1 / 16

The legislative proposal for the post-2020 Fund: analysis and recommendations

The legislative proposal for the post-2020 Fund: analysis and recommendations. Rosa Chapela CETMAR. Index. GENERAL REMARKS COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS POLICY RECOMENDATIONS RECOMENDATIONS FOR THE PECH COMMITTEE. General remarks.

enichols
Download Presentation

The legislative proposal for the post-2020 Fund: analysis and recommendations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. Index • GENERAL REMARKS • COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS • POLICY RECOMENDATIONS • RECOMENDATIONS FOR THE PECH COMMITTEE 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 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. Presentation for the Committee on [insert name]

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

  5. Comparative analysis: design • Source: own elaboration 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. Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

  7. Comparative analysis Post-2020: increase in the tasks related to policy measures for the Member States 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. Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

  9. 3. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 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 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

  11. Policy recommendations related to the delegated and implementing acts • Amendment of the Operational Programmesshould 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. 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. 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 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. Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

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

  15. 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 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

  16. Thank you for your attention rchapela@cetmar.org www.cetmar.org Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH)

More Related