Presented By:

Keith Kelleher (EMFF Managing Authority - Ireland)

OVERVIEW

•3rd EMFF Expert Informal Workshop

•30 Delegates (14 MS)

•1 ½ Day workshop

Day 1 Activities Power Point Presentations on the

following topics:

1. Evaluation & Foresight System (FIN)

2. Projects aiding Landing Obligations (DEN)

3. Projects aiding Seafood Processing (IRL)

4. Simplified Cost Options (NL & IRL)

Four Breakout groups on each topic

Tour of Seafood Development Centre

• Intervention logic is designed and fixed by the regulation.

• Complication of Indicators

• Solutions or proposals:

– Current system difficult (impossible) to change. No space/freedom to solve problems.

– National evaluation, data and analysis have an important role to demonstrate the results of the EMFF

– Learning from each other is an important action

• EMFF 2.0

– Less obligatory indicators. MS freedom to choose relevant set of indicators and define intervention logic on their own needs and basis.

– Information should be collected in the level MS/sector not in the level each operation

– Commission should learn from experiences in current period

1. Evaluation & Foresight System (FIN)- Group Feedback

2. Support for Implementing the landing obligation – (DEN) - Group Feedback

5

The level of priority given to facilitating the implementation of landing obligation varied. MS support for investment in facilities on land differed. There has generally not yet been a large demand for support. It will be impossible to support facilities for handling

unwanted catches in all ports. As yet only a few projects supported with the aim of

developing use of the unwanted catches. The rule that unwanted catches must not be used for direct

human consumption was discussed - there is no clear definition.

It is a difficult to formulate a strategy for the use and handling on land of unwanted catches.

3. Measures Supporting Processing (IRL) – Group Conclusions

Opportunities for capital investment scheme which potentially has less admin / supporting paperwork requirements, for smaller projects.

A lot of discussion regarding the time lines of the schemes and whether ‘over committing’ budget is available to enable roll over between years.

Time lines of the projects was also discussed, with a mixture of timelines in operation between member states.

Some discussion on ‘grey areas’ of certain areas within the legislation which meant that it was hard to define or decide what was eligible – for example ‘innovation’ is not properly defined.

Issues attracting high quality applications Interpretation of legislation / specifics Move towards online admin / application

4. Simplified Cost Options (SCO) – (NED & IRL) Group Conclusions

Will Present Later!!!

Day 2 Activities Breakout Groups on the following Questions: 1. Which measures are working well in the

EMFF and which are not? Why? 2. Are existing measures proving effective

in addressing the objectives of Member States programmes? What, if any, gaps exist in the range of measures provided under the EMFF?

3. What, if any, difficulties have arisen with implementing the EMFF Regulation? How could these be overcome?

4. Looking to the future, how can the process of preparing Operational programmes be simplified and speeded up?

Examples of well working measures:

UP1

Why they are functional?

General measures which do not have measure level specific/detailed rules

•Examples of difficult measures to implement: UP1

•Start up scheme (important measure, but difficult rules) •Temporary cessation and scrapping •Environmental innovation (good but difficult rules) •Engine replacement (dead weight? difficult rules)

•Why they are not working? Lot of interpretation issues

Innovation Partnership between scientist and fishermen

Limitation of impact of fishing

Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity

Added value

EMFF 2.0 EMFF has too many measures and detailed rules Union priority 1 (now 23 measures) could look like this:

No need for split fishing, aquaculture fish processing. Priorities could be:

Clear general restrictions on ineligible costs or actions. MS should design their own intervention logic on the basis on their strategic

choices. Obligation to demostrate the effectiviness and results of the financing. Follow the model of ERDF.

Innovations, partnerships and development work

Productive investments

Environmental investments

Public infrastructure and environmental measures

UP1 Fisheries value chain

UP2 Implementation of CFP

UP3 IMP

Group 2

Are existing measures proving effective in addressing the objectives of Member States programmes? What, if any, gaps exist in the

range of measures provided under the EMFF?

Gaps ….

Not many operations for development of the fleet

Fisheries education

Attracting young people to fishing and processing

Small investments to retail

Too much paperwork for smaller companies and small operations

Duplicate measures under UP I and II

Innovation – Art 26, 47 Partnership/networking - Art 28, 50 para 1 c), h)

Promotion of human capital – Art 29, 50

Advisory services – Art 27, 49

Diversification – Art 30, 48 para 1 b)

Mutual funds/insurance – Art 35, 57

CLLD

Do we need identical copy of Leader? What are the „special features“ for CLLD under EMFF?

Do we need same measures under shared and direct management?

Control and enforcement Data collection IMP

How many measures do we need?

FIFG – 9 measures EFF – 20 measures

EMFF – 52 measures

EMFF 2.0 – 100 measures???

Can we agree on the Objectives?

Can we measure the achievement?

EMFF 2.0 – 0 measures on EU level

•EU 2020 – (Competitiveness, Environment, Etc.) •CFP – ( Sustainable Fisheries, Sustainable Aquaculture, Etc.)

•List on common indicators on EU level, but intervention logic defined by MS. •FAME could help to define a set on common indicators for next programming period.

Measures (eligible operations, eligible costs and beneficiaries) defined by MS, taking into account objectives agreed on EU level but also local circumstances.

Group 3

What, if any, difficulties have arisen with implementing the EMFF

Regulation? How could these be overcome?

Admissibility of operations (art 10) Difficulty accessing information on infringements of operators in other MS. Impractical to have to check every application for infringements For phased projects, must the MA check for infringements before each payment, or

just at the date of grant approval. More practical approach to excluding rogue operators needed

Engine Replacement (art 41) Power reduction requirement is heavily dissuading applications. Aid intensity at 30% is low. Imbalanced fleets excluded Delegated Act defining eligible costs for paragraph 1 is considered too vague.

Investments on board (art 38/42) Require applicants to have fished for 60 days at sea in previous 2 years. Not clear why this rule is needed. Gear selectivity at core of CFP and is a good

thing for all fishermen. Bureaucratic burden and excludes many active vessels from support. Selective gear must be replacement. Difficult / impractical to verify existing gear

and that it is destroyed.

Aid Intensity Rates (art 95)

Innovative operations entitled to up to 100%. Not defined what is innovative and this causes many applicants to claim their project is innovative.

Collectives entitled to 60%. Collective is not defined and this causes disputes.

Diversification (art 30)

Diversified businesses must relate to fishermen’s core business

Core business not defined.

Must the beneficiary continue to maintain the core fishing business and for how long. A burden to monitor.

Group 4

Looking to the future, how can the process of preparing Operational

programmes be simplified and speeded up?

The timelines for delivery of the EMFF Regulation.

Better guidance from DG MARE in relation to OP preparation and the OP Template itself.

Too many indicators and the questioned relevancy of some of the indicators.

The Partnership Agreement Process impacted on the development of the OP and is it really necessary.

The provision of good validation tools in preparation of OP would be beneficial to all.

General Conclusions of Workshop Importance of informal meetings of Managing Authorities

to share information on how they implement the EMFF; Complements the Learning Network Some common themes running through feedback from each

breakout group include: 1. Any lack of clarity on interpretation of key terms creates

implementation difficulties. 2. Too many rules and conditions in EMFF of questionable

value deter applications and create admin burden for MA and beneficiaries.

3. Implementation of EMFF behind schedule and we need to learn from this by simplifying both the Regulation and the process for developing programmes.

Save the Date!!!: 4th Informal EMFF Expert Workshop to be held on 3rd &

4th October 2017 in Malta.

All presentations and feedback can be found on EMFF Learning Network at :

https://ln-emff.pleio.nl/

Thank you for your attention