Scoping study for the use of Financial Instruments under the EMFF and related fi-compass support activities 9th June 2015
Objective & approach Experiences with FIs EMFF FI Situation Potential for FI use Types of FI models Recommendations and action plan
Objective: This scoping study is a first step in designing the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) support under fi-compass.
The study answers three key questions: 1. What is the stated interest, and in particular the potential, for delivering EMFF support through Financial instruments in 2014-2020? 2. What models/concepts for financial instruments under EMFF could be feasible to implement in response to this potential and what barriers need to be overcome to realise these? 3. How can fi-compass help to overcome barriers to implementation and ensure a wide and successful uptake of Financial instruments in EMFF as a delivery mode?
Approach: A three-stage approach to this project was adopted: 1. Undertake a review of EFF experiences and EMFF plans for Financial instruments 2. Explore examples of best practice in F(E)I implementation 3. Develop an action plan for the provision of support via the Financial instruments-technical Advisory Platform (now called fi-compass) Questionnaire to 26 EMFF Managing Authorities (24 responses received), Consultations were also undertaken with staff at : DG MARE, DG REGIO and EIB
Experiences with Financial Instruments
Experiences with FIs: Over 14.3 billion invested in Financial Instruments through the 2007-2013 structural funds by the end of 2013. Deployed most extensively in Regional and Urban Policy under ERDF Very limited EFF experience with FIs with some simply an attempt to avoid decommitment of funds. 3 MS established functioning FIs under EFF: The Netherlands recently set up a scheme that shares a financial intermediary with an existing urban ERDF scheme; Latvia developed a Credit Fund jointly with EAFRD; Estonia over 10 years experience of implementing revolving funds: loans to rural SMEs as well as larger-scale, longer-term loan product.
Target sector characteristics: The European seafood sector is polarized with few large companies. The majority of businesses in the sector are micro-enterprises These often lack the capital for significant investment and are not obvious candidates for commercial credit providers. Grants and financial instruments are available to SMEs. For non-sme companies in the processing sector, Financial Instruments are the only possible source of EMFF support. Commercial lenders may perceive the seafood sector as being comparatively high risk compared to other economic sectors. The public sector can use FIs to: make the EMFF budget go further; Improve lending conditions; and build relationships between the sector and commercial credit providers.
EMFF FI Situation
FI use intentions: OPs were still being drafted Partnership Agreements reviewed Current reported position: 8 MS saying Yes to FIs 9 MS saying Maybe 10 MS saying No But very few have commenced ex- ante assessments. Amount MS FIs in PA FI in EMFF Areas/sectors/types (mln ) AU No No 0 n/a BE No Maybe 0 n/a BG? Maybe 0 n/a CY? No 0 n/a CZ Yes No 0 n/a DE No No 0 n/a DK Yes Maybe 0 n/a EE? Yes 10 Productive investments in processing EL? Maybe 0 n/a ES Yes Yes 42.75 Aquaculture, processing, marketing, FI? Maybe 0 Aquaculture and processing FR Yes Yes 0 n/a HR? Yes 0 n/a HU? No 0 n/a IE? Maybe 0 Processing IT? Yes 20 Articles 30, 31, 32, 41, 42, 48 and 69. LT? Yes 0.3 Potentially all sectors LV? Maybe 0 n/a MT Yes No 0 n/a NL Yes Yes 6 26 (44.3), 38 (44.1c), 39 (44.1c), 47, 4 PL Yes No 0 n/a PT? Maybe 0 Competitiveness of SMEs RO? Maybe 0 n/a SE? No 0 n/a SI Yes No 0 n/a SK Yes No 0 n/a UK Yes Yes 8.5 Fishing & aquaculture start-up loans. Aquaculture growth and YES total 10 8 87.55 Maybe 9 million No 10
Challenges for FI use Sector challenges: Preference for grants: within sector and a lack of political will to replace with FIs. Scale: Small size of the firms and (in some MS) the sector suggest to MAs that FIs not worthwhile for the MA and/or a financial intermediary. MA challenges: Complexity: Many MAs consider FIs too complex and there are uncertainties over legal requirements, establishing an FI, how to manage FIs and reporting requirements. Administrative burden: MAs expect excessive administrative burden in set up and operation, particularly as FIs would operate along side ongoing grant provision.
Other issues raised Timescales: Longer term monitoring than grants and uncertainty over annual accounting and how recycled funds can be accounted for and re-allocated within or outside the FI. Co-operation: In many instances there is not sufficient communication between the different ESIF MAs to explore cooperation. Regional delivery of some ESIFs and national delivery of others add further challenges to co-operation. Credit availability: Some MAs believe the current low interest rates in commercial markets reduces need for FIs through EMFF.
Potential Use of Financial Instruments under EMFF
Potential Use of FIs There is potential for FIs to be applied under EMFF measures in all the main economic sub-sectors (fishing, aquaculture and processing) including, but not limited to: Diversification within fishing (gear upgrades etc.) and outside fishing (new maritime ventures); Start-up support (new fishers and aquaculture farmers); Resource and energy efficiency (vessels, culture systems and processing facilities); Modernisation (of landing facilities, vessels, production and processing systems); and Environmental improvements (possible in all sectors).
Potential Use of FIs For EMFF, a relatively small fund, linkage with other ESI Funds looks to be an attractive way to introduce FIs cost-effectively. The common thematic objectives of the five ESI Funds illustrate the clear policy synergy and operational consistency built into the ESIF regulations. This creates the potential for joint Financial Instruments. There is good potential for EMFF MAs to benefit from FIs that are already implemented or proposed under other ESI Funds. These potential linkages need to be explored further.
Types of Financial Instruments under EMFF
Types of FI models Several types of FIs are possible with numerous variations and potential combinations. The choice will depend on MS circumstances, which highlights the importance of the required (Art 37 CPR) detailed ex-ante assessment. The ex-ante assessment must take account of, in each MS, the: Specifics of the fisheries and aquaculture sector; Lending environment; and Institutional structure of a Member State.
Types of FI products: 1. Risk sharing loan for SMEs (RSL): Combines public & private funds from financial intermediaries for loans to SMEs on preferential terms. 2. Equity: Provided from a common pool with private funds to invest in new/existing SMEs with high risk/high return profile (innovation). 3. Guarantee: Uses OP funds to guarantee commercial loans reducing the risk and leverage more lending. Horizontal option to combine 1-3 with technical support (as a single operation) for final recipient s business plan development/improvement
Recommendations
Should an EMFF FI be established?
Recommendations Recommendation 1: fi-compass should further develop its on-line resources to include frequently asked questions (addressing the MA issues highlighted in this report) Recommendation 2: fi-compass should support the EMFF MAs in undertaking ex ante assessments through enhancing common ESIF advice with sector specific cases/information. Recommendation+3:++ fi#compass+should+provide+a+mentoring+service+for+those+ms+considering+fi+use+under+emff+that+will+ guide+ms+through+the+decisions+and+procedures+required+to+establish+fis,+including+providing+a+steer+ on+exaante+assessments+and+bringing+a+quality+assurance+dimension+ +
Recommendations and action plan Recommendation 4: fi-compass and DG MARE should hold awareness-raising events for EMFF MAs, desk officers, policymakers and sector producer groups, prioritising those Member States where ex ante assessments are still to be conducted. Policy briefing papers that quantify the benefits of successful FIs should be produced to support awareness-raising efforts. Recommendation 5: fi-compass and DG MARE should facilitate information sharing and co-operation between Commission DGs and ESIF MAs.
Thank you www.fi-compass.eu