1. The legislative proposal for the post-2020 Fund: analysis and recommendations
Rosa Chapela CETMAR
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

2. Index GENERAL REMARKS COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS POLICY RECOMENDATIONS
RECOMENDATIONS FOR THE PECH COMMITTEE
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

3. General remarks
Legal and policy framework: the main regulatory proposals affecting the post-2020 fund are currently under negotiation or forthcoming (e.g. Common Provisions Regulation or the review of Common Fisheries Policy).
Policy design: from a prescriptive to a flexible approach that contributes to management, effectiveness and better impact of the programme.
Simplification of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation System.
Management modes: direct, shared and indirect management.
Significant areas will be regulated using delegated or implementation acts.
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on [insert name]

4. 2. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: THE EMFF AND THE POST-2020 FUND PROPOSAL
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

5. Comparative analysis: design
Source: own elaboration
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

6. Comparative analysis
Change from a catalogue of eligible measures to a basic principle: “if it is not ineligible, it can be funded”.
The ineligible measures differ slightly from the ones of the EMFF
There are significant budget changes that affect resources distribution between shared and direct management
Changes in the maximum co-financing rates may reduce the attractiveness of the fund and limit collective action
Reporting requirements are likely to increase the administrative burden
Programming: tailored approach for the Outermost Regions, area of support for the Small Scale Coastal Fisheries, reinforcement of the regional approach.
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

7. Maximum co-financing rates (EU contribution in %)
Comparative analysis
BUDGET (in %)
EMFF
POST-2020
Shared Management
89%
86%
Direct Management
11%
13.5%
Technical Assistance under shared management 6%
Technical assistance under direct management
1.1%
1.7%
Post-2020: increase in the tasks related to policy measures for the Member States
Maximum co-financing rates (EU contribution in %)
EMFF
POST-2020
Data Collection
80%
85%
Control and enforcement
90%*
Permanent and temporary cessation of fishing activities
100%
50%
Sustainable fisheries operations
50-100% collective beneficiaries, innovative features
75%
SSCF operations
Community lead local development
50-100%
Aquaculture
Public interest, collective beneficiaries, innovative features %
Marketing and processing
Public interest, collective beneficiaries, innovative features 100%
Integrated Maritime Policy measures
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

8. Comparative analysis: findings
Simplification of the programme, although it might fail to reduce legal uncertainty and will only partially deal with administrative burden and costs (e.g. increased reporting requests for the Member States).
Risks associated to the implementation: negotiation process in the development of the Operational Programmes; barriers inherited from the EMFF; competition among policy areas.
Financially, the proposal might worsen Member States’ performance: less budget available but the list of tasks increases, reduction of the pre- financing rate and reduction of the period for effective spent of the budget (from three to two years).
The financial support available is likely to hamper the uptake and use of the funds by the different sectors: unattractive aid intensity rates; no more positive incentives for collective actions; financial instruments are the only support for the productive investments in aquaculture and processing.
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

9. 3. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
8 for the text of the legislative proposal
4 for the delegated and implementing acts
1 for the Member States
11 for the areas of support and specific measures
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

10. Policy recommendations related to the text of the legislative proposal
The eligibility principle “what is not ineligible can be funded” should be clearly stated in the text of the regulation to ensure legal certainty.
The proportion of budget under shared management mode should at least be maintained to allow Member States to address their tasks.
To waive the obligation of financial instruments.
Possible extension of well-functioning Operational Programmes
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

11. Policy recommendations related to the delegated and implementing acts
Amendment of the Operational Programmes should be regulated as an agile procedure.
Simplification of the tendering procedures in those cases where there is only one potential beneficiary.
Policy recommendations for the Member States
To ensure legal certainty, Member States are advised to develop a regulatory framework and to validate with the Commission any potential issues from the outset.
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

12. Policy recommendations related to areas of support and specific measures
Non-market measures that respond to mandatory requests and have an impact on the competitiveness of the sector (e.g. the operations to support the implementation of landing obligation) should have a 100% co-financing rate.
Innovation in the seafood value chain needs to be explicitly addressed in the fund to avoid a serious risk of lacking financial support.
Pilot projects for targeted decommissioning schemes should be encouraged, in order to fine-tune the design to the specific fisheries/fleet/ MS features.
Community-led local development measures may allow for continuity of groups under specific provisions.
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

13. Policy recommendations related to areas of support and specific measures
The Blue Growth agenda could be better tied up to the endogenous development needs of the fisheries communities. How the outputs of fisheries, aquaculture and processing may find the way to feed emerging new sectors such as biotechnology – and vice versa – seems a line of thought worth pursuing.
It is recommended that the definition of SSCF sets an upper limit between metres, to be decided by the Member States (MSs) in their Operational Programmes (OPs) according to the features of their particular fleets.
Compensation regimes in the Outermost Regions: simplified procedure to reduce the lopsided administrative burden and cost of the current system.
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

14. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PECH COMMITTEE MEMBERS
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

15. Pre-financing remains at current level 1-1.2% (vs. 0.5% proposed)
The actions taken to improve the text should not come at the price of making it prescriptive or unnecessarily complex. A set of criteria are provided to assess the amendments already proposed.
Concerted action at European Parliament level is suggested regarding the Common Provisions Regulation proposal to ensure:
Pre-financing remains at current level 1-1.2% (vs. 0.5% proposed)
Automatic withdraw of the budget allocated if not expended is activated after 3 years (vs. the 2 years proposed).
The PECH Committee may create the enabling conditions for advance in the procedure for a timely approval of the basic regulation
Direct comparison between the EMFF and the post-2020 fund should be carefully done during budget negotiations
A follow-up action for the current EMFF would benefit on-going PECH-Committee activities
24/01/2019
Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

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