Main findings and recommendations for the implementation of the emff and post 2020 funds in the ORS

• Author: Violaine Romieu - Tanguy Chever - Bruno Bordeau - Safa Souidi
• Pages: 97-102

97

6. MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE EMFF AND POST 2020 FUNDS IN THE ORS

6.1. Issues identified regarding the implementation of t he EMFF in ORs

The following table details the issues regarding the implementation of the EMFF i n ORs

Table 63: Main findings identified for the implementation of the EMFF in ORs

MS

Tasks

Details

1. Delays for the

validation of the

OP

ES,

FR,

PT

Task 1

The final approbation of the OPs was late (2015). This is related to the

delays in the validation on EU Regulation for EMFF (December) and the

time to draft the operational pro grammes (assessment of the needs,

consultation of stakeholders, d efinition of the strategy, drafting the

OP…). The establishment of all procedures also required some time.

2. Delays for the

implementation

of an effective

programme

FR

Task 1

The MA was designated in France on 15/12/2016. This delay is due to

the definition of procedure and on the implementation of the IT system

(OSIRIS). This issue is not specifically related to ORs, this hampered the

implementation of the EMFF in France, both in mainland and ORs.

3. Involvement of

local

stakeholders in

the drafting of

the programme

ES,

FR,

PT

Task 1

OR stakeholders have been involved at two levels for the definition of the

programme:

 the drafting of the compensation plan;

 the decision regarding the implementation (or not) of measures

at regional level.

The role of regional stakeholders has been limited regarding other

issues, for instance on the detailed content of the measures which was

defined at EU and national levels.

In most cases, no hol istic strategy regarding the development of the

fishery and aquaculture sector exist at OR level.

4. Sharing of good

practices

among ORs

ES,

FR,

PT

Task 1

Stakeholders cooperated for t he development of CPAC at national level

(for instance, French ORs shared their method for drafting the CPAC).

However, no collaboration between ORs from different MS has been

identified for the definition of the strat egy and the implementation of the

EMFF.

5. Definition of the

measures

ES,

FR,

PT

Task 1

and 3

Some measures are not adapted to the local context of ORs.

For instance, onboard investments (article 32 of EMFF Regulation):

security equipment may be subsidised only for equipment beyond the

requirements under Union and natio nal law. However, the level of

security is below these requirements for some fleet segments in ORs. In

these cases, stakeholders’ needs 1) concern basic equipment to comply

with security rules and increase liveability; 2) do not concern the support

for equipment beyond national and EU laws.

The engine replacement measure (article 41 of EMFF measure) is

perceived as unattract ive by stakeholders because of requirements from

EMFF regulation (reduction of power for vessels over 12m) and

complexity of some national crite ria. For instance, a selection criterion in

France asks for the calculation of the number of litres of fuel by kg of

fish landed over the last two years and a forecast for fuel efficiency

improvement with the new engine. This calculation may be complex for

small-scale fishermen.

6. Compensation

plans – method

for

implementation

ES,

FR,

PT

Tasks 1

and 3

The implementation strategy regarding compensation plans is different

from one MS to another. These differences cover the methodology for

calculation of additional costs, the p rocedure to provide support to each

beneficiary and the method for the allocation of budget by OR or sub-

sector.