Blomeyer & Sanz is conducting the independent external evaluation of the European Fisheries Control Agency

Blomeyer & Sanz was commissioned in May 2016 to conduct the second independent external evaluation of the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA). EFCA is a European Union agency established in 2005 to organise operational coordination of fisheries control and inspection activities by the Member States and to assist them to cooperate so as to comply with the rules of the Common EU Fisheries Policy in order to ensure its effective and uniform application.

Blomeyer & Sanz will conduct the independent evaluation which is foreseen to be published in the first half of 2017. More information on the activities of EFCA can be found here


Blomeyer & Sanz attended the 2016 Collective Action Conference in Basel

img_3063In October, Mike Beke attended the conference ‘Collective Action: Evidence, Experience and Impact’, hosted by the International Centre for Collective Action (ICCA) in Basel. The conference addressed the latest research and practice on anti-corruption Collective Action through panel discussions and workshops, involving experts from the private sector (e.g. Siemens, EY), public sector (e.g. OECD, FBI, Serious Fraud Office), as well as academia (e.g. International Anti-Corruption Academy, Basel Institute on Governance). 

All conference papers and presentations can be found here

New publication on the impact of the fisheries penalty point system, February 2016

Picture1In February we presented a new study for the European Parliament committee on Fisheries titled: Social and Economic Impact of the Penalty Point System.

This research study focuses on the social and economic impact of the penalty point system for serious fisheries infringements. Overall this study has identified challenges in relation to the penalty point system and its implementation. Stakeholders highlight concerns relating lack of transparency, problems of accountability, and lack of participation. Further, this report flags concerns that different implementation of the system on the national level negatively impacts smaller vessels and those fishing species with tight quotas or higher risk of bycatch.

Global Development Network workshop in Hanoi, January 2016

IMG_2188In January 2016, Blomeyer & Sanz participated in a workshop organised by the Global Development Network (GDN) in Hanoi, Vietnam. The workshop brought together research institutions and universities from Ethiopia, Bhutan, Vietnam and Cambodia in light of the GDN programme ‘Building Research Capacity in Least Developed Countries’. During three days, participants discussed programme activities, progress-made and the future of institutional capacity building in developing countries. 

Blomeyer & Sanz was contracted by GDN to conduct the programme’s final evaluation and attended the workshop to reflect with the participants on the effectiveness and impact of the efforts made by the teams. More information on the workshop can be found here

Workshop on cybercrime, June 2015

In June 2015, Mike Beke participated in a workshop on cyber security and predictive policing organised in Brussels by the Societal Security Network – SOURCE. The aim of the network is to ‘create a robust and sustainable virtual centre of excellence capable of exploring and advancing societal issues in security research and development’. The workshop included experts from police, industry, policy-making, civil society, and academia. Societal challenges were discussed concerning the use of modern technologies and cybercrime.

More information on the Societal Security Network can be found here. More information on the workshop here.

Evaluation for Club de Madrid in Haiti, November 2015

Blomeyer & Sanz is conducting an evaluation of the project “Promoting Dialogue for Democratic Reform in Haiti”. This project is an initiative of Club de Madrid with the financial support of the European Union. It aims at supporting Haitian leaders to overcome the current political challenges and, at the same time, promoting dialogue to address Haiti’s structural obstacles to democratic reform.

In light of this evaluation, a mission took place in Haiti in November 2015. During the mission, our evaluation team met with stakeholders involved in the project, including representatives from various international organizations (e.g. MINUSTAH, the UN Mission for stability in Haiti, and UNDP), embassies (e.g. Canada, United States of America, and Mexico), and the EU Delegation. The team also met with Haitian private sector stakeholders, civil society organizations and political leaders. In addition, two focus group meeting were organised with representatives from various NGOs and representatives from religious groups. The evaluation will be completed early January 2016.

New publication on the composition of the European Commission’s expert groups, October 2015

Screen Shot 2015-11-02 at 09.54.14In October we published a new study for the European Parliament committee on budgetary control. The study is titled: Composition of the European Commission’s Expert Groups and the Status of the Register of Expert Groups. The study provides insights into the development, since 2012, of the Expert Groups system. The specific focus of this study is an assessment of the European Commission’s compliance with a set of European Parliament conditions attached to budget reserves.

‘The study finds that the European Commission, despite some progress, continues to fall short of full compliance with the European Parliament conditions on balance and transparency. Based on this study’s findings, it is considered that a more systematic approach to balance would help overcoming information asymmetries and contribute to throughput legitimacy. Enhanced transparency also has potential to enhance Expert Group outputs. This study therefore recommends a systematic approach to balance, the promotion of full transparency, more resources for Secretariat General oversight and enforcement, and the systematic evaluation of Expert Group performance at the level of the system of Expert Groups and for all individual Expert Groups.’