the legislative proposal for the post-2020 fund: analysis ... by rosa cha… · cetmar 24/01/2019...

The legislative proposal for the

post-2020 Fund: analysis and

recommendations

Rosa Chapela

CETMAR

24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) 1

Index


1. GENERAL REMARKS

2. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

3. POLICY RECOMENDATIONS

4. RECOMENDATIONS FOR THE PECH COMMITTEE

General remarks

24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on [insert name] 3

Legal and policy framework: the main regulatory proposals affecting the

post-2020 fund are currently under negotiation or forthcoming (e.g. Common

Provisions Regulation 2021-2027 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.

2. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: THE

EMFF AND THE POST-2020 FUND

PROPOSAL

Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) 424/01/2019


Source: own elaboration

Comparative analysis: design

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.

Comparative analysis


Post-2020: increase in

the tasks related to policy

measures for the

Member States

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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 12-15 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.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PECH

COMMITTEE MEMBERS



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:

o Pre-financing remains at current level 1-1.2% (vs. 0.5% proposed)

o 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

Thank you for your attention


[email protected]

www.cetmar.org

the legislative proposal for the post-2020 fund: analysis ... by rosa cha… · cetmar 24/01/2019...

Documents