1 European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund
| (33590)
17870/11
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(11) 804
| Draft Regulation on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 and Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and Council Regulation No XXX/2011 on integrated maritime policy
|
| Legal base | Articles 42, 43(2), 91(1), 100(2), 173(3), 175, 188, 192(1), 194(2) and 195(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letters of 9 October and 1 November 2012
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 428-xlix (2010-12), chapter 5 (1 February 2012)
|
| Discussion in Council | See para 1.12 below
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Committee A
|
Background
1.1 Financial support to help attain the objectives of the Common
Fisheries Policy (CFP) is currently provided by the European Fisheries
Fund (EFF), which seeks to ensure the sustainable exploitation
of aquatic resources, to provide a sustainable balance between
the resources and capacity of the EU fleet, to strengthen the
competitiveness of the sector, to foster the protection of the
environment and natural resources, and to improve the quality
of life in areas dependent upon fishing. Member States are required
to draw up national strategic plans and operational programmes
to achieve these objectives, and the measures at their disposal
include public aid for the permanent or temporary withdrawal of
fishing capacity; investment on board vessels; socio-economic
measures; assistance to aquaculture, and towards processing and
marketing; agri-environment measures; and assistance towards the
development of ports and other infrastructure.
1.2 In December 2011, the Commission put forward
this draft Regulation proposing that, for the period 2014-2020,
these arrangements should be replaced by a European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund (EMFF), thus extending them for the first time
to provide support for the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP).[1]
It also proposed that the Fund should have an overall budget of
€6.6 billion for the period in question, with €1.047
billion being devoted to the direct management of IMP by the Commission,
and €5.5 billion to the remaining shared activities (of which
€4.535 billion would be for the sustainable development of
fisheries, aquaculture and fisheries areas, €477 million
for control and enforcement, and €358 million for data collection).
1.3 In order to achieve its aims, the Fund would
be structured around four pillars — the sustainable development
of fisheries; sustainable aquaculture; the sustainable development
of fisheries areas; and IMP. In addition, the new Fund would include
accompanying measures, such as data collection and scientific
advice, control, governance, fisheries markets, voluntary payments
to Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, and technical
assistance. However, it would not extend to operations which increase
the fishing capacity of vessels, the construction of new vessels,
or the decommissioning or importation of vessels, the temporary
cessation of fishing activities, experimental fishing, the transfer
of ownership of a business, and direct restocking (unless for
experimental purposes, or as an explicit conservation measure).
1.4 The EMFF is one of five funds[2]
which would be covered by the Common Provisions Regulation, and
it would therefore fall under a Common Strategic Framework (CSF),
which would replace the current approach of establishing separate
sets of strategic guidelines for the different instruments, and
aims to ensure all funds contribute effectively and in a coherent
way to the EU 2020 agenda.
1.5 As we noted in our Report of 1 February 2012,
the Government said that the general aim of the EMFF was to support
the objectives of the CFP, and that the subsidiarity principle
applied. However, it pointed out that the provisions to further
develop the IMP included actions on maritime spatial planning
and integrated coastal zone management, many of which the UK believed
were better carried out by Member States. In particular, it had
reservations on the way in which this could establish a precedent
for the Commission to lead in these areas, and so cut across existing
national policy. In view of this, the UK was working with other
Member States to build opposition towards potential Directives
in these areas, and would be taking this stance during negotiations
with the Commission.
1.6 As regards the other three pillars, the Government
said that the mechanisms to support the proposals on sustainable
fisheries were consistent with current proposals on CFP reform,
and included an end to funding the decommissioning of vessels;
support to end the practice of discards; and improved measures
for stimulating innovation. In the case of aquaculture, many of
the measures proposed reflected those available for fisheries,
but also included additional options for fish health. As regards
the sustainable development of fisheries areas, the provisions
would build on those in the current EFF, with support being possible
to encourage innovation, and to capitalise on local environment
assets, including action to combat climate change. It added that
this was also an area where synergies with other EU funds, in
particular the European Regional Development Fund, were possible.
1.7 As regards the management of the new Fund, the
Government says that the priority was to see a reduction in the
administrative burdens compared with the current EFF. However,
despite reassurances from the Commission, it was concerned that
this would not be the case, and said that the UK would be looking
to persuade the Commission to address these issues. In particular,
it noted that each Member State would need to prepare a partnership
contract to ensure that its operation of these five funds worked
in a co-ordinated way towards national targets, and that it would
be necessary to be sure that value was added at each level, that
decisions were always taken at the most appropriate level, and
that administrative burdens which added costs were kept to a minimum.
It also said that it would be necessary to produce one Operational
Programme for the delivery of the fund in the UK and a National
Strategic Plan for aquaculture, and that clarity was needed from
the Commission on the Common Strategic Framework and its impact
on the specific proposals for each EU fund.
1.8 Finally, the Government observed that, although
the budget of €6.6 billion proposed by the Commission incorporated
some new activities, it was likely to represent a real increase,
whereas the agreed UK position was to see a reduction in real
terms.
1.9 As regards timing, the Government said that this
draft Regulation would be adopted with the proposals for the reform
of the CFP, and that an Impact Assessment would be provided alongside
the one being prepared for those. In the meantime, the Government
was currently preparing to consult industry and other external
stakeholders.
1.10 We commented that, insofar as one of the aims
of this draft Regulation would be to provide funding to support
the proposed reform of the CFP, it is clearly important, particularly
as it would go beyond the current EFF in promoting the development
of the IMP as well. At the same time, we commented that the very
breadth of the measure raised questions not only about the desirability
of the Commission involving itself in certain areas of the IMP
best left to Member States, but also about the extent to which
the proposal lacked a certain focus and the priority to be given
to the different activities covered by it. In view of this, we
said that we were pleased to see that the Government intended
to provide an Impact Assessment, which would cover the financial
implications, and we said that we therefore proposed to hold the
document under scrutiny until that information was available.
Subsequent developments
1.11 We next received a letter of 9 October 2012
from the Minister for Natural Environment and Fisheries at the
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Mr Richard
Benyon), indicating that the Presidency was hoping to secure a
partial general approach at the Council on 22-23 October, and
asking us to lift our scrutiny reserve in advance of that meeting.
However, we took the view that the Minister's letter largely re-stated
the UK's concerns, which had been set out in our Report of 1 February,
and added very little about the likely shape of the agreement.
Our Chairman therefore replied, saying that, before we could contemplate
clearance, we needed to have a much clearer indication of this
(as opposed to what the UK would like to see), and to receive
the promised Impact Assessment.
1.12 We have now received a further letter of 1 November
from the Minister, saying that
agreement to a partial general approach, covering
all but the management aspects of the proposal, was reached by
qualified majority on 24 October, with Belgium, Germany, Lithuania
and Malta having voted against. He adds that, from a UK perspective,
the agreement was a positive one, and that, working with like-minded
Member States and in close consultation with the Commission, it
had seen possible to influence the text in line with the approach
the Government had previously set out. He also says that, given
the risk of a considerable weakening of the proposal should the
discussions have been inconclusive, he took the decision to override
the Parliamentary scrutiny reserve, and give UK support to the
general approach, adding that, if the UK had not been willing
to do so, it would have had no influence on the outcome, as there
were insufficient Member States to form a blocking minority. As
it was, the UK played a pivotal role in the discussions, and ensured
that the best deal possible was secured.
1.13 The Minister stresses that no financial details
were agreed, and that he presented a written statement to the
effect that the EMFF budget is subject to the wider Multi-Annual
Financial Framework negotiations, with the UK's agreement to the
partial general approach being dependent on this being without
prejudice to decisions in that wider negotiation. In addition,
no agreement could be reached on the Article laying down the criteria
for the allocation of funds between the Member States, and the
Minister says that, once the financial details are available,
the Government will be able to complete its Impact Assessment,
as previously promised.
1.14 The Minister goes on to say that, under the
approach agreed, the funds will be heavily focused where they
can deliver the reformed CFP, supporting measures such as more
selective gear which will contribute to eliminating discards;
innovative research projects to improve the industry's economic
and environmental sustainability; and help to improve the marketing
of fish. The Fund will also provide support to improve skills
and training, both to improve the fisheries sector and to encourage
diversification and job creation outside of fishing.
1.15 The Minister says that there will still be some
funds available for fleet measures, which will be subject to very
strict conditions so that they also contribute to CFP reform.
Thus:
- Measures for the permanent
cessation of fishing activities (decommissioning and scrapping
of vessels) will have to be part of a Member State's operational
and capacity reduction action plans approved by the Commission,
and will target those parts of the fleet where there is overcapacity.
Beneficiaries of support under this measure will have to cease
all fishing activities for at least one year, and will be unable
to register a new vessel for at least five years; the scrapped
vessels will be permanently removed from the EU fishing vessel
register; and the licence also permanently removed. Aid for permanent
cessation measures will cease after 31 December 2017.
- Temporary cessation
(tie-up aid) for up to six months will be allowed, but only for
emergencies, such as environmental disasters and the non-renewal
of fishery partnership agreements. It will also be possible where
provided for in a fish stock management plan in accordance with
scientific advice. Vessels affected by these measures will not
be allowed to participate in any other fishing during the cessation
period.
- There will also be tight restrictions around
the modernisation of engines, which can be replaced to
assist efforts by the fishing industry to combat climate change.
Support for new engines will only be granted in those sectors
where there is not overcapacity; and support will only be available
for under-12 metre vessels which do not use towed gear, and for
12-24 metre vessels so long as the new engine is 20% less powerful
than the one it is replacing. Replacement engines will be subject
to physical inspection and testing to ensure they do not exceed
the new threshold.
1.16 A maximum cap of 15% of Member State funding
under priorities I and II of the EMFF will apply to these three
measures combined, with a maximum of 3% in the case of engine
replacement.
1.17 As regards other issues discussed at Council,
the Minister says that the UK was instrumental in resisting calls
for the re-introduction of construction subsidies for new vessels
or hull modifications; that 20% of the resources available for
the IMP will be under shared management rather than direct management
by the Commission, giving the Member States (who will be required
to co-finance 25%) more say in how these funds will be applied;
and that start-up support for "young fishermen" (under
40 years old) will also be allowed under the fund, but will be
capped at €50,000 per recipient, will only be available for
the first acquisition of an under-24 metre vessel between five
and 30 years old, and only if the vessel belongs to a fleet segment
which is not above capacity. No decisions were taken on the allocation
of funding to aquaculture or the land-locked Member States.
1.18 The Minister concludes by saying that he is
convinced that the package agreed was the best that could be achieved
to direct the EMFF to supporting effective implementation of CFP
reform, and that it lays down the Council's position in advance
of the European Parliament's consideration of the proposal, which
is currently expected in March 2013. He adds that the remaining
articles — which cover the management aspects of the future
EMFF — were left for future consideration together with
the financial aspects, and that the Council is expected to agree
a position on these at some point under the Irish Presidency.
Conclusion
1.19 Although the Minister has justified this
scrutiny over-ride on the grounds that it enabled the UK to secure
the best possible outcome at the recent Council, it does not necessarily
follow that the deal agreed was a good one. In particular, we
note that the overall budgetary provision for 2014-2020 remains
to be decided; that no agreement was reached on the crucial question
of how the funds would be allocated between Member States; that
funds will still be available, albeit under strict conditions,
for both the temporary and permanent cessation of fishing, and
modernisation, to which the UK was previously opposed; and that
it remains unclear how far the Government's concerns over the
extent to which the Integrated Maritime Policy might impinge on
areas which the UK believed were better carried out by Member
States have been met.
1.20 Against this background, and the Government
having said that an Impact Assessment will now be provided only
when the financial details are available (rather than alongside
the proposals for the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy),
we think that the handling and content of this document raise
issues which the House will wish to consider further. We are therefore
recommending it for debate in European Committee A.
1 (32002) 14284/10 + ADD 1: see HC 428-viii (2010-11),
chapter 4 (17 November 2010) and HC 428-xxxix (2010-12), chapter
9 (26 October 2011). Back
2
The other four are the European Regional Development Fund; the
European Social Fund; the Cohesion Fund; the European Agricultural
Fund for Rural Development. Back
|
