The current EMFF performance: assessment of shared management measures Marta Ballesteros CETMAR 24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

Index OVERVIEW OF THE EMFF CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS FROM DESIGN TO IMPLEMENTATION: MAIN FINDINGS POLICY RECOMENDATIONS 24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

EMFF Hierarchy of objectives 1. OVERVIEW OF THE EMFF EMFF Hierarchy of objectives Period: 2014-2020 Budget: 8.6 billion EU contribution: 6.4 billion Shared management: 89% Member States: 27 Priority Areas: 6 Source: adapted from DG-MARE 24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

Policy design: innovations in the EMFF European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions Regulation Simplification and effectiveness Reduce administrative cost and burden Synergies among EU funds Results-oriented approach Focus on performance Systematic use of conditions and incentives Common Monitoring and Evaluation System Common indicators for performance assessment Systematic tool for follow-up and support for decision-making 24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

2. CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS 24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

Implementation Summary: 2014-2017 Low implementation rate: 7% of the EMFF EU contribution spent Delays in the launching of the programme at Member State level: effective in 2016. Higher implementation level in policy related measures and standard concepts Financial implementation level by Union Priority (in %) Source: own elaboration, data from FAME SU, DG-MARE, European Commission. 24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries

Evolution of the EMFF implementation 2014-2017 Source: own elaboration, data from FAME SU, DG-MARE, European Commission. 2018: significant barriers for effective implementation have been overcome 24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

28/05/2015 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

UP1 Sustainable Fisheries. Measuring performance at Member State level An asset of the EMFF: performance can be assessed combining financial, output and results achievements. UP1 Sustainable Fisheries. Measuring performance at Member State level Source: own elaboration, data from FAME SU, DG-MARE, European Commission. Denmark is not included 24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

3. FROM POLICY DESIGN TO IMPLEMENTATION: MAIN FINDINGS 24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

Is the EMFF a simpler and better financial instrument? Increase the legal complexity: 30 regulations applicable at EU level Increase the administrative cost: 7-15% Increase the administrative burden for Managing Authorities and beneficiaries Increase the complexity of the process for the approval of the Operational Programmes European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions Regulation Results-oriented approach Rigid intervention logic that limits adaptiveness Admissibility criteria have increased work overload Detailed catalogue of measures with combined eligibility criteria; some render the measures inapplicable in practice En el EFF eran solo 2 normas. Los costes se reducjeron de media entre un 2 y un 5% para el resto de los fondos. The EMFF has one of the most expensive application of all EU Funds. Study of administrative burden by beneficiaries’ profiles shows that SMEs are the ones that need to invest more into project application compared to public bodies, natural persons or POs. (EMFF, Expert Group Survey, 2015) How the links between the different levels of the programme build on each other to generate the changes and results intended is explained in the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) intervention 24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

Potential beneficiaries Common Monitoring and Evaluation System Lack of accuracy of the current system to reflect performance. Targets set without guidelines for the Member States in the programming phase Potential to become a strategic tool Response to legal uncertainty by increasing regulation: self-blocking system. Implementing approach focused on compliance rather than performance Financial difficulties to cover the national contribution Member States Potential beneficiaries Low co-financing rates limit the attractiveness of the fund. Growing number of rules, admin burden and controls are disincentives to apply for support. Uncertainties put some investments plans on hold. 24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

Remarks Early warnings Expenditure levels in Union priorities and measures should not be linked to the opportunity or necessity of a given measure. Critical measures for sustainable fisheries such as training or innovation are underperforming. Early warnings Evidence indicates a likely underspending in the UP1 Sustainable fisheries by the end of the programme due to the low demand from potential beneficiaries. Short-term policy objectives (landing obligation, achievement of maximum sustainable yield) and the fund effective implementation call for addressing the disaffection of the fisheries sector with the EMFF. EUR 500 million might be potentially at risk in 2018 due to the decommitment procedure. 24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

4. Policy recommendations Legal certainty: on-line publication of the interpretations of the regulations by the Commission services to the questions raised by the different MS Simplified cost options: Commission may provide further assistance based on experience on the ground. Avoid the risk of the EMFF providing financial support where it is easier rather than where it is needed the most. Set a transitional period between EMFF and the post-2020 Fund. Set the monitoring system before the start of the programming period. 24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

Thank you for your attention 24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)