# C_2014114EN.01003301.xml

| 15.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/33

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘State aids to fisheries and aquaculture’

2014/C 114/07

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | welcomes the review of the State Aids rules for Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the recent public consultation undertaken by the European Commission as part of this review; |
| --- | --- |

1.

welcomes the review of the State Aids rules for Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the recent public consultation undertaken by the European Commission as part of this review;

| 2. | underlines the importance of seeing the review within the context of (i) the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), (ii) the negotiations on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), the other European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs), and other relevant EU funding programmes to the fisheries and aquaculture sector, and (iii) the wider Modernisation of State Aid agenda led by DG Competition; |
| --- | --- |

2.

underlines the importance of seeing the review within the context of (i) the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), (ii) the negotiations on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), the other European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs), and other relevant EU funding programmes to the fisheries and aquaculture sector, and (iii) the wider Modernisation of State Aid agenda led by DG Competition;

| 3. | expresses strong support for the overarching aims of the reform of the CFP to move towards sustainable fishing, and welcomes the political agreement reached on this under the Irish EU Presidency of the Council of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

3.

expresses strong support for the overarching aims of the reform of the CFP to move towards sustainable fishing, and welcomes the political agreement reached on this under the Irish EU Presidency of the Council of the EU;

| 4. | reiterates that reform of the State Aid regulations for fisheries and aquaculture must be undertaken on the basis of supporting and facilitating delivery of the reform of the CFP as a fundamental underlying principle; similarly the negotiations on the EMFF must ensure that this fund is used to meet the CFP goals; |
| --- | --- |

4.

reiterates that reform of the State Aid regulations for fisheries and aquaculture must be undertaken on the basis of supporting and facilitating delivery of the reform of the CFP as a fundamental underlying principle; similarly the negotiations on the EMFF must ensure that this fund is used to meet the CFP goals;

| 5. | emphasises that the sustainability of the fisheries sector means the long-term viability and durability of the fishing stocks within EU waters, and the socio-economic future of the fishing communities across the EU, with a need to establish a balance in the development of both aspects; |
| --- | --- |

5.

emphasises that the sustainability of the fisheries sector means the long-term viability and durability of the fishing stocks within EU waters, and the socio-economic future of the fishing communities across the EU, with a need to establish a balance in the development of both aspects;

| 6. | draws attention to the paradox facing the EU, with on the one hand a high dependence on imports of fisheries and aquaculture products (around 60% of total consumption) to meet the demands and aspirations of consumers in the EU, and the other hand an essential need to re-establish and respect the MSY of EU fishing stocks to ensure availability for future generations; in this context, reiterates that aquaculture contributes to the supply of the same product as maritime fisheries using sustainable methods and without compromising the conservation of fishing stocks; furthermore, aquaculture ensures high employment levels, operating as a social buffer in times of crisis; |
| --- | --- |

6.

draws attention to the paradox facing the EU, with on the one hand a high dependence on imports of fisheries and aquaculture products (around 60% of total consumption) to meet the demands and aspirations of consumers in the EU, and the other hand an essential need to re-establish and respect the MSY of EU fishing stocks to ensure availability for future generations; in this context, reiterates that aquaculture contributes to the supply of the same product as maritime fisheries using sustainable methods and without compromising the conservation of fishing stocks; furthermore, aquaculture ensures high employment levels, operating as a social buffer in times of crisis;

| 7. | underlines the importance of efficiently targeting aid so that small-scale fleets, which account for the majority of the total EU fleet in terms of vessel numbers should receive a share of the CFP and EMFF that reflects their numeric and socioeconomic representation, on the proviso that they operate on the basis of sustainable fishing practices; |
| --- | --- |

7.

underlines the importance of efficiently targeting aid so that small-scale fleets, which account for the majority of the total EU fleet in terms of vessel numbers should receive a share of the CFP and EMFF that reflects their numeric and socioeconomic representation, on the proviso that they operate on the basis of sustainable fishing practices;

| 8. | underlines that a more sustainable use of public subsidies in the fisheries sector requires strong political will and action at all levels of governance within the EU, as is seen in the failure of the 2002 CFP reforms to deliver on the stated environmental, social and economic objectives, with only 22% of fish stocks at Maximum Sustainable Yields, 35% overexploited and 43% outside safe biological limits (source: IEEP study for European Parliament 2011); |
| --- | --- |

8.

underlines that a more sustainable use of public subsidies in the fisheries sector requires strong political will and action at all levels of governance within the EU, as is seen in the failure of the 2002 CFP reforms to deliver on the stated environmental, social and economic objectives, with only 22% of fish stocks at Maximum Sustainable Yields, 35% overexploited and 43% outside safe biological limits (source: IEEP study for European Parliament 2011);

| 9. | notes the European Court of Auditors Special Report No.12/2011 states that overcapacity of the fishing fleet continues to be one of the main reasons for the failure of the CFP in assuring a sustainable fishing activity; |
| --- | --- |

9.

notes the European Court of Auditors Special Report No.12/2011 states that overcapacity of the fishing fleet continues to be one of the main reasons for the failure of the CFP in assuring a sustainable fishing activity;

| 10. | recognises that achieving this goal of sustainability requires structural changes and diversification within the fisheries sector, and underlines that State Aid rules and measures must facilitate these changes, focusing in particular on supporting the development of the onshore economy (processing industry, sustainable aquaculture, local fish markets, new products, local supply chains etc.), new and sustainable forms of fishing in Europe's seas and oceans (highlighting in particular the role of small scale coastal fishing fleets and artisanal fishing, but also paying special attention to improvements in selectivity, energy efficiency, etc. of other segments of the fleet which contribute to the supply of fishery products in the European union, especially those for human consumption), and the wider marine and aquaculture economy. State Aid must not be used to support unsustainable fishing practices; |
| --- | --- |

10.

recognises that achieving this goal of sustainability requires structural changes and diversification within the fisheries sector, and underlines that State Aid rules and measures must facilitate these changes, focusing in particular on supporting the development of the onshore economy (processing industry, sustainable aquaculture, local fish markets, new products, local supply chains etc.), new and sustainable forms of fishing in Europe's seas and oceans (highlighting in particular the role of small scale coastal fishing fleets and artisanal fishing, but also paying special attention to improvements in selectivity, energy efficiency, etc. of other segments of the fleet which contribute to the supply of fishery products in the European union, especially those for human consumption), and the wider marine and aquaculture economy. State Aid must not be used to support unsustainable fishing practices;

| 11. | recognises the value and importance of the fisheries sector to the EU, noting the high concentration of employment in certain territories and regions of Europe, and the impact that restructuring of the fisheries sector has directly on these communities; |
| --- | --- |

11.

recognises the value and importance of the fisheries sector to the EU, noting the high concentration of employment in certain territories and regions of Europe, and the impact that restructuring of the fisheries sector has directly on these communities;

| 12. | understands that the pressures on rural, coastal and fishing communities are particularly acute in the context of the on-going socio-economic crisis facing Europe, and that this means targeted support at the territorial level is critically important for the long-term prosperity and viability of such communities; |
| --- | --- |

12.

understands that the pressures on rural, coastal and fishing communities are particularly acute in the context of the on-going socio-economic crisis facing Europe, and that this means targeted support at the territorial level is critically important for the long-term prosperity and viability of such communities;

| 13. | notes that the fisheries sector, like many other sectors, is subsidised, and that this presents a significant challenge — in terms of over dependency on public funding — and at the same time an opportunity, as it gives the European Commission, Member States and local/regional authorities, the ability to use public resources to drive through key reforms in the sector; |
| --- | --- |

13.

notes that the fisheries sector, like many other sectors, is subsidised, and that this presents a significant challenge — in terms of over dependency on public funding — and at the same time an opportunity, as it gives the European Commission, Member States and local/regional authorities, the ability to use public resources to drive through key reforms in the sector;

| 14. | reiterates the need to utilise all available resources as effectively as possible and calls for strong prioritisation to be given in the preparation of the Partnership Agreements and future Operational Programmes for the ESIFs to support coastal and fishing communities, set against the backdrop of a reformed State Aid regulatory framework that is sensitive and responsive to the economic needs of such communities; |
| --- | --- |

14.

reiterates the need to utilise all available resources as effectively as possible and calls for strong prioritisation to be given in the preparation of the Partnership Agreements and future Operational Programmes for the ESIFs to support coastal and fishing communities, set against the backdrop of a reformed State Aid regulatory framework that is sensitive and responsive to the economic needs of such communities;

| 15. | calls for flexibility in the use of the ESIFs to ensure resources are targeted at rural, coastal and fishing communities, and calls on the European Commission to make a clear commitment in the revision of the State Aid rules to ensure that these rules enable this to happen in practice rather than hinder this; |
| --- | --- |

15.

calls for flexibility in the use of the ESIFs to ensure resources are targeted at rural, coastal and fishing communities, and calls on the European Commission to make a clear commitment in the revision of the State Aid rules to ensure that these rules enable this to happen in practice rather than hinder this;

| 16. | argues that if mobilised effectively and efficiently, these resources provide an opportunity to transform the EU fishing and aquaculture industries, and help move towards a sustainable fishing and aquaculture sector, whilst supporting the wider aspirations of the Blue Growth Strategy to strengthen the marine and aquaculture economy and its links with the land-based economy; in particular adding value to fish products through developing the onshore economy, local markets, innovative products and consumer awareness (especially regarding issues such as short supply chains, seasonal products and the distinctiveness of the product); |
| --- | --- |

16.

argues that if mobilised effectively and efficiently, these resources provide an opportunity to transform the EU fishing and aquaculture industries, and help move towards a sustainable fishing and aquaculture sector, whilst supporting the wider aspirations of the Blue Growth Strategy to strengthen the marine and aquaculture economy and its links with the land-based economy; in particular adding value to fish products through developing the onshore economy, local markets, innovative products and consumer awareness (especially regarding issues such as short supply chains, seasonal products and the distinctiveness of the product);

| 17. | calls on the European Commission, Member States and other public authorities across Europe to seize the opportunity, and to use 2014-2020 as the period through which to drive forward real change; |
| --- | --- |

17.

calls on the European Commission, Member States and other public authorities across Europe to seize the opportunity, and to use 2014-2020 as the period through which to drive forward real change;

| 18. | notes that the de minimis and the block exemption regulations do not represent the whole picture for subsidies to the fisheries and aquaculture sector, as Member States have the possibility of establishing ‘notified’ aid schemes (requiring pre-approval by the European Commission); |
| --- | --- |

18.

notes that the de minimis and the block exemption regulations do not represent the whole picture for subsidies to the fisheries and aquaculture sector, as Member States have the possibility of establishing ‘notified’ aid schemes (requiring pre-approval by the European Commission);

de minimis

| 19. | notes that the fisheries sector also benefits from fuel tax exemptions that provide a direct benefit in terms of operational costs of fishing vessels, estimated to be worth around EUR 1,5bn in the EU annually; whilst the de minimis aid also provides scope to provide fuel subsidies to vessels; |
| --- | --- |

19.

notes that the fisheries sector also benefits from fuel tax exemptions that provide a direct benefit in terms of operational costs of fishing vessels, estimated to be worth around EUR 1,5bn in the EU annually; whilst the de minimis aid also provides scope to provide fuel subsidies to vessels;

de minimis

| 20. | highlights a study commissioned for DG Maritime Affairs in 2009 which estimated around EUR 718m would be available under the de minimis aid regulation, although actual figures on de minimis aid are difficult to obtain due to lack of effective monitoring at EU level; a further EUR 8m per annum is estimated to be granted under the fisheries block exemption regulation; |
| --- | --- |

20.

highlights a study commissioned for DG Maritime Affairs in 2009 which estimated around EUR 718m would be available under the de minimis aid regulation, although actual figures on de minimis aid are difficult to obtain due to lack of effective monitoring at EU level; a further EUR 8m per annum is estimated to be granted under the fisheries block exemption regulation;

de minimis

| 21. | notes that the 2009 study for DG Maritime Affairs also highlighted a number of risks in the implementation of the de minimis regulation, including: (i) the potential detrimental impact on use of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) in Member States where priority was given to de minimis support, (ii) the potential distortive effect of the variability in use of de minimis aid by different Member States, and (iii) the risk that de minimis aid would be used to support keep vessels active running counter to the wider reform objectives of reducing the size and scale of the fishing fleet; |
| --- | --- |

21.

notes that the 2009 study for DG Maritime Affairs also highlighted a number of risks in the implementation of the de minimis regulation, including: (i) the potential detrimental impact on use of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) in Member States where priority was given to de minimis support, (ii) the potential distortive effect of the variability in use of de minimis aid by different Member States, and (iii) the risk that de minimis aid would be used to support keep vessels active running counter to the wider reform objectives of reducing the size and scale of the fishing fleet;

de minimis

de minimis

de minimis

de minimis

| 22. | welcomes the transparency brought to the de minimus aid by the inclusion of this data in the Member State's annual report on State aid as an important factor in ensuring the transparency of the scheme; |
| --- | --- |

22.

welcomes the transparency brought to the de minimus aid by the inclusion of this data in the Member State's annual report on State aid as an important factor in ensuring the transparency of the scheme;

de minimus

| 23. | recognises that the European Commission must strike a balance in its efforts to reduce bureaucracy and streamline monitoring requirements whilst ensuring sufficient transparency and control and reiterates that the overarching goals of the CFP reforms provide sufficient justification for a robust and transparent monitoring of the use of State Aids within this sector; |
| --- | --- |

23.

recognises that the European Commission must strike a balance in its efforts to reduce bureaucracy and streamline monitoring requirements whilst ensuring sufficient transparency and control and reiterates that the overarching goals of the CFP reforms provide sufficient justification for a robust and transparent monitoring of the use of State Aids within this sector;

| 24. | recognises that there are calls for the current de minimis aid thresholds (EUR 30 000 to an undertaking over any period of three fiscal years) to be increased to give local and regional authorities greater flexibility to support interventions at the territorial level, considered particularly important given the high concentration of fishing in certain regions and communities, recognises that any review of the current de minimis aid threshold would need to take into account the need to respect competition and the common market; |
| --- | --- |

24.

recognises that there are calls for the current de minimis aid thresholds (EUR 30 000 to an undertaking over any period of three fiscal years) to be increased to give local and regional authorities greater flexibility to support interventions at the territorial level, considered particularly important given the high concentration of fishing in certain regions and communities, recognises that any review of the current de minimis aid threshold would need to take into account the need to respect competition and the common market;

de minimis

de minimis

| 25. | asserts, however, that there is a risk that increasing the de minimis thresholds could provide further scope for support for unsustainable fishing practices, thereby undermining the overarching objective of the CFP reforms to achieve sustainable fishing within the EU; although it is possible to prevent this risk in specific national cases in which the lack of sustainability is caused by factors beyond the production or catching sector; |
| --- | --- |

25.

asserts, however, that there is a risk that increasing the de minimis thresholds could provide further scope for support for unsustainable fishing practices, thereby undermining the overarching objective of the CFP reforms to achieve sustainable fishing within the EU; although it is possible to prevent this risk in specific national cases in which the lack of sustainability is caused by factors beyond the production or catching sector;

de minimis

| 26. | calls on, therefore, the European Commission in its impact assessment for the revised regulations and as part of its evaluation of the consultation responses, to provide a detailed analysis of the potential impact (in terms of delivering the wider CFP reforms) of (i) keeping the current de minimis thresholds for the sector (ii) increasing the de minimis thresholds and (iii) reducing or abolishing de minimis thresholds altogether; |
| --- | --- |

26.

calls on, therefore, the European Commission in its impact assessment for the revised regulations and as part of its evaluation of the consultation responses, to provide a detailed analysis of the potential impact (in terms of delivering the wider CFP reforms) of (i) keeping the current de minimis thresholds for the sector (ii) increasing the de minimis thresholds and (iii) reducing or abolishing de minimis thresholds altogether;

de minimis

de minimis

de minimis

| 27. | argues that this impact assessment should also look at the role played by de minimis aid measures as part of the broader suite of public interventions within the sector, in particular how they address ‘gaps’ in provision that cannot be filled by the new EMFF, the general block exemption regulation for the fisheries and aquaculture sector, and notified aid schemes for this sector; |
| --- | --- |

27.

argues that this impact assessment should also look at the role played by de minimis aid measures as part of the broader suite of public interventions within the sector, in particular how they address ‘gaps’ in provision that cannot be filled by the new EMFF, the general block exemption regulation for the fisheries and aquaculture sector, and notified aid schemes for this sector;

de minimis

| 28. | underlines the need for a more effective use of the EMFF during the 2014-2020 period than has been the case with the EFF to date, given that the EMFF is a key funding mechanism through which support can be targeted at the fisheries and aquaculture sectors to deliver on the overarching goals of the CFP reforms; |
| --- | --- |

28.

underlines the need for a more effective use of the EMFF during the 2014-2020 period than has been the case with the EFF to date, given that the EMFF is a key funding mechanism through which support can be targeted at the fisheries and aquaculture sectors to deliver on the overarching goals of the CFP reforms;

| 29. | considers that there is merit in exploring the potential to shift support for the processing and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture products out of the sectoral de minimis/block exemption regulations and include this instead within the framework of the general de minimis/block exemption regulations; |
| --- | --- |

29.

considers that there is merit in exploring the potential to shift support for the processing and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture products out of the sectoral de minimis/block exemption regulations and include this instead within the framework of the general de minimis/block exemption regulations;

de minimis

de minimis

| 30. | argues that such a shift fits with the logic of the European Commission's objective to establish a more commercialised and business focused fisheries and aquaculture sector, and to explore ways of adding value to the fishing products, developing supply chains, the wider onshore economy, and new and innovative approaches; |
| --- | --- |

30.

argues that such a shift fits with the logic of the European Commission's objective to establish a more commercialised and business focused fisheries and aquaculture sector, and to explore ways of adding value to the fishing products, developing supply chains, the wider onshore economy, and new and innovative approaches;

| 31. | notes that shifting the support for onshore activities of the fisheries processing and sustainable aquaculture sectors into the general de minimis regulation would enable such measures to benefit from higher intervention thresholds of that regulation (currently EUR 200 000), helping to overcome barriers to investments in the onshore economy, and contributing to the desired aim of maximising the potential ‘added value’ to the local fishing communities of fish products; |
| --- | --- |

31.

notes that shifting the support for onshore activities of the fisheries processing and sustainable aquaculture sectors into the general de minimis regulation would enable such measures to benefit from higher intervention thresholds of that regulation (currently EUR 200 000), helping to overcome barriers to investments in the onshore economy, and contributing to the desired aim of maximising the potential ‘added value’ to the local fishing communities of fish products;

de minimis

| 32. | calls on the European Commission to give consideration to this in the review of the State Aid regulations for fisheries and aquaculture, in particular assessing the potential economic benefits such an approach could have to the onshore economy and fishing communities, whilst also assessing the extent to which such a change could lead to ‘unintended consequences’ for example increasing unsustainable fishing practices; |
| --- | --- |

32.

calls on the European Commission to give consideration to this in the review of the State Aid regulations for fisheries and aquaculture, in particular assessing the potential economic benefits such an approach could have to the onshore economy and fishing communities, whilst also assessing the extent to which such a change could lead to ‘unintended consequences’ for example increasing unsustainable fishing practices;

| 33. | calls on the European Commission to revise the list of aid measures contained in the Block Exemption regulation to ensure these are in line with the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, and to ensure that there is no scope through either of the State Aid regulations (nor through the EMFF) to support unsustainable fishing practices; |
| --- | --- |

33.

calls on the European Commission to revise the list of aid measures contained in the Block Exemption regulation to ensure these are in line with the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, and to ensure that there is no scope through either of the State Aid regulations (nor through the EMFF) to support unsustainable fishing practices;

| 34. | highlights the scope of the Block Exemption regulation to support a range of aqua-environmental and conservation measures, and calls on the European Commission to maintain and extend the scope of the regulation to enable investments that protect, conserve and enhance the marine and maritime environment, including support for marine/aquaculture research, data collection support for the sector in specific national cases in which the lack of sustainability is caused by factors beyond the production or catching sector, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

34.

highlights the scope of the Block Exemption regulation to support a range of aqua-environmental and conservation measures, and calls on the European Commission to maintain and extend the scope of the regulation to enable investments that protect, conserve and enhance the marine and maritime environment, including support for marine/aquaculture research, data collection support for the sector in specific national cases in which the lack of sustainability is caused by factors beyond the production or catching sector, etc.;

| 35. | calls on Member States, local and regional authorities, and other stakeholders to look imaginatively at the opportunities presented by these regulations (and the EMFF) to ensure that all measures that enhance the sustainability of the fishing sector, aquaculture, the marine environment, and coastal communities, are optimised; |
| --- | --- |

35.

calls on Member States, local and regional authorities, and other stakeholders to look imaginatively at the opportunities presented by these regulations (and the EMFF) to ensure that all measures that enhance the sustainability of the fishing sector, aquaculture, the marine environment, and coastal communities, are optimised;

Brussels, 29 November 2013.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO

---