Focus on compensation plans for additional costs
| Author | Violaine Romieu - Tanguy Chever - Bruno Bordeau - Safa Souidi |
| Pages | 61-96 |
61
5. FOCUS ON COMPENSATION PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL COSTS
5.1. Introduction
This section provi des details on the content of compensation plans in each OR, the methodology for
calculation of additional costs and the type of beneficiaries. This covers requirements from tasks 1, 2
and 3.
5.2. Context and general overview
In order to maintain the competitiveness of certain fishery and aquaculture products i n the ORs, the
EU introduced measures in 1992 to offset the additional costs in the ORs. The compensation
measures for the period 2007-2013 were set in Council Regulation (EC) N o 791/200778 and
implemented through POSEI plans in some ORs, namely French Guiana, La Réunion, the Azores,
Madeira and Canary Islands79.
Due to the structural, s ocial and economic situations of the ORs, exacerbated by their remoteness,
insularity, small size, di fficult terrain, economic dependence on a small number of products , and
climatic conditions, it was decided to continue to compensate additional costs of certain fishery and
aquaculture products for the 2014-2020 period.
the common criteria for the calculation of the additional costs while the Annex II of the Regulation
(EU) 771/2014 provides a complete description of the structure of the compensation plan, as well as
the calculation method. This regulation also provides a general defi nition of additional costs that
“[…] shall be determined for any given item of ex penditure as the difference between the costs incurred
by operators in the outermost regions concerned, reduced by any type of public intervention affecting the
level of additional costs, and the comparable costs incurred by continental operators of the Member State
concerned”.
Activities covered by compensation plans
Each OR drafted a specific compensation plan, these plans detail the additional costs for each
activity conducted in ORs. The followi ng table presents an overview of the 107 activities considered
in the different plans which constitute also CPAC sub-mea sures.
Table 31: Number of activities covered per OR’CPAC per category of pr oduct
Category/OR
1A:
Fishery
1B: Aquaculture
2: Processing
3:
Total of
activities per
OR
Marketing
MAF
3
1
2
1
7
GLP
2
3
3
3
11
MTQ
4
4
2
6
16
GUF
3
4
3
7
17
MYT
2
2
4
1
9
RUN
6
3
5
4
18
AZO
3
0
2
3
8
MAD
4
1
0
5
10
CAN
2
3
1
5
11
TOTAL
29
21
22
35
107
Source: own elaboration based on CPACs.
78 Council Regulation (EC) No 791/2007 of 21 May 2007 introducing a scheme to co mpensate for the additional
costs incurred in the marketing of certain fishery products from the outermost regions the Azores, Madeira, the
Canary Islands, French Guiana and Réunion
79 See evaluation of Council Regulation (EC) No 791/2007 for DG MARE
https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/evaluation-measures-outermost-regions-
report_fr.pdf
62
Item costs covered by activities selected
A total of 1 300 individual costs are calcul ated among the 107 activities covered by the nine CPACs.
The following table presents the number of additional costs registered per category of activity. In
average, each activity presents 12 additional costs.
Table 32: Number of item costs registered per category and fill rate for all CPACs
Category
Number of additional costs
registered
Average number of
additional costs registered
per activity
CAT 1A: Fishery
464
16
CAT 1B: Aquaculture
273
13
CAT 2: Processing
266
12
CAT 3: Marketing
297
8
TOTAL
1 300
12
Source: own-elaboration based on CPACs’ data
Many item costs are not filled out in an y of the CPACs while other item costs were ad ded. The
following table presents the item costs whi ch are not filled out per cate gory for all ORs and the i tem
costs added per category and by OR.
Table 33: Items cost not fulfilled for all ORs and items costs added in CPACs per category
Category
Items cost not fulfilled by any OR
Items cost added
CAT 1A:
Fishery
- Maintenance (incl. careening)
- Fees for port infrastructure
- Insurance
- Telecommunications (internet,
telephone, fax)
- Consulting services
- Costs related to marketing activities
mentioned under Art. 68 of the EMFF
- Sorting venenous fish (MAF)
- Insufficient production due to depredation
(lion fish in MAF, sharks in RUN))
- Operating shutdown related to weather
conditions (RUN, MYT)
- Other costs: rigging, services, other
vessel expenditures (CAN)
- Collect from boat to 1st buyer (GUF)
CAT 1B:
Aquaculture
- Energy and oxygen
- Insurance
- Small material and spare parts
- Fees for port infrastructure
- Costs related to marketing activities
mentioned under Art. 68 of the EMFF
- Staff costs
- Cyclonic risks for immerged cages (MAF)
- Operating shutdowns related to weather
conditions (RUN)
- Renting fees (RUN)
- Transport + packaging for algae (CAN)
CAT 2:
Processing
- Insurance
- Telecommunications (internet,
telephone, fax)
- Consulting services
- Costs related to marketing activities
mentioned under Art. 68 of the EMFF
- Storage (MYT, GUF)
- Collection of the fish from the boat (GUF,
RUN, MAF, MYT)
- Cost of replacement/ renewal of
production means (GLP, MTQ, GUF, MAF,
RUN, MYT)
- Additional costs of production (materials,
devices…) (RUN)
- Marine transport for cans, olive oil and
frozen tuna (AZO)
- Other services (CAN)
- Other operating expenses (CAN)
CAT 3:
Marketing
- Insurance
- Telecommunications (internet,
telephone, fax)
- Consulting services
- Financial costs ensuing from delivery
times
- Staff costs
- Ice (MTQ)
- Freezing and refreshing cost (GUF)
- Energy (MYT)
Source: own-elaboration based on CPACs
63
Analysis of calculation methods used and data references
A total of 1 300 additional costs have been calculated in the nine compensation plans. The following
section provides a qualitative desk review for each MS and a detailed anal ysis for some of the main
activities supported.
5.3. France
5.3.1. Overview at national level
CPAC budget
The global budget for CPACs f or France accounts for k€86 500 for the 2014-2020 period and it
represents an annual budget of k€12 350. The CPAC budget accounts for 15% of the total EMFF
budget for France and 67,5% of the total EMFF budget for regional measures in French ORs. France
decided not to allocate a specific CPAC budget per OR in order to allow the best spending of the
budget. The budget for CPAC is annually based and cannot be rolled-over to the following year if it is
not totally consumed. CPAC operations are managed through semesters and operators apply for
CPAC support twice a year.
Drafting process of CPAC
CPAC is a regional measure in France and is managed by regional intermediate bodies: Conseils
Régionaux (regional authorities), GLP, MTQ and GUF and by decentralised offices of the managing
authorities in MYT, RUN and MAF: DM SOI and UTM DM SOI an d UTSBSM.
Each French OR had to draft and provide to the DPMA a CPAC adapted to its aquaculture and fishery
sector taki ng into account its specific constraints. The DPMA provided a methodological framework
based on existing EU regul ation to help intermediate bodies with the implementation of measure 70,
with the following points:
Regulation references and priorities for EU
Eligibility conditions for beneficiaries
Method to calculate the compensation amount,
Terms of implementation and calendar
Checklist for intermediate body to assess the eligibility of the potential beneficiaries (l egal
basis of the company, respect of fiscal and social obligations, catches and landing
declarations, sanitary compliance).
Intermediate bodies faced several difficulties in calculating additional costs and drafting the plans.
The reasons encountered for these difficulties were:
An incomplete European format that allows the management authorities to define their own
methods and references
A lack of existing data concerning fishery and aquaculture sector s in ORs,
A lack of common national references concerning mainland costs
An absence of a shared list of costs to consider among OR s
A lack of a shared list of fishery and aquaculture activities to consider
A lack of methodological guidelines to define a common calculation method for additional
costs
A lack of methodological guidelines to define a representative fishery/aquaculture activity
model
Despite these difficulties, all French OR authorities managed to define CPACs and some of them
contracted consulting companies to help them in this task. The drafting process always included
To continue reading
Request your trial