The current EMFF performance: assessment of shared management - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The current EMFF performance: assessment of shared management measures

Marta Ballesteros CETMAR

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

Index Index

24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) 2

1. OVERVIEW OF THE EMFF 2. CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS 3. FROM DESIGN TO IMPLEMENTATION: MAIN FINDINGS 4. POLICY RECOMENDATIONS

24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) 3

EMFF Hierarchy of objectives

Source: adapted from DG-MARE

Period: 2014-2020 Budget: 8.6 billion EU contribution: 6.4 billion Shared management: 89% Member States: 27 Priority Areas: 6

• 1. OVERV
• 1. OVERVIEW

IEW OF OF THE THE EMFF EMFF

Results-oriented approach

24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) 4

Policy Policy de design sign: : inno innova vation tions s in in th the EMFF e EMFF

European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions Regulation Common Monitoring and Evaluation System

• Simplification and effectiveness
• Reduce administrative cost and burden
• Synergies among EU funds
• Common indicators for performance

assessment

• Systematic tool for follow-up and support

for decision-making

• Focus on performance
• Systematic use of conditions and

incentives

• 2. C
• 2. CUR

URRENT RENT IMPLE IMPLEMENTATION MENTATION ST STATUS ATUS

Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) 5 24/01/2019

24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries 6

Implementa Implementation tion Su Summary: 201 mmary: 2014-2017 2017

• Low implementation rate: 7% of the EMFF EU contribution spent
• Delays in the launching of the programme at Member State level:

effective in 2016.

• Higher

implementation level in policy related measures and standard concepts

Financial implementation level by Union Priority (in %)

Source: own elaboration, data from FAME SU, DG-MARE, European Commission.

Presentation for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 7

Source: own elaboration, data from FAME SU, DG-MARE, European Commission.

24/01/2019

• 2018: significant barriers for effective implementation have been
• vercome

28/05/2015 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) 8

24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) 9

Source: own elaboration, data from FAME SU, DG-MARE, European Commission. Denmark is not included

• An asset of the EMFF: performance can be assessed combining

financial, output and results achievements.

• 3. FROM
• 3. FROM POLICY DESIGN TO

POLICY DESIGN TO IMPLE IMPLEMENTATION: MENTATION: MAI MAIN N FINDI FINDINGS NGS

Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) 10 24/01/2019

• Increase the legal complexity: 30 regulations

applicable at EU level

• Increase the administrative cost: 7-15%
• Increase the administrative burden for Managing

Authorities and beneficiaries

• Increase the complexity of the process for the

approval of the Operational Programmes

Is the Is the EMFF EMFF a a simpler simpler an and be d bett tter er fi fina nanc ncial ial inst instru rument ment?

Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) 11

European Structural and Investment Funds Common Provisions Regulation

• Rigid intervention logic that limits adaptiveness
• Admissibility criteria have increased work
• verload
• Detailed catalogue of measures with combined

eligibility criteria; some render the measures inapplicable in practice

Results-

• riented

approach

24/01/2019

Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) 12

• Lack of accuracy of the current system to reflect
• performance. Targets set without guidelines for the

Member States in the programming phase

• Potential to become a strategic tool

Common Monitoring and Evaluation System

24/01/2019

• Response to legal uncertainty by increasing regulation:

self-blocking system.

• Implementing approach focused on compliance

rather than performance

• Financial difficulties to cover the national contribution
• Low co-financing rates limit the attractiveness of the

fund.

• Growing number of rules, admin burden and controls

are disincentives to apply for support.

• Uncertainties put some investments plans on hold.

Potential beneficiaries Member States

Remarks Remarks

24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) 13

• Expenditure levels in Union priorities and measures should not be

linked to the opportunity or necessity of a given measure.

• Critical measures for sustainable fisheries such as training or

innovation are underperforming.

Ea Early warnings rly warnings

• Evidence indicates a likely underspending in the UP1 Sustainable

fisheries by the end of the programme due to the low demand from potential beneficiaries.

• Short-term

policy

• bjectives

(landing

• bligation,

achievement

• f

maximum sustainable yield) and the fund effective implementation call for addressing the disaffection of the fisheries sector with the EMFF.

• EUR 500 million might be potentially at risk in 2018 due to the

decommitment procedure.

• 4. Po
• 4. Policy rec

licy recomm

• mmen

enda dations tions

24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) 14

• Legal certainty: on-line publication of the interpretations of

the regulations by the Commission services to the questions raised by the different MS

• Simplified cost options: Commission may provide further

assistance based on experience on the ground.

• Avoid the risk of the EMFF providing financial support

where it is easier rather than where it is needed the most.

• Set a transitional period between EMFF and the post-2020

Fund.

• Set the monitoring system before the start of the

programming period.

Th Thank ank you you for your for your attention attention

24/01/2019 Presentation for the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) 15