Respondents 28
(skipped this question) 8
28. ¿Comunica usted mismo sobre temas relacionados con la Política Pesquera Común?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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.
Total Respondents 28
(skipped this question) 8
29. ¿Comunica usted mismo sobre temas relacionados con la Política Marítima Integrada?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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
Total Respondents 28
(skipped this question) 8
30. Accesibilidad y disponibilidad: ¿Suele encontrar toda la información que busca en los diferentes canales de comunicación empleados por la Comisión Europea?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
Sí, todas 5 21%
Sí, una parte 18 75%
No. Precise el tipo de información. 1 4%
1. otras webs complementarias
Total Respondents 24
(skipped this question) 12
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
Total Respondents 25
(skipped this question) 11
32. Explique su elección :
Total Respondents 13
(skipped this question) 23
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
Total Respondents 154
34. ¿Está de acuerdo con las siguientes suposiciones sobre la Política Marítima Integrada (PMI)?
Totalmentede acuerdo
Parcialmentede acuerdo
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
Total Respondents 155
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
Total Respondents 95
36. ¿En su opinión, cuáles son los tres mensajes principales que la Comisión Europea comunica sobre la Política Pesquera Común?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
1 24 67%
2 14 39%
3 9 25%
Total Respondents 25
(skipped this question) 11
37. ¿En su opinión, cuáles son los tres mensajes principales que la Comisión Europea comunica sobre la Política Marítima Integrada?
Response
TotalResponsePercent
1 24 67%
2 5 14%
3 3 8%
Total Respondents 25
(skipped this question) 11
38. Es miembro de :
Response
TotalResponsePercent
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%
Total Respondents 25
(skipped this question) 11
39. ¿Está de acuerdo con las siguientes suposiciones?
Totalmentede acuerdo
Parcialmentede acuerdo
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
Total Respondents 60
40. ¿Qué recomendación hace para mejorar la participación de los miembros de CCR / CCPA como multiplicadores de la comunicación?
Total Respondents 12
(skipped this question) 24
41. Si hay algo que se debiera cambiar en la comunicación de la Comisión Europea (estrategia, audiencias de objetivo, mensajes, herramientas, etc.), ¿qué sería?
Total Respondents 24
(skipped this question) 12