[Publication] Navigating the new MFF approach for 2028-2034 – Mapping threats and opportunities for the fisheries and aquaculture sector

Background

On 16 July 2025, the European Commission adopted a proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the period 2028-2034. This MFF includes support to the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), to the European Ocean Pact and to the Union’s maritime and aquaculture policy. However, the next MFF will no longer contain a separate, dedicated fund to support the CFP. With the new MFF, the Commission aims to reduce fragmentation, better align funding with national and regional priorities and enable faster budget allocation in response to crises and exceptional events.

Aim

The European Parliament’s (EP) Committee on Fisheries (PECH) commissioned this study to provide authoritative and timely information to its Members. The general objective is to provide EU legislators with an evidence-based assessment of how the Commission’s 16 July 2025 MFF proposal package (2028–2034) restructures support relevant to the CFP.

Comparing objectives and instruments of EMFAF and NRP

The proposed National and Regional Partnership (NRP) Fund 2025/0240(COD) and the CFP Conditions Regulation 2025/0235(COD) seem to largely maintain the strategic alignment of the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) with the CFP, while aiming for simplification and greater flexibility for Member States. Both proposals explicitly support the full implementation of the CFP. Most EMFAF articles seem to be fully or largely reflected in the proposed NRP framework. However, the NRP proposal puts an end to a dedicated fisheries and aquaculture fund, and the budget available for shared management is reduced from EUR 5.3 billion under EMFAF to EUR 2 billion ringfenced for fisheries under the proposed NRP Fund. The extent to which fisheries and aquaculture can use the non-ringfenced budget is highly uncertain.

The proposed NRP framework adopts a performance-based approach. Member States have greater discretion to define priorities and measures, provided they align with CFP goals. It preserves eligibility rules for beneficiaries, related to serious infringements, and Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, and general offences. Small-scale coastal fisheries (SSCF) may receive up to a 100% support rate. EMFAF conditions such as vessel length limits, minimum registration periods and rules on temporary or permanent cessation are no longer listed.

The NRP proposal implicitly assumes that the non-ringfenced budget is used to fund data collection and control which are legal obligations. The total (current costs) for these two activities would amount to about EUR 1.6 billion (EU and national contribution) through EMFAF under shared management, so at least EUR 1.9 billion would be required in the next MFF to meet legal obligations, of which about EUR 1.5 billion would be the EU contribution and EUR 0.4 billion the national contribution.

Functioning of National and Regional Partnership Plans

The proposed NRP framework creates one integrated financial instrument operated under shared management. This should improve coordination of EU policies, particularly in relation to overarching horizontal principles. However, it creates uncertainty regarding funding adequacy, implementation clarity and the effectiveness of support for fisheries and aquaculture.

The National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPP) specify budgets, measures and output and result indicators per policy area. The fisheries chapter is limited to a short narrative and a budget table covering four broad activity categories of measures. The Member States may provide further details. This creates flexibility, but also uncertainty, regarding interpretation of the eligible measures or visibility of key investments (such as decarbonisation).

Under the EMFAF, national cofinancing amounts to about 50% of the EMFAF contributions. Under the proposed NRP Fund, a minimum national cofinancing percentage is linked to the income level of the regions. The proposed NRP framework does not set a maximum support rate, nor does it distinguish between public and private funding within the national contribution.

The proposed Performance Regulation shifts from a cost-based to performance-based approach. The monitoring of the performance of measures relies mainly on the “number of operations”, which is almost identical to EMFAF. Evaluation should be based on result indicators, but these do not distinguish between fishing, aquaculture and processing, and none specifically targets SSCF. Impact indicators are not foreseen. Without further refinement and clear definitions of the indicators, a meaningful future assessment of the programme seems difficult.

The proposed NRP may support stronger links between fisheries and aquaculture and regional development or innovation policies. However, risks remain that these sectors, given their relatively small economic weight, receive lower priority within national programmes. Reduced administrative capacity, complex reporting requirements, unclear indicator definitions and delays in programme implementation may further weaken effectiveness.

Stakeholders broadly welcome increased flexibility but express strong concerns about reduced funding predictability, insufficient resources for fleet modernisation and decarbonisation, weak monitoring indicators, and the risk of fragmented implementation across Member States.

European Competitiveness Fund (ECF)

The proposed ECF intends to strengthen EU competitiveness by supporting strategic technologies and sectors across the full innovation cycle. By consolidating multiple funding instruments into a more flexible framework, it aims to simplify access to funding and improve coordination. The extent to which fisheries and aquaculture could benefit depends on the priorities defined in the future work programmes and calls, rather than on the regulation itself.

Fisheries and aquaculture are referenced in several provisions of the proposal, particularly under the policy windows on ‘clean transition and industrial decarbonisation’ and ‘health, biotech, agriculture and bioeconomy’. The proposal does not explicitly identify fisheries and aquaculture as strategic sectors for EU competitiveness. It will be operated by the European Commission in cooperation with EU agencies, an advisory board and expert groups. It is uncertain how fisheries and aquaculture will be represented and visible in this governance structure.

This uncertainty is particularly relevant considering the structural investment challenges facing the EU’s fishing fleet. The fleet is ageing rapidly and characterised by low profitability, limited access to capital and regulatory uncertainty. Large-scale fleet renewal remains constrained by the limited availability of commercially viable alternative propulsion technologies and fuels. In the short to medium term, energy-efficiency improvements, digital optimisation, and targeted retrofits appear more realistic than comprehensive fleet replacement.

The proposed ECF holds potential to provide funding to the fisheries and aquaculture sector, particularly for decarbonisation, but its contribution remains highly uncertain. The proposal’s broad scope, the absence of sector-specific eligibility criteria, and competition with larger sectors mean that for fisheries and aquaculture access to funding remains uncertain.

European Ocean Pact

The European Ocean Pact sets out an integrated vision structured around six priorities: restoring ocean health, advancing a sustainable blue economy, supporting coastal communities, strengthening research and innovation, enhancing maritime security and reinforcing global ocean governance.

The Ocean Pact demonstrates strong conceptual ambition and recognition of the importance of oceans for the EU. However, it is a non-binding instrument without dedicated funding. Its implementation relies on alignment with existing EU programmes and Member State actions, which creates uncertainty regarding its practical impact.

Analysis of the proposed MFF shows partial and uneven integration of the Ocean Pact’s priorities. Core objectives such as ocean health, the blue economy and coastal resilience are relatively well reflected across key instruments, whereas areas like ocean diplomacy, maritime security and ocean-specific research receive more limited or indirect support.

The effectiveness of the Ocean Pact depends on the adoption of the European Ocean Act and the extent to which its objectives are translated into binding measures and availability of funding.

Policy recommendations

Policy recommendations related to the NRP Fund

1. Elements which make integral part of the CFP and related legislation (e.g. fish marketing and processing) should be specifically mentioned in the NRP proposal.
2. The ringfenced budget should be increased to continue EU contributions to data collection and control. This should be accompanied by specific rules on national cofinancing as the proposed regional basis might not be suitable for this purpose.
3. Considering that decarbonisation of the fisheries sector and fleet refit are closely related to other CFP related measures, they should be incorporated into the NRP. This would call for relocation of budget from the ECF to the ringfenced budget.
4. Maximum aid intensity should be specified to maintain a level playing field.
5. CFP interventions specified in Article 35(11) of the NRP proposal should be unambiguously related to categories of activities specified in Annex V, Section 1.8 of the proposal.
6. For the sake of transparency and uniformity among MS, a format should be designed for the supporting text of the Annex V, Section 1.8, where MS propose their support to fisheries.
7. The items specified under the four categories of activities of Section 1.8 should be reviewed on the basis of explicit criteria to achieve a better homogeneity (e.g. generational renewal is mentioned under point a. It would be better placed under point b, which deals with the needs of the sector).
8. The level of required detail of budget specification in Section 1.8 needs further clarification.

Policy recommendations related to the Performance Regulation

9. All output and result indicators should be unambiguously defined.
10. Explicit links should be established between outputs, results and CFP and NRP objectives.
11. Output and result indicators should be adjusted to reflect support to fleet, aquaculture, processing/marketing, and particularly SSCF. This information is required to monitor the impact on the implementation of the CFP.
12. Contribution percentages to social policies in Annex I of the framework should be reviewed and increased, to reflect the corresponding result indicators.
13. MS should be informed as soon as possible about the application of the horizontal principles, in particular the “Do No Significant Harm” (DNSH) principle, to facilitate their timely preparation and approval of the NRPPs. The currently proposed timing for the beginning of 2027 is likely to delay this process.

Policy recommendations related to the ringfenced and non-ringfenced budget

14. It should be specified which measures should be financed by the ringfenced budget.
15. Sufficient resources of approximately EUR 1.5 billion (EU contribution) for the EU contribution should be added to the ringfenced amount to ensure continuation of data collection and control at the present level.
16. A clearer division of responsibilities between the direct / indirect and shared management of the Commission and MS should be specified.
17. A clear definition of budgets and measures related to fisheries funded under the EU Facility is needed. It should also be made clear how those measures are affected by possible budget cuts, both in terms of resources and content.

Policy recommendation on the ECF proposal

1. ECF should contain safeguards for appropriate inclusion of the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the governance and implementation structures.
2. Include the fisheries sector explicitly in the clean transport and energy strategies.
3. Ensure that additional specific references to the fisheries and aquaculture sector are included in the ECF.
4. Strengthen the claim that the fisheries and aquaculture sector are a critical sector to EU resilience and competitiveness due to its role in the EU food security.
5. Ensure a dedicated budget from the ECF for the fisheries and aquaculture sector through strong guarantees / earmarks.
6. Make the ECF accessible for the fisheries and aquaculture sector in terms of conditions and procedures and/or preferential treatment.
7. Support establishment of regional demonstration clusters with retrofitting, maintenance and experimental facilities.
8. Promote integration of fisheries in the broader energy transition of the maritime sector.
9. Facilitate exchange and roll-out of new technologies in particular in relation to decarbonisation.
10. The sector specific conditions formulated in the NRP-proposal should also apply to all the other funds under the new MFF and that the principles of transparency and accountability are ensured.