1Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

Beyond 2020:Supporting Europe’s Coastal CommunitiesCONCLUSIONS OF THE EMFF STAKEHOLDER CONFERENCE TALLINN, 12-13 OCT 2017

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SYNTHESIS � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3

PLENARY SESSIONS “The EMFF in support of the objectives

of the CFP and Maritime Policy” “Beyond 2020: Where next?” � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 5

WORKSHOP 1 “Supporting more environmentally sustainable,

resource efficient and competitive fisheries” � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 6

WORKSHOP 2 “Enabling the development of sustainable and

competitive aquaculture” � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 7

WORKSHOP 3 “Marine innovation and skills” � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 8

WORKSHOP 4 “To focus or not to focus?” � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 9

WORKSHOP 5 “The EMFF and local perspectives” � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �10

WORKSHOP 6 “Strengthening data collection and fisheries control

through the EMFF” � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �11

WORKSHOP 7 “Sea Basin Strategies” � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �12

WORKSHOP 8 ”Are subsidies harmful?” � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �14

WORKSHOP 9 “Small-scale coastal fisheries and fisheries

in the outermost regions” � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �15

WORKSHOP 10 “ Financial instruments” � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �16

WORKSHOP 11 “The EMFF in support of seafood marketing

and processing” � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �18

WORKSHOP 12 “Results orientation” � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �19

ANNEX I List of speakers by session � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �21

ANNEX II Replies to surveys with participants � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �29

ANNEX III Poster exhibit � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �xx

1

Beyond 2020:Supporting Europe’s Coastal CommunitiesCONCLUSIONS OF THE EMFF STAKEHOLDER CONFERENCE TALLINN, 12-13 OCT 2017

2

3

Synthesis

On 12-13 October, the Commission and the Estonian Presidency jointly organised a stakeholder conference entitled “Beyond 2020: Supporting Europe’s Coastal Communities” in Tallinn, Estonia on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) both now and beyond 2020� The conference, composed of 4 plenary sessions and 12 parallel workshops, attracted more than 70 speakers from all of the EU and beyond with some 300 participants in a vibrant discussion on the past, present and future support for the Common Fisheries Policy and EU Maritime Policy� In addition, the event was followed by other stakeholders through webstreaming and social media�

Participants also welcomed EU support for maritime policy and the broader blue economy, which so far has included more than 250 million euros from the EMFF, mainly for pro-jects enabling conditions for growth in the different mari-time activities.

Overall, by the end of 2016, nearly 6500 projects had been selected for financing. More than half of them are designed to help SMEs in fisheries and aquaculture become more compet-itive. More than a third of them are also designed to preserve and protect the marine environment and to promote resource efficiency. Although the EMFF has helped to mobilise more than 1 billion euros of public and private investment, there was common understanding that efforts need to be stepped up to maximise EMFF achievements.

The conference examined the reasons behind the slow uptake of EMFF spending There was widespread agreement among participants that the slow take up and late implementation of the EMFF was essentially due to the late approval of the legislative framework, the overlap with the previous pro-gramming period and the difficulties to adapt to new rules and administrative requirements which also were considered overly complex.

During the conference, most stakeholders agreed that the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), as the EU’s main funding instrument for the fisheries sector, is helping, more than ever before, to support the CFP objectives by making fishing and aquaculture more sustainable, compet-itive and innovative, by increasing the availability of data and strengthening control as well as by enhancing the conservation of the environment and natural resources. Whether it is helping fishermen to adjust to the landing obligation or change their gear towards more sustainable fisheries, the EMFF is perceived as instrumental for putting our ambitious reform into practice. With a greater focus on results and through the ex-ante conditionalities, the EMFF has put in place the right conditions to ensure that support to the sector goes far enough without encouraging harm-ful subsidies.

Discussions in specific workshops showed that the shift to shared management of support for fisheries control and enforcement, data collection, outermost regions and the implementation of the Common Market Organisation has been welcomed by many stakeholders. Similarly, the impor-tant role played by Community Led Local Development (CLLD) for coastal communities to adopt local solutions for local problems was stressed.

4

Looking beyond 2020, the conference examined in details the challenges and opportunities facing the fisheries and mari-time sectors.

Although the sector has become more sustainable and com-petitive, e.g. with the fleet generating nearly 800 billion euros in net profit in 2015 alone, there was wide-spread agreement that there are still a number of important challenges ahead for which support will be needed. At the same time, partici-pants largely concurred on the need to avoid harmful subsi-dies which increase fleet capacity, thus leading to over-fishing, and to focus instead on the protection of existing resources and marine ecosystems.

The particular difficulties with which the small-scale coastal fishing sector is confronted in many places, including the EU’s outermost regions, was acknowledged as well as the need for flexibility to reflect local specificities and for facilitating the generational renewal in an ageing workforce.

At the conference, there were repeated calls for the renewal of a specific funding instrument in support of the implemen-tation of both the CFP and Maritime Policy, in particular by: - supporting, both in policy terms and financial terms,

the safeguard of healthy seas and oceans and the delivery of sustainable and profitable fisheries and aquaculture. This may require differentiated support by sea-basin according to the specific challenges being faced, including by Brexit, and the need for cooperation with third countries;

- continuing if not strengthening support for data collection and control, as cornerstones for better science and compliance;

- continuing and further enhancing CLLD to build on the successes achieved so far and allow for tailor made strategies and solution for the development of coastal communities;

- promoting growth and jobs in the blue economy to foster sustainable and prosperous coastal communities, tapping on the potential of our ocean industries through - continued support for setting the conditions for mari-

time business; - supporting sea basin strategies as the way forward for

ensuring coordination and promoting complementarity and rationalisation in a result oriented framework;

- encouraging the use of financial instruments to support investments in blue growth, including in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Setting up sea basin/regional invest-ment funding platforms was also considered as a promis-ing form of support for the European blue economy;

- maximise synergies with other funding instruments.

- strengthening international ocean governance and the safety and security of the maritime space, in line with the EU international commitments and global role.

Finally, on implementation, there was a large consensus on the need for greater simplification at all levels but more diverging views on how to find the right balance between a greater emphasis on result orientation and reducing the administrative burden for beneficiaries and administrations whilst assuring correct spending.

Most stakeholders agreed that the EMFF is helping more than ever before

to support the CFP objectives by making fishing and aquaculture

more sustainable , competitive and innovative. There were repeated calls

for the renewal of a specific funding instrument in support of the implementation

of both the CFP and Maritime Policy and a large consensus on the need

for greater simplification at all levels

5

PLENARY SESSIONS

“The EMFF in support of the objectives of the CFP and Maritime Policy” “Beyond 2020: Where next?”

The plenary sessions were attended by some 300 participants representing national and regional authorities, fisheries sector, aquaculture producers, industry associations and NGOs�

All underlined the importance of having a financial support instrument in the future for continuing to achieve the CFP objectives and to take advantage of Blue Growth opportu-nities. The need for a simpler legal framework, a more inte-grated and result oriented approach to improve the fisheries and the maritime sectors as drivers for jobs and growth were amongst the most recurrent calls for future support.

Speakers and participants examined the main challenges and shortcomings of the EMFF in supporting the objectives of the CFP and its Maritime Policy and the associated needs for a new financial instrument post 2020.

Slow take up, late implementation of Operational Programmes – mainly due to the late approval of the legislative framework and overlap with the previous programming period in terms of administrative resources in the Member States – new and more detailed and stringent requirements (too many meas-ures and priorities) were mentioned amongst the main chal-lenges of this current programming period. These, coupled with rigidity in interpretation and too much focus on eligibility rather than on reaching objectives and targets, represent the challenges Member States have to face.

For the future, there was a strong call for (much) simplifica-tion both at EU and national level, for keeping a certain level of stability and for making use of the progress and lessons learned regarding the established rules and procedures for national and local administrations, beneficiaries and stake-holders. Data collection, control, support to Producer Organ-isations, compensation plans to outermost regions should remain as standing elements of (shared management) future programmes as they all support a result oriented approach.

According to participants, the new fund should continue sup-porting both the CFP and Blue Growth with a Country/Regional perspective and with rules that should be proportionate to the dimension of the new fund and to the budget allocation in the Member States. The need for a more flexible catalogue rather than a long list of eligible measures, the necessity to ease access to funding for beneficiaries and reduce administrative burden for the competent authorities and beneficiaries alike were amongst the most pressing issues to address. In the future, both financial Instruments (i.e. loans, guarantee funds, etc.) and grants should be the key types of support.

As the fisheries sector faces difficulties in attracting new gen-erations into the job, some Member States highlighted the need to reinforce the social dimension of the policy and its future financial tool. Support to generational renewal, bot-tom-up and holistic approach, multilevel governance, support innovation and ocean literacy while promoting traditions and cultural specificities in each region will all need special atten-tion in the future. The need to continue supporting marine protection, sustainable aquaculture, healthy seas and animal welfare were also highlighted, together with science, as addi-tional aspects that contribute to the sustainability, competi-tiveness and profitability of the fisheries sector.

6

WORKSHOP 1

“Supporting more environmentally sustainable, resource efficient and competitive fisheries”

The debate on public support to the fisheries sector is happening in a radically different context to that of the previous programming period�

Indeed, while the global economy was suffering from the financial crisis and the sector was struggling with high fuel prices and low profitability during the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) programme, its economic position has improved significantly in the past few years (even though some seg-ments of the fleet are still struggling (in particular certain small scale coastal fisheries). And as the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) was developed in parallel to the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), it is therefore much more aligned to CFP objectives than its predecessor.

The industry considers that support to the sector is justified to adapt to complex rules and requirements stemming from the CFP and other EU standards while having to remain competi-tive. Fisheries as a provider of safe and healthy food, also stand apart from the other Blue growth sectors, justifying the need for continuous public support. Furthermore, some fear that the industry might actually be bracing itself for a “perfect storm” in the years to come having to face the combined effects of the implementation of the landing obligation, the consequences of Brexit and an ever-ageing fleet and workforce.

Environmental NGO’s call for a closer fit of EMFF spending to the objectives of the CFP and notably its environmental and social components. The CFP requirements are indeed very detailed in this regard (e.g. Art.17 of 1380/2013) while much remains to be done to meet these requirements with information on the state of two thirds of EU fish stocks remaining very patchy due to data limitations. The current positive economic context for the fisheries industry (low fuel prices, stock recovery and increased profitability) pre-sents a good opportunity to reflect critically on fisheries support measures and calls into question the relevance

of supporting individual companies rather than working towards improving wider societal challenges, which would align well with EU leadership in the international context. The most effective support to the fisheries sector is to rebuild stocks to sustainable levels as this will lead to a profitable fishing fleet able to modernise itself through its own means thus becoming attractive again to young peo-ple. This shows levers beyond financial ones exist to sup-port the industry, while general support to coastal commu-nities could also happen via other sources of funding such as the European Regional Development Fund.

Audience polling on this workshop (see annex II) confirmed the polarisation of opinions on the issue of sector support, with participants split nearly equally between those in favour and those against the continuation of fleet measures.

From the discussions, it emerged that tools for the improved sustainability and competitiveness of the sector exist, yet problems lie at the level of implementation (lack of flexibil-ity, administrative burdens, implementation delays and risk averse MAs and systems). Treating Operational Programmes (OP) more flexibly was one of the proposals put forward.

The improved economic situation of the sector has also opened the debate on a possible “landing tax” to help cover some of the management costs linked to fisheries operations. Similarly, the need to look at Gross Registered Tonnage (GRT) as an adequate indicator to assess fleet capacity (as it can limit improvements to working conditions or vessel energy efficiency due to lack of on-board space) was discussed. Par-ticipants were, however, reminded that most fleets currently operate below the existing capacity ceilings so that new ves-sels can enter the fleet without public aid.

Small scale coastal fisheries is a segment which is still seen to be struggling in many places and one that would benefit from a greater application of the principles foreseen under Article 17 of the CFP and/or benefit from special treatment based on the use of sustainable fishing practices. Still, legal issues can prevent this from happening in many Member States.

7

WORKSHOP 2

“Enabling the development of sustainable and competitive aquaculture”

In the aquaculture workshop, participants reaffirmed that administrative burdens remain the main barrier to the development of the sector� While the situation has improved in many Member States over the past few years, work is still needed on this topic�

Participants discussed the respective roles of different lev-els of government (local, regional, national, EU) in address-ing administrative burdens, and highlighted the need for a positive involvement of all actors in order to create the right conditions for investment. In this respect, Ms Dupont Moral presented the experience and initiatives put in place by the Normandy Region to promote aquaculture, and highlighted

the need for simplification of the legal and administrative framework regulating licencing for aquaculture activities. Mr Zentilin presented his experience as a shellfish farmer in Friuli Venezia Giulia; recommending that procedural requirements for both licencing and access to funding be simplified, and highlighting the need for a bottom-up approach involving small scale producers.

There was also an agreement among participants that the image, public acceptance and “social licence” of aquacul-ture need to be improved. Citizens and consumers need to be better informed about sustainable aquaculture prac-tices and performance. Mr Ojeda highlighted the role of Producers Organisations in helping address this issue. Mr Beckers presented his experience with the development aquaponics in urban buildings. Innovative solutions of this kind were identified as an example of initiatives that can help showcase good practices and make citizens familiar with fish farming.

Participants identified a need to give more certainty about the working of public funding schemes, and to simplify access to the available funds. Delay in the implementation of the EMFF, complex procedures and diverging interpre-tations of rules across different regions were identified as the main reasons for limited uptake of available funding. Regional, national and EU initiatives to reduce adminis-trative burdens and streamline procedures are expected to improve the absorption of funding and help the sector grow, while maintaining or even improving the high animal health, environmental and consumer protection standards enshrined in EU law.

There was a general consensus among participants that there is still a need for public support to the aquaculture sector; some participants expressed a positive view towards the idea of a partial transition to Financial Instruments in a future sup-port scheme, while suggesting that grants should remain the main instrument to give financial support to the sector.

8

WORKSHOP 3

“Marine innovation and skills”

Participants in this workshop highlighted a number of lessons learned from the EMFF implementation so far:

- Innovation is horizontal to both fisheries and maritime policies. There should not be firewall between them. Areas such as bio-economy and renewable energy sources/energy efficiency, coastal tourism, maritime safety and surveillance, underwater technologies are also inclusive of fisheries (and aquaculture).

- Maritime policy is the framework to coordinate industries and the use of marine resources (e.g. Maritime National Agenda 2025 for Germany, including a national mas-terplan for maritime technology; National Coastal and Research Strategies in France).

- Identifying and engaging citizens, producers and users of the knowledge development is critical to ensure relevance and uptake since innovation cannot be undertaken on someone else’s behalf.

- Blue career and maritime blueprint initiatives enhance the knowledge and the attractiveness of maritime professions and help to orient the traditional maritime professions towards new opportunities;

- A long-term approach is needed for marine and maritime research and technology development in areas such cli-mate change, marine pollution, fish overexploitation. EMFF support to innovation and skill development/adaptation in the fisheries sector can make the sector more sustainable and re-orient/re-qualify fishermen.

- To create an ecosystem for innovation in the blue economy we need to: (1) assess the whole innovation circle from technical and biological aspects to the commercial pro-totype, including the needed skills in the long-term (e.g. sensor automation of blue economy will impact on the future jobs of children that are today at primary school, we need to anticipate it in our education system); (2) define the added value – transaction costs vs. benefits; (3) iden-

tify the appropriate level of intervention and the funding streams - EU vs. national or local (in shared management, BG is almost everywhere and the issue is more about take up than bureaucracy); (4) look into innovative actions ter-ritorially based, Smart specialization platform and coastal smart city (for social inclusion as well),

- As for support after 2020, the following suggestions were made:

- We need to break the silos amongst sectors for develop-ing innovation in the blue economy in the future research framework programme (FP9), to achieve greater coherence and higher visibility. Combination of funds is considered the most relevant approach and more funding is also con-sidered necessary for both innovation and skill develop-ment in the blue economy

- To address new challenges through Coastal Communities, the EMFF needs to invest on innovation and skills.

- Take a long-term approach to marine and maritime research and technology development to address oppor-tunities (digital revolution/Industry 4.0, circular economy, blue growth, smart specialisation) and challenges (climate change, marine pollution, fish over-exploitation)

- To be at the service of the Maritime Policy, financial sup-port should be result oriented. As the blue economy is developed in a very complex environment (ERDF, EMFF Blue Calls, H2020, EMODNET, COSME, Belem and Galway Statement for the Atlantic, BlueMED and PRIMA in the Mediterranean, including WestMED and EUSAIR) comple-mentarity and rationalization are crucial to avoid duplica-tion and fragmentation. Sea basin strategies are the way forward for ensuring coordination and Smart Specialisa-tion Strategies are the instrument to link marine Research and investments to ESIF. For this, Blue Growth visibility and political priority need to be increased across funds and instruments, inter alia by establishing an Ocean mis-sion in the future Research Framework Programme.

9

There was agreement that a pragmatic approach to future funding would include the elements that have worked well so far in the Common Fisheries Policy and the EU Maritime Pol-icy. Continuity is key, but continuity that takes into account the need to deliver a simpler legal framework. A result oriented approach, with specific targets in the EMFF Operational Pro-grammes was the preferred option. Continuity was also con-sidered to benefit a smooth transition from one programming period to another. The attainment of targets or result indi-cators should be linked to the actual implementation period rather than to the mid-term of the programme period.

Simplification is desired by all parties, but there will need to be an examination of what can be streamlined, not only from the EU side but in particular in Member States’ administra-tions so as to avoid gold plating. The Member States, regional and local authorities are best placed to understand local cir-cumstances and they should be able to choose which meas-ures are best suited to deliver the agreed objectives.

WORKSHOP 4

“To focus or not to focus?”

An underlying sentiment was that regional solutions are best suited to regional challenges. An example could be to use funding centred on sea basin areas since collaboration could be beneficial and positive in addressing issues that affect more than one member state – coastal communities can have more in common with each other than in-land communities from their own countries. In the same vein, Member States could look to focus on specific areas relevant to them, from coastal to inland fisheries and aquaculture, to supporting local communities, etc. One suggestion for consideration is that landlocked countries be free to opt-out of a coastal fund and shift their allocations to other funds. It was agreed how-ever that the EMFF should continue to fund data collection and control to deliver sustainable fisheries and aquaculture and to underpin the EU Maritime Policy.

This workshop explored whether, in the interests of increasing effectiveness, the EMFF or any future funding should have a greater thematic or geographic focus or/and whether a greater interaction with other funds should be pursued�

10

WORKSHOP 5

“The EMFF and local perspectives”

Fisheries communities across the EU are facing significant challenges which need innovative responses that are sustainable in the long term and tailored to local contexts�

Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), funded under the EMFF, is a tool for fisheries communities to address such challenges by proposing and testing new solutions in a bot-tom-up approach. Four panellists with practical experience of implementing CLLD, two of them as leaders of Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG), the other two a long time practitioners of fisheries and/or territorial development.

Seven years of implementing bottom-up local development in fisheries areas (Axis 4 of the EFF and now the start of CLLD under the EMFF) have demonstrated that the programme can deliver results. CLLD is increasingly recognised as a valuable opportunity for the fisheries and aquaculture sector to play an active role in local development and the governance issues that concerns it. In many places the result has been greater collaboration between fisheries and other sectors, helping to boost the image, competitiveness and sales of local fisheries products, while integrating the most fragile segments of the fisheries sector. It has helped to place fisheries firmly at the heart of the identity of coastal areas and given the sector decision-making power over the type of development that is supported in its area.

Engaging local fishermen in project development and new ways of working is difficult but with time, patience and dedica-tion a relationship of trust takes root and, with it, the potential to work towards a more profitable and resilient sector (espe-cially within small-scale fisheries) – better organised and bet-ter integrated into the local economy and community.

CLLD is focussed on developing local skills, capacity and entre-preneurship. The outreach work (or “animation”) carried out by the FLAGs makes CLLD extremely attractive and responsive to specific local needs. The direct support provided by the

FLAG staff to encourage and support new ideas to become reality is central to the added value of the programme. Since 2016, the 8 Galician FLAGs, for example, have supported the creation of some 190 new jobs and 85 new companies.

Experience shows that the systems put in place at national (or regional) level are crucial to ensuring that the programme is agile and flexible enough to respond to specific local (and sometimes changing) contexts. For this, a permanent dia-logue between local actors, FLAGs and managing authorities is necessary. A serious reflection is required, to ensure future delivery mechanisms are better adapted to the purpose they are designed to serve. And the administrative burden related to granting these funds to local projects needs to be radically reduced to remain proportional to the modest (but important) sums the FLAGs invest in their areas, in order to allow the FLAGs the flexibility they need to be innovative and results focused.

The need to ensure continuity of FLAG work between pro-gramming periods is also crucial, to avoid the damaging loss of momentum if funding disappears for a significant time period. Galicia had managed to keep its FLAGs opera-tional between funding periods but in most areas FLAGs saw a funding gap of around two years between programmes, resulting in staff losses and undermining the social capital built up over the years.

The bottom-up approach to local development is a power-ful tool to address the current social and territorial divisions affecting Europe. CLLD can help bring Europe closer to its citizens by increasing their ownership of the local develop-ment process. Still, this requires the need for an attractive name for the approach as “CLLD” is perceived as a very tech-nocratic acronym. FARNET emerged as a strong candidate to communicate the potential and results of FLAG work. The European dimension of the programme should also be reinforced by continuing its networking elements and sim-plifying the procedures involved. Indeed, one proposal called for FLAG cooperation to be handled at EU level to ensure a single set of rules and procedures.

11

WORKSHOP 6

“Strengthening data collection and fisheries control through the EMFF”

This workshop examined the ways in which the EMFF helps to foster the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) through the collection and management of data to improve scientific knowledge.

It also examined the challenges of funding data collection through shared management within the revised Data Collection Framework (DCF), and how the transition from direct to shared management has contributed to a more effective and more efficient support to the control and enforcement of the CFP.

Speakers shared the view that the changeover, from direct to shared management, of support to data collection, and to control and enforcement induced a heavier, although justified, administrative burden, and delays in the financing over the first years of the programming period. However, this reform proves positive as it provides the necessary stability and even-tually substantially speeds-up reimbursements. The anchor-ing of the DCF in the EMFF through the support to national DCF workplans was also considered a positive achievement.

In data collection, the continuous improvement of IT systems is crucial, and will remain so in the future. Performant systems must go hand-in-hand with growing regional cooperation, long-term trust building and dialogue with the industry and the end-users. Indeed, the standardisation of the approaches and the sharing of results are essential elements of the DCF and should be further promoted.

There appears to be a consensus on the main weakness of the implementation of the DCF and control regulation: the absence of controls on, and therefore data collection from, small-scale and recreational fisheries. This induces gaps in knowledge about these activities, with the consequence that where these fisheries are prominent like in the Mediterranean Sea, the very relevance of the science becomes questiona-ble. A significant level of EMFF funding is available for control

and enforcement, but the absence of a sufficient political will is the main hindrance to the implementation of control and enforcement obligations, notably to find innovative ways to integrate these fisheries in the control plans. From that per-spective, the opportunity of the revision of the control regu-lation was underlined.

The financial resources available to support the DCF are con-sidered substantial, but the requirement to cover ecosystem effects and data gaps such as mentioned above brings new challenges and may result in the need to maintain the same level or an increased level of funding. In any case, DCF is very important for the industry as more reliable and comprehen-sive data enables to take the best possible decisions for fish-eries management.

12

WORKSHOP 7

“Sea Basin Strategies”

Participants in this workshop highlighted a number of lessons learned from the EMFF implementation so far:

Sea basin (SBS) and macro-regional strategies (MRS) have proven to be important drivers for the territorial development of coastal regions and islands, actively promoting thematic and cross border cooperation both at technical and political levels by boosting knowledge economy (research, skills, inno-vative start-ups), marine renewable energies (island energy dependency), addressing core-periphery patterns in physical and digital connectivity, sustainable consumption and pro-duction (circular economy).

The Atlantic and Baltic (EUSBSR) Strategies have been very inspiring for the planning of funds at national level (e.g. Por-tugal is massively supporting the Atlantic Strategy with over 1300 projects approved by end 2016), while in Finland the EUSBSR has helped to modernize the local economy and soci-ety (namely through cooperation and connecting territories). The Atlantic Assistance Mechanism has proven to be instru-mental to the strategy implementation and its articulation with national authorities is critical for its future development.

SBS and MRS can certainly contribute significantly and help regions and cities, in developing smart specialisations strate-gies, which are considered a key tool to link marine Research and Innovation to the European Structural and Investments Funds, in general.

The governance bodies of a strategy do not have the deci-sion-making power on the selection of the projects that will be financed as this is the competence of the Authorities man-aging the funds and when it comes to decisions within the responsibilities of governance system e.g. ‘labelling” consen-sus between and/or within the bodies is quite difficult. In the EUSAIR (Adriatic-Ionian region) clearer roles of the govern-ance bodies, better coordination and a real common vision are still needed.

SB and MRS should aim to less but achievable objectives, fine tune expectations with scopes of existing funds/instruments (higher coherence between strategies and programmes). Unlike in the case of 2014-2020, the strategy/action plan must be at the origin of and embedded in the new generation of operational programmes.

AS FOR SUPPORT AFTER 2020, THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTIONS WERE MADEFinancing is at the service of the policies and should be result oriented. In the very complex environment (complementa-rity and rationalization vs. duplication and fragmentation) in which the blue economy is developing, sea basin strategies are the way forward.

Sea basin scale is a strategic level that should be maintained and reinforced at operational level beyond 2020 through stronger mainstreaming and reporting under the future Multiannual Financial Framework and notably for EMFF oper-ations. To this aim the following was proposed:

13

- the programming and monitoring of Blue growth/Blue Economy and SBS/MRS actions and projects should be reinforced in shared management (e.g. specific categories of interventions and dedicated reporting);

- ESIF Managing Authorities should be consulted on the revi-sion of the Action Plan of relevant SBS/MRS to strengthen the complementarities and the strategic design of firstly the Action Plans and then the Operational Programmes (ex-ante evaluation and check the real embedding of the SBS/MRS in the OP);

- Sea Basin Strategies should be also considered while defining the geographical scope of the next generation of transnational cooperation programmes;

- the thematic concentration of ESIF should be coupled with SBS/MRS strategic focus and funds should become more result-oriented vs. eligibility-driven;

- Integrated programmes for coastal communities, combin-ing and pooling EU funds should be envisaged.

A European blue economy investment fund/mechanism could be established. It could have two complementary interven-tion methods: direct financing at European level of structural and high-risk projects, and the establishment of sea basin/regional investment platforms.

Visibility and political priority of Blue Growth need to be increased across the EU, instruments and funds, inter alia by establishing a MARE Committee at the EP dealing with blue economy/blue growth, island and coastal communities.

14

WORKSHOP 8

“Are subsidies harmful?”

However, in the EU the majority of subsidies are provided in a targeted fashion and focused on social and environmental sustainability. They can be regarded as positive when used, for example, to invest in the health and safety of the cur-rent fleets, when promoting the use of selective gear, when allowing for data collection and controls, or contributing to sustaining and rebuilding stock levels. Ideally there should be transparency and assurance provided. There should be coherency on their use at EU and international levels, which requires a certain political will as well and realism as to what can be financed.

UNCTAD’s traffic light system was explained – it classifies subsidies from most risky in terms of negative impact to those that have a positive effect in strengthening the fisher-ies sector. Generally subsidies are considered harmful when they lead to over-capacity, whereas those that contribute to improving stock as well as the socio-economic circumstances of the beneficiaries, or those that bring fishermen and sci-entists together to cooperate in partnership are regarded as beneficial. However, it was argued that any subsidy (even those given for socio-economic reasons) that encourages fishing can contribute to overfishing and that reducing a neg-ative effect on the environment should not come at the cost of increased capacity in fishing.

It was suggested that in the future, fuel efficiency subsidies should be kept to a minimum - (as it stands only fuel tax exemptions are practiced in the EU). If subsidies for decom-missioning vessels should become available again to the sec-tor (under the EMFF they will disappear at the end of 2017), there should be a demonstrable positive effect on fish stocks and marine ecosystems. Incentivising Member States to improve states of stocks could be considered. Another impor-tant issue is to examine how to attract younger generations

into fishing, looking at not only earning potential but at the life conditions of being a fisherman, conditions that do not compare positively with alternatives ashore.

Subsidies can be considered harmful when they reduce the costs involved in fishing or cause the price of the output to be adjusted and/or fixed artificially because they will encour-age more fishing – increase the fishing effort. Technological advances will also lead to more efficiency in fishing than the markets’ requirements. We need to be mindful of not under-mining the resource that we are trying to help by using unsuit-able subsidies. It is important to be able to incentivise the sector positively to develop but policy makers and managers need to be able to control it so that it doesn’t have a negative impact. There would be a role for effective management sys-tems to play here.

With regard to the future, it was considered that, amongst others, there is a need for clear policy goals on sustainable fishing - including healthy fish stocks, competitive fishing, resource efficiency, implementation of the CFP, controls, data collection, measurement of the negative impacts of fishing on the environment and conservation.

Subsidies can be perceived negatively as providing an unfair advantage which requires justification and defence of their use.

15

WORKSHOP 9

“Small-scale coastal fisheries and fisheries in the outermost regions”

The small-scale coastal fisheries (SSCF) sector is a very diverse one, not only at the EU level, but within national and regional contexts� Member States, regional and local communities need to be proactive in assisting, sustaining and developing it�

To be successful and to deliver a vibrant SSCF sector an entrepreneurial spirit, a flexible mind-set and innovation are required. This includes exploring alternative forms of assis-tance other than subsidies, e.g. micro-finance and refundable assistance should be explored.

The range of issues and opportunities in SSCF is wide and var-ied; an ageing population, coastal areas competing with more lucrative inland fishing, disparities within a Member State and from one coastal area to another, seasonal differences, add-ing value to the catch, etc. In this context it is clear that one size does not fit all and in assisting the sector a tailor made approach is essential to its future.

In the same vein, it was considered that flexibility is needed in order to reflect local specificities in SSCF. The sector rep-resents 74% of the EU fleet but only 12% of the value of catches landed, with a mainly part-time work force. In order to optimise potential it was suggested that the regulatory framework should be less prescriptive and that the decision should be left to the Member States as to how they will meet objectives and achieve results. It was also argued that there was a need to make the EU definition of SSCF less restrictive, to reflect the diverse sector with its different resources, econ-omies, markets and varying fleet sizes. It was felt the controls and checks on the SSCF sector are disproportionate in relation to the amount of assistance received. In addition a regulatory framework without prescriptive measures but with a focus on results led planning would be welcomed.

A voice should be given to those involved in the sector through consultation and involvement of all stakeholders, especially at the local level. It can be difficult to bring all parties together and to reach consensus but when it works it has proven to be invaluable. This approach can help target funding where it is needed. Again, it is likely that the local, regional and national contexts will vary, which is why it is important to involve them from the outset. It is in the interest of the SSCF to add value to their products, to be involved in organising the sector and to be active in taking care of the resource they are using. In the outermost regions, financial support for the fleet does not depend on fleet renewal or constructions of new vessels. There are many other factors that matter, finding new mar-kets, distance to markets, third countries, state of fishing resources, etc.

SSCF struggles to hold its own as it competes with and is impacted by other activities and other sectors and although there is no quick fix for this situation, it was proposed that bet-ter investment capacity, an improvement is fishing resources and more innovation would make a difference. This could include adjusting existing tools to adapt to local situations, without making things more complicated. Participants also confirmed that Community-led Local Development (CLLD) it the best method for managing, supporting and advancing SSCF.

16

WORKSHOP 10

“Financial instruments”

The EMFF serves as a main financial instrument in support of fisheries, coastal communities and blue growth under the current MFF�

Innovation and blue growth are key for moving towards autonomous maritime economy with sustainable resource use. Focusing innovation is finding how to support the mar-itime economy of the future including maritime policy blue growth, fisheries and aquaculture seen as subjects linked to innovation.

Public support for innovation, jobs and growth needs to focus on new approaches – not to rely on one standard public sup-port tool, which is providing public finance through grants or procurement. Need for use of all palettes of modern financial instruments available for support of innovation and growth - loans, bank guarantees, insurance, blending of individual instruments and etc. – also all of them in the context of the EFSI. These instruments put together allow the opportunities to be leveraged through the participation of the public and private actors in the sector.

In order to have blue economy that is dynamic, agile, inno-vative even on traditionally based strong sectors resources available (even beyond EMFF and from various instruments) shall be channeled in most effective way. FIs could help increase the coherence between the different EU programs through combination with different programs and develop close synergies. Very important is to ensure that the adminis-trative burden is not increased in this case.

Positive experiences with deploying FI under the EMFF were shared with the audience by Estonian and Spanish EMFF man-aging authorities:

Estonia started using FI in the 2007-2013 programming period successfully implementing a loan type of instrument for pro-ducer organisations and aquaculture. Experience gained is continued in the current MFF. Grant system still remains bet-ter known and more popular among the final recipients. How-ever from the tax payers view the FIs are considered as more suitable approach because of the revolving effect that allows reaching out to more financial recipients through the FI;

Spain is setting up a FI together with the EIB under the 2014-2020 EMFF. The FI is an innovative approach to facilitate funding for the fisheries sector compared to the traditional approach of direct support through direct investment sub-sidies. The EMFF as the backbone of the Common fisheries policy requires new instruments to deliver financing and to correct the market failure;

Following the results of their ex-ante assessment for FI under EMFF and EAFRD, Ireland EMFF Managing Authority is also considering to implement FI for aquaculture and seafood pro-cessing.

The following points were highlighted during discussions:

Direct shift from grants to FIs would not work. It should be a combination of both. Moving from grants to FIs is appropriate in areas which are profitable.

Promotion of the financial instrument is important. Regions together with the other stakeholder involved (incl. EIB, incu-bators, etc.) play important role to approach the potential beneficiaries.

Use of FIs shall be based on market analysis of the invest-ment universe (market trends, sectors, risk profile of the tar-geted final recipients, scale of the project) and the private sector partners/sponsors in this process

17

Banking sector perceives fisheries as risky industry due to uncertainties but also because of lack of knowledge and diffi-culties to monetise and understand the business;

FIs encourage banks to lend to more specific sector transac-tions requiring assessment of the technology;

SMEs are crucial part in the blue economy generating value and helping develop new projects and it is important to find how best to deliver SME funding. Finance is one of a set of tools that needs to be embedded in the broader strategies and provided in the appropriate manner. Dif-ferentiation should be made on how to use your FIs to

Support in the form of risk capital and equity provided hand in hand

with management knowhow and guidance (incl. platforms)

is a better approach than grants and corporate lending for innovation

and growth type of new projects.

support innovation and to build a new business or finance existing business. Support in the form of risk capital and equity provided hand in hand with management knowhow and guidance (incl. platforms) is a better approach than grants and corporate lending for innovation and growth type of new projects.

In conclusion, participants agreed that it is important to think out of the box and to look for solutions on how best to use the various financial tools available to boost the development of the maritime economy, i.e. EMFF promoted FIs, FIs supported through other funds or use a combination of FIs.

18

WORKSHOP 11

“The EMFF in support of seafood marketing and processing”

In this workshop, representatives of Producer Organisations (POs) presented the experience of a large and veteran fisheries PO (Pêcheurs de Bretagne - FR) and that of a small and recent aquaculture PO (Romanian Fisheries Organisation – RO)�

For the latter, public financing is essential to coordinate the collective activity of its members. This PO has thus adopted a Production and Marketing Plan (PMP) to organise these activi-ties and to promote the marketing of their production abroad, something they could have never done on an individual basis. The speaker underscored that even for a small PO, the thresh-old of 3% of the sales (art.66 of the EMFF) would represent a substantial amount of money. As the support actually pro-grammed by the Managing Authority (MA) is too low to enable the PO to implement its PMP even though this PMP has been approved by the MA, this OP made a plea for an increased aid-intensity in the future.

At the opposite end of the scale, the OP “Pêcheurs de Bretagne” presented a particularly elaborate PMP, aim-ing at planning the production of a wide range of spe-cies caught by some 700 vessels, and at coordinating the mutualisation of these producers’ resources, including the management of the quotas. The management of nephrops catches in the Gulf of Biscay illustrates the relevance of this PMP in adapting supply to demand: the PO imposes the pace of catches to its members so that the value of the stocks can be maximised by year end festivities (other-wise it would be exhausted well before). The PO also work on the demand side by collecting information on its mem-bers’ catches several days in advance of the landings, and informs potential buyers as early as possible to secure the outlet of its members’ production. This OP underscored that its work on the planning of activities, on management of quotas and on the implementation of tasks of common

interest (studies, pilot projects, etc) for the benefit of and in collaboration with its members can only be financed if ade-quately supported (in terms of budget and methodology) by the competent authorities.

Representatives of the processing sector share the view that current increase in consumption of fisheries and aquaculture products (FAPs) results in a growth of imports. This may in large part be explained by the fact that too few species are consumed. They therefore insisted on the need for a better understanding of the European consumers’ needs to provide a more diversified range of products. This would create market opportunities for local as well as for transformed and pre-pared products, not exclusively made of FAPs. Priority areas for this are: increased collaboration of POs with the industry to promote local production (and this implies a fostering of the transnational/regional cooperation), central role of the EUMOFA, and more innovation through R&D to increase the added-value of products supplied by the EU industry and rein-force its competitiveness. All this is only possible if sufficient public financing support is available.

All speakers insisted on the need to increase the attractiveness of the sector for the younger generations through communica-tion, education and harmonisation of training curricula.

19

WORKSHOP 12

“Results orientation”

This workshop examined the new result-orientation of the EMFF and the Common Monitoring and Evaluation system (CMES) it promotes�

It discussed implementation issues related to monitoring and evaluation, horizontal principles mainstreaming and moni-toring, reporting and evaluation requirements for the current period 2014-2020 and perspectives for the post-2020 CMES. It also identified the three questions one should focus on when defining specific objectives and result indicators: (i) what do we try to change? (ii) how do we measure this change? and (iii) what actions are needed?

One of the key principles is that the monitoring system should reflect the Intervention logic and not the opposite. Since this intervention logic should define the M&E system needed, it should not be complex and rigid, or the M&E system will be as well. There is also the challenge of Community Led Local Development, since CLLD follows a bottom up logic.

The main weaknesses of the EMFF CMES are its complexity and rigidity compounded with the use of an overtly tech-nical language. It is regulated in great detail, and excludes results orientation by promoting an eligibility orientation. Both approaches are valid but are mutually exclusive; a choice needs to be made. There is nevertheless, a consensus on the need for a CMES in terms of both accountability and compa-rability among countries, which should be defined at the very inception of the programming period.

As for the monitoring and evaluation of gender issues, the concealed role of women in fisheries and their crucial role in managing, processing and selling products as well as in promoting safety on-board, especially in Small Scale Coastal Fisheries (SSCF) were highlighted since they contribute both directly and indirectly to the viability of the sector. Although the EMFF CMES contains some limited information on gen-der – an improved situation compared to the previous pro-

gramming period, the role of women needs to be more visible and mainstreamed through (i) principles, (ii) messages e.g. on women and SSCF, (iii) project preparation support and (iv) adequate indicators.

Separating OP impacts from sectoral trends and placing tar-gets and evaluation in the OP context is a particular challenge for a CMES. Peer exchange and mutual learning, for exam-ple by the Managing Authorities (MA) network, can take into account MAs’ and Commission needs. The CMES thus needs to become smarter, especially in the light of a smaller budget post 2020, and to balance the needs of the MS and the Com-mission.

All participants agreed that future CMES needs to be devel-oped in stronger partnership (although this was also the case in the preparation for 2014-2020 e.g. in the EMFF expert groups) with M&E training, a smaller number of indicators, greater emphasis on the national level. It is also imperative to promote flexibility, to reduce the number of measures, to simplify the intervention logic.

EMFF is about a sector and its sustainability be it environmen-tal, social or economic. The three of them need to be main-streamed and tracked, particularly in the case of SSCF for which these three pillars are most tightly interwoven. SSCF should thus receive specific attention when designing the future EMFF M&E system.

20

21

Jacki Davis Anna Zito

ANNEX I List of sessions and speakers

OPENING PLENARY MODERATOR Jacki Davis, MDC Ltd

RAPPORTEUR Anna Zito, DG Mare

Tarmo Tamm, Minister of Rural Affairs, Estonia

Karmenu Vella, Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

Gesine Meissner, MEP and Chairperson, Intergroup Seas, Rivers, Islands and Coastal Areas, European Parliament

Jacki Davis

Karmenu Vella

Rosa Quintana

Anna Zito

Gesine Meissner

Paschal Hayes

Tarmo Tamm

Veronika Veits

Marina Argyrou

PLENARY SESSION “THE EMFF IN SUPPORT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY AND EU MARITIME POLICY” MODERATOR Jacki Davis, MDC Ltd

RAPPORTEUR Anna Zito, DG Mare

Veronika Veits, Director, DG Mare, European Commission

Rosa Quintana, Councillor of the Sea, Galicia Region, Spain

Paschal Hayes, Principal Officer, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine., Ireland

Marina Argyrou, Fisheries Director General, Cyprus

22

Haitze Siemers Luca Marangoni

Frangiskos Nikolian Dario Dubolino

Elisa Roller Gilles Van de Walle

WORKSHOP 1 “SUPPORTING MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE, RESOURCE EFFICIENT AND COMPETITIVE FISHERIES”MODERATOR Elisa Roller, DG Mare

RAPPORTEUR Gilles Van de Walle, Farnet

Ralf Döring, Von Thünen Institute, Germany

Javier Garat, Chairperson Europêche and Cepesca, Spain

Marija Vuckovic, State Secretary for Fisheries, Croatia

Vera Coelho, Policy officer, Pew Charitable Trust

WORKSHOP 2 “ENABLING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE AND COMPETITIVE AQUACULTURE”MODERATOR Frangiskos Nikolian, DG Mare

RAPPORTEUR Dario Dubolino, DG Mare

Javier Ojeda, General secretary, Spanish Aquaculture Producers’ Association, Spain

Isabelle Dupont Morral, Head, Fisheries Section, Normandy Region, France

Aurelio Zentilin, Manager, Venetian Shellfish Aquaculture Association, Italy

Steven Beckers, Chairman, Building Integrated Greenhouses, Belgium

WORKSHOP 3 “MARINE INNOVATION AND SKILLS”MODERATOR Haitze Siemers, DG Mare

RAPPORTEUR Luca Marangoni, DG Mare

Claude Wohrer, General Secretary of the Sea, France

Anne Jacobs-Schleithoff, Head of Division Maritime Industry, Germany

Sérgio Leandro, Sub Director Escola Superior de Turismo e Tecnologia do Mar

Kathrine Angell-Hansen, Manager, Joint Programming Initiative Seas/Oceans

Javier Garat

Isabelle Dupont Morral

Marija Vuckovic

Aurelio Zentilin

Anne Jacobs-Schleithoff

Sérgio Leandro

Ralf Döring

Javier Ojeda

Claude Wohrer

Vera Coelho

Steven Beckers

Kathrine Angell-Hansen

23

Isabelle Garzon Christophe Vande Weyer

Veronika Veits Gilles Van de Walle

Fabrizia Benini Ruth Nugent

WORKSHOP 4 “TO FOCUS OR NOT TO FOCUS?”MODERATOR Fabrizia Benini, DG Mare

RAPPORTEUR Ruth Nugent, DG Mare

Dora Correia, Director DG Mare, European Commission

Agnė Razmislavičiūtė-Palionienė, Director Fisheries Department, Lithuania

Elizabeth Freytag-Rigler, Fisheries General Director, Austria

Riccardo Rigillo Pemac, Fisheries General Director, Italy

WORKSHOP 5 “THE EMFF AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES”MODERATOR Veronika Veits, DG Mare

RAPPORTEUR Gilles Van de Walle, FARNET

Helle Breindhal, Manager LAG/FLAG Djursland, Denmark

Suzanna Rodriguez Carballo, Director for Fisheries, Galicia, Spain

Anastasios Perimenis, Manager LAG/FLAG Lesvos, Greece

Yves Champetier, Local Development Expert, France

WORKSHOP 6 “STRENGTHENING DATA COLLECTION AND FISHERIES CONTROL THROUGH THE EMFF”MODERATOR Isabelle Garzon, DG Mare

RAPPORTEUR Christophe Vande Weyer, DG Mare

Christoph Stransky, Von Thünen Institute, Germany

Marina Petrou, Fisheries General Director, Greece

Michael Earle, Fisheries adviser, Greens, European Parliament

Clara Ulrich, Chairperson, Scientific Technical & Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)

Agnė Razmislavičiūtė- Palionienė

Elizabeth Freytag-Rigler

Suzanna Rodriguez Carballo

Anastasios Perimenis

Marina Petrou Michael Earle

Dora Correia

Helle Breindhal

Christoph Stransky

Riccardo Rigillo Pemac

Yves Champetier

Clara Ulrich

24

Isabelle Garzon Ruth Nugent

Elisa Roller Ruth Nugent

Haitze Siemers Luca Marangoni

WORKSHOP 7 “SEA BASIN STRATEGIES, FROM WORDS AND PROCESSES TO PROJECTS AND RESULTS”MODERATOR Haitze Siemers, DG Mare

RAPPORTEUR Luca Marangoni, DG Mare

Ioannis Firbas, Director General, National Coordinator for ESIF, Greece

Christophe Clergeau, Regional Councillor, Pays de Loire, France

Tiina PERHO, Member of the Board, Regional Council of SouthWest Finland

Conceição Santos, Head of Strategy - Directorate General for Maritime Policy, Portugal

WORKSHOP 8 “WHEN ARE SUBSIDIES HARMFUL?”MODERATOR Elisa Roller, DG Mare

RAPPORTEUR Ruth Nugent, DG Mare

Rashid Sumaïla, Professor, University of British Columbia, Canada

Ole Lundberg Larsen, Head of Department, Danish Fisher-men Producer Organisation

David Vivas Eugui, Policy Officer, UNCTAD

Flaminia Tacconi, Policy advisor, Client Earth

WORKSHOP 9 “SMALL-SCALE COASTAL FISHERIES AND FISHERIES IN THE OUTERMOST REGIONS”MODERATOR Isabelle Garzon, DG Mare

RAPPORTEUR Ruth Nugent, DG Mare

Timo Halonen, Senior Officer, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland

Pierre Hebert, Head of Structural Policy Service, France

Alex Crowley, Inshore Commercial Fisherman, Ireland

Giampaolo Buonfiglio, Chairman, Mediterranean Advisory Council, Italy

Ole Lundberg Larsen

Christophe Clergeau

Tiina PERHO

David Vivas Eugui

Pierre Hebert Alex Crowley

Ioannis Firbas

Rashid Sumaïla

Timo Halonen

Conceição Santos

Flaminia Tacconi

Giampaolo Buonfiglio

25

WORKSHOP 10 “FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS” MODERATOR Haitze Siemers, DG Mare

RAPPORTEUR Miglena Dobreva, Fi Compass

Pierre Erwes, Chairman BioMarine International

Clusters Association

Eduard Koitmaa, Chief specialist, Market Regulation Bureau, Estonia

José Ignacio Pradas Poveda, Deputy Director general Structural Fisheries Policy, ES

Torsten Thiele, Visiting Fellow,, London School of Economics, UK

WORKSHOP 11 “THE EMFF IN SUPPORT OF SEAFOOD MARKETING AND PROCESSING”MODERATOR Frangiskos Nikolian

RAPPORTEUR Christophe Vandeweyer

Guus Pastoor, Chairperson, Dutch association of Fish Processing Industries, NL

Pierre Carnet, Manager, Brittany Fish Producer Organisation, France

Giuseppe Palma, Secretary, Italian Association of Fish Processing Industries

Mariana Munteanu, Chairperson, Fish Producer Organisation, Romania

WORKSHOP 12 “RESULTS-ORIENTATION IN THE EMFF 2014-2020: PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT, PROJECT SELECTION, MONITORING, REPORTING AND EVALUATION” MODERATOR Jean-Pierre Vercruysse, DG Mare

RAPPORTEUR Aangelos Sanopoulos, FAME

Marta Rabczynska- Kapcinska, Fisheries General Director, Poland

John Walsh, Head of unit, DG Regio

Keith Kelleher, EMFF Managing Authority, Ireland

Katia Frangoudes, Senior Scientist, University of Western Brittany, France

Haitze Siemers Miglena Dobreva

Frangiskos Nikolian Christophe Vandeweyer

Jean-Pierre Vercruysse

Aangelos Sanopoulos

Eduard Koitmaa José Ignacio Pradas Poveda

Pierre Carnet Giuseppe Palma

John Walsh Keith Kelleher

Pierre Erwes

Guus Pastoor

Marta Rabczynska- Kapcinska

Torsten Thiele

Mariana Munteanu

Katia Frangoudes

26

PLENARY SESSION “BEYOND 2020: WHERE NEXT?”MODERATOR Jacki Davis, Meade Davis Communications

RAPPORTEURS Anna Zito, DG Mare

Alain Cadec, MEP, Chairman PECH Committee, European Parliament

Jose Luis Gonzalez Serrano, Director General for Fisheries Planning, Spain

Pierre Karleskind, Vice-President, Regional Council Brittany, France

Monica Verbeek, Executive Director, Seas at Risk, Belgium

CLOSING SESSION João Aguiar Machado, Director-General, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

João Aguiar Machado

Jacki Davis Anna Zito

Jose Luis Gonzalez Serrano

Pierre KarleskindAlain Cadec

Monica Verbeek

27

28

29

Annex IIReplies to surveys

TWITTER WALL AND MENTIMETER EDITORSGilles Doignon (DG Mare) & Marguerite Korenblit (FARNET)

Participants actively took part in the discussions of the various sessions of this event by answering relevant questions via Mentimeter, a live voting tool� Stakeholders who watched the conference through webstreaming could also engage in these discussions by responding to polls made available via Twitter by @EU_MARE� The following histograms present the results of these polls with the corresponding number of votes per question

30

OPENING PLENARY 1 What has been the EMFF’s most significant achievement in this budgeting period?

44 120

18 %

33 %

Supporting competitiveness

Supporting blue growth

20 %

8 %

Supporting the social dimension of the CFP

19 %

9 %

43 %

Supporting sustainability

49 %

2 What has been its biggest shortcoming?

33 117

55 %

72 %

Complex delivery

Low take-up

24 %

14 %

Not in line with real needs of coastal communities

21 %

15 %

3 Based on experience in this budgeting period, what type of financial support do you think works best?

125

Direct support through grants or loans

Indirect support through tax breaks (e�G� fuel tax concessions)

No public support in budgetary-constrained times

80 %

16 %

4 %

31

CLOSING PLENARY 1 How effective has EU support for its coastal communities been so far in this budgeting period?

WORKSHOP 1

SUPPORTING MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE, RESOURCE EFFICIENT AND COMPETITIVE FISHERIES

1 To what extent is the EMFF fully aligned with the Common Fisheries Policy?

2 What should the EU focus its financial support for coastal communities in post-2020?

2 Should any future fund continue to support fleet measures (engine replacement, temporary cessation and scrapping of fishing vessels)?

3 What should be the top priority for any future EU financial support?

132

134

141

The EU is on the right track & should continue with the same approach post-2020

Yes, absolutely!

To a certain extent

Not at all

Those areas where its money can add most value

Yes

No

Supporting competitiveness

Supporting sustainability

Supporting blue growth

Supporting the social dimension of the CFP

Those areas where the need is greatest

Those areas where the private sector has little incentive to invest

It’s been fairly effective, but some changes are needed

It has not been effective and a radical rethink is required

64 %

30 %

7 %

3 %

7 %

31 %

45 %

24 %

16 %

54 %

12 %

18 %

29 %

58 %

90 %

13 %

31 61

47 71

55 %

55 %

45 %

45 %

32

WORKSHOP 3

MARINE INNOVATION AND SKILLS

1 Is innovation and research across the blue economy prominent enough in the EU funding instruments?

YesYes

Yes

NoNo

No

Horizon 2020

ERDF

EMFF

COSME

Combination of funds

31

31

29

31

79 %

2 What instrument is more relevant for synergies in innovation and research funding for the blue economy?

3 Would you support more funding for innovation and research in the blue economy?

4 Is current funding doing enough to make sure Europeans have the skills and training to support a competitive and sustainable maritime economy?

21 %

31 %

62 %

7 %

0 %

0 %

79 %

21 %

23 %

77 %

33

WORKSHOP 4

TO FOCUS OR NOT TO FOCUS?

1 Do you think the areas presently supported by the EMFF are too wide?

WORKSHOP 5

EMFF AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES

1 Would you like to see less, equal or more budget for CLLD in fisheries and aquaculture areas post 2020?

Yes Less

Equal

More

A greater thematic focus

Yes

Strenghtening local supply chain

Alternative economic opportunities

Improving local skills/empowerment

Competitiveness of SSCF

Socially inclusive sector

Managing environmental aspects

No

An increase in geographical focus

Greater complementarity between EU funds

No

35

39

24

45

9

2 What type of focus do you consider most appropriate?

2 Do you believe the name fisheries CLLD is an inspiring name for the programme?

3 Which should be the key areas of work for CLLD in the future? Choose three?

51 %

49 %

33 %

28 %

38 %

4 %

7 %

29 %

67 %

93 %

67 %

44 %

89 %

33 %

11 %

22 %

34

WORKSHOP 6

STRENGTHENING DATA COLLECTION AND FISHERIES CONTROL THROUGH THE EMFF

1 Weaknesses in availability of data and effectiveness of control are due to:

Lack of money Yes

NoInsufficient human resources

Weak systems

25

22

60 %

32 %

2 Should the EU fund fisheries data collection and control?

100 %

0 %

8 %

35

WORKSHOP 7

SEA BASIN STRATEGIES, FROM WORDS AND PROCESSES TO PROJECTS AND RESULTS

1 EMFF supported FIs could facilitate synergies to maximise available funding post 2020

YesYes

No

Marine innovation Increased

Equal

DecreasedStart-ups and small businesses in emerging sectors and technologies

Research and innovation platforms

No

30

30

31

32

2 Financial instruments (co-funded by EMFF) can be efficient tool to support

3 Financial instruments are a sustainable and efficient way to invest in blue growth (fisheries and aquaculture sectors)?

4 Use and allocations for FIs in EMFF post 2020 should be:

87 %

77 %

23 %

13 %

30 %

23 %

47 %

24 %

6 %

2 %

36

WORKSHOP 9

SMALL-SCALE COASTAL FISHERIES AND FISHERIES IN THE OUTERMOST REGIONS

1 Is the struggle of SSCF a matter of:

Investment capacity

Reserve EMFF solely for SSCF

Increase rates of funding

Expand the range of funding possibilities

Lack of fishing resources

Insufficient innovation

33 %

28 %

39 %

18 %

42 %

33 38

19 43

2 Should the EU fund fisheries data collection and control?

39 %

26 %

42 %

32 %

70 %

5 %

26 %

37

Annex IIIPoster exhibit http://emff-now-and-then.eu/about.html