Debriefing

EMFF STAKEHOLDER CONFERENCE

"BEYOND 2020: SUPPORTING

EUROPE'S COASTAL COMMUNITIES"

(Tallinn, 12-13 OCT 2017)

Introduction :

• W1: Fisheries

• W9: SSCF, Outermost regions

• W8: When are subsidies harmful?

• W2: Aquaculture

• W11: Marketing & processing

• W5: Local perspectives (CLLD) (Farnet)

• W6: DCF and control

2

AGENDA (1)

• W12: Results-orientation

• W3: Marine innovation and skills

• W7: Sea Basin Strategies

• W10: Financial instruments

• W4: To focus or not to focus?

• Plenaries: EMFF support to CFP & MP now and beyond 2020

• Conclusions

• Questions

3

AGENDA (2)

• fleet adjustment to resources

• healthier fish stocks

• improved network of ports, landing sites and shelters

• higher value added of catches

• better working conditions

• more jobs (aquaculture, processing, diversification)

• higher competitiveness (fleet, processing)

• more viable coastal communities

• …….BUT

4

EFF 2007-2014 : POLICY ACHIEVEMENTS

• A single fund for CFP and MP for shared and direct management

• Stronger result orientation

• Stronger conditionalities for MS (DCF, Control, Fleet report, Aquaculture planning)

• "Cross-compliance"

• Alignment of measures to CFP and MP objectives

• Stronger focus on SSCF

• More (and multi-funds) coastal development (CLLD)

5

EMFF 2014-2020: New features for better policy achievements

• Anticipate challenges and needs post 2020 for CFP and MP

• Maximise synergies with other financial instruments and funds

• Simplify and focus more on results

Stakeholders' ideas and thoughts for post 2020 support to CFP & EU MP

6

EMFF post 2020 ?

• EFF and EMFF contexts radically different (CFP alignment, economic

position of the sector)

• Positions still very much polarized between “friends of fish” and

“friends of fishermen” regarding type of support

• Economic position of sector and improved stock status present

opportunities to reflect on type of subsidies/tools (landing tax, GRT

indicator,…)

• Some SSCF segment still struggling economically but should be able

to benefit on environmental or social sustainability grounds

• Tools for improved sustainability and competitiveness exist,

implementation mechanisms are the issue (admin burden, audit

uncertainty, gold plating,…)

7

Workshop 1 – Sustainable, resource efficient and competitive fisheries

• One size does not fit all in SSCF: a tailor made approach is essential.

• Flexibility is needed to reflect local specificities. • Innovation, local resources and investment to be

interwoven if we want a vibrant small scale sector.

8

Workshop 9 – SSCF and fisheries in outermost regions

• Subsidies not harmful if used to preserve existing resources - be realistic as to what can be financed.

• Can be positive when targeted, with effective MCS, not only in sustainable fisheries, but in social and environmental sustainability.

• Need to ensure against increases in fleet capacity and competitiveness that lead to over-fishing.

9

Workshop 8 – When are subsidies harmful?

Administrative burdens remain the main barrier • The situation is improving, but more work needs to be done • Roles of different levels of government (local/regional,

national, EU) • Involve all actors to create the right conditions for investment.

Image, public acceptance and "social licence" • Better inform citizens and consumers about sustainable

aquaculture • Innovative solutions (e.g. aquaponics in urban buildings) can

help showcase good practices.

Public funding schemes: more certainty and simplification • Limited uptake of EMFF due to implementation delays,

complex procedures and different interpretations of rules • Public support still needed; partial transition to FIs as an

option, but grants should remain the main instrument.

10

Workshop 2 - Sustainable & competitive aquaculture

11

• Producer Organisations = key actors of the CFP:

– Most effective form of collective organisation of the production

– Support structuring of the sector for CFP and coastal communities.

– Specific attention to young or small POs is needed to help them kick-off

their activities and meet their obligations (PMPs).

• Cease market opportunities through:

– Better understanding of consumers' needs

– Promotion of local, transformed and prepared products

– More transnational / regional cooperation

• Priority areas for the future:

– Collaboration and synergies between POs and processing industry

– Central role of the EUMOFA

– Innovation through R&D to increase added-value & competitiveness

– Increase attractiveness of the sector through education and "blue literacy"

Workshop 11 "The EMFF in support of seafood marketing and processing"

• A powerful tool to improve competitiveness of the

fisheries/aquaculture sectors by creating linkages with other actors of

the territory

• A need for a “revolution” in delivery mechanisms to unleash the

full potential of FLAGs to foster innovations in European fisheries and

aquaculture areas

• The need to ensure continuity between programming periods

• Find an attractive name for the approach, evoking a Europe which is

close to fishermen and its citizens (CLLD does not appeal at all!)

…FARNET ?

12

Workshop 5 – The EMFF and local perspectives

13

• Changeover from direct to shared management:

– Administrative burden and delays in financing first years…

– but reform is positive: stability + speeded-up reimbursements.

– Financial resources substantial and sufficient

• Key elements to promote further:

– Continuous improvement of IT and information systems

– Transregional cooperation, trust-building with end-users &

industry

• Main weaknesses to tackle:

– Absence of controls on SSCF and recreational fisheries induces

gaps in the concerned areas.

– Lack of political will to implement innovative ways to integrate

these fisheries in the control plans.

Workshop 6: data collection and fisheries control

• Result orientation serves numerous purposes: management and control,

reporting, transparency, policy formulation;

• CMES (Common Monitoring & Evaluation System) is a key element which

should serve COM, MAs, MCs and the general public;

• In 2014-2020 many CMES elements were defined too late. CMES post 2020

need a simpler structure and be supported by earlier training;

• Include assessing impact of financial support and M&E for CLLD;

• Use experience of other ESIFs for the EMFF (REGIO harmonisation effort);

• EMFF deals with the sustainability of a sector, not infrastructure. This has to be

considered when co-developing the new regulation.

• SSCF is pivotal with many aspects (gender , sustainability, safety, cohesion)

meeting at local level; they have to be monitored properly to become visible

14

Workshop 12 – Result-orientation

• Creating an ecosystem for innovation in BE and take a long-

term approach to address digital revolution, blue growth,

circular economy, smart specialisation, climate change, marine

pollution, fish overexploitation

• Engaging citizens, producers and users to ensure relevance

and uptake

• Combination of funds and more funding (R&I&Skills)

• Visibility and political priority of BG across funds and

instruments; by establishing an Ocean mission in FP9

15

Workshop 3 - Marine innovation and skills

• The BE is developed in a very complex environment (complementarity and rationalization vs. duplication and fragmentation). SBS is the way forward

• Sea basin scale to be reinforced at operational level beyond 2020 through stronger mainstreaming (MAs, geo scope, thematic concentration), monitoring & reporting

• European BE investment fund/mechanism: at EU level for structural and high-risk projects, and sea basin/ regional investment platforms.

• Visibility and political priority of BG across the EU, instruments and funds: MARE Committee at the EP

16

Workshop 7 – Sea Basin Strategies

• Financial instruments (FIs):

– Useful tools to support and invest in Blue Growth

– Positive experience accumulated in some MS with implementing

EMFF funded FIs in fisheries

– Serve as a mechanism to:

17

Workshop 10 "Financial instruments"

• Evolution not revolution. IMP to stay in the fund.

• Less legal complexity a must. No measures but targets & result indicators maybe a way forward.

• Landlocked MS should be free to opt-out of a coastal fund and shift their allocations to another fund.

• Regional solutions for regional challenges

18

Workshop 4 – To focus or not to focus?

19

• Slow take-up due to…

– Late adoption of the EMFF and of national OPs

– Rigidity in interpretation and too much focus on

eligibility

• But promising achievements

– The EMFF is the adequate tool to support the CFP

– Small scale fisheries, producer organisations and

local development are key actors, and achievements

are already substantial

– Bottlenecks are well identified

Key message: speed-up implementation!

Plenary session : EMFF support of the objectives of the CFP and EU Maritime Policy

– Simplification and stability

– Financial Instruments together with grants should be

the main types of support

– Social dimension and innovation: promote support to

generational renewal, "blue literacy" and science

– Pursue efforts to cope with the landing obligation

– Holistic approach: from conservation to processing,

and blue growth

– No request to shift back to direct management

20

Plenary session: Supporting the objectives of the CFP and EU Maritime Policy Beyond 2020

EU to continue its support (policy, financial) to

• safeguard healthy seas and oceans and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture.

• promote the Blue Economy and foster sustainable and prosperous coastal communities

• strengthen international ocean governance and the safety and security of the maritime space

21

EU orientations post 2020

Questions?

Thank you for your attention!