FARNET FLAG Meeting Report for France. Gijón, 24 th March 2010

Transcription

1 FARNET FLAG Meeting Report for France Gijón, 24 th March

2 Participants: Amélie Perraudeau, Animator, FLAG Marennes Oléron Maylis Iribarne, Animator, FLAG Côte Basque Sud Landes Jean-Michel Labrousse, Co-président EFF Axis 4, FLAG Bassin d Arcachon Val de l Eyre Stéphanie d Agostino, Animator, FLAG Var Kristel Jamme, Animator, FLAG Pays d Auray Géraldine Caprani, Animator, FLAG Rivages Pyrénées Méditerranée Maiwenn Richard, Animator, FLAG Mers et Terroirs du Cotentin et du Bessin Clotilde Guyot, Animator, FLAG Etang de Thau bande côtière Frontignan - Agde Cyrille Bodilis, Animator, FLAG Cornouaille Delphine Roncin, Animator, FLAG Trois Estuaires Laurence Serrano, Project Officer, Ministère de l Alimentation, de l Agriculture et de la Pêche, Direction des pêches maritimes et de l'aquaculture (Bureau de l économie des pêches) Mathieu Lannery, Agence de Service et de Paiement (Paying Agency) Nicolas Aury, Agence de Service et de Paiement (Paying Agency) Gilles Doignon, Desk Officer France, European Commission (DG MARE) Dorothée Duguet, Geographical expert, FARNET Support Unit (FSU) Jean-Luc Janot, FARNET Support Unit (FSU) Serge Gomes da Silva, FARNET Support Unit (FSU) Monica Burch, FARNET Support Unit (FSU) Introduction On invitation of the FSU Geographical Expert (GE) and after approval of the EFF Managing Authority for France, the informal meeting of the French FLAGs was organized in Gijon, Spain, the 24 th March before the FARNET seminar FLAGs on the move. As an informal meeting, there was no formal presidency, and the animation was carried out by the Geographic Expert. 10 out of 11 1 French FLAGs were represented, in general by their animation person. One was represented by someone from the fishing community who was an elected member of the FLAG board. During the introduction, each representative was asked to briefly present the territory of their FLAG area, the possible links with Leader groups/actors and the main issues covered by the EFF Axis 4 strategy. The initial intention was then to make a brief presentation of FARNET and the FSU (team and missions) and to cover, in turn, the 5 following questions (following the guidance provided by the FSU): Question 1: What are the main themes on which your FLAG is working/planning to work? Question 2: What are the main challenges and obstacles that you face in implementing Axis 4? Question 3: What kind of technical assistance would you like from the FSU? Question 4: On which themes would you like to learn about good practices in the coming months/years? Question 5: What resources and experience do you have which could be of use to other Member States (including good practices and the interest in twinning and mentoring). Given the richness of the exchanges, the choice was made to let people express their needs in a more informal way since, eventually, all the elements needed by the FSU did come out of the session. The following report starts with a series of preliminary remarks which set the context of the programme in France and which might be useful for a better understanding of certain remarks and positions of the FLAGs. It then tries to put the different points back in the order of the questions for a better understanding of the different issues 1 It is to be noted that discussions are underway in France for a twelfth group to be selected in the Guyana overseas region but the procedure is still at a very early stage. 2

3 Preliminary remarks - The process for the signature of the contracts between the FLAGs and the Managing Authorities is still under way. Firstly, it took some time for the Managing Authority to define these contracts. Then, it took the FLAGs some months before they approved their content. Today, the Managing Authority is still waiting for some FLAGs to make their comments on the proposed contracts. It is to be noted that even though the French FLAGs have been selected some months ago, the contracting procedure is very long and complicated. This led to a situation in which most of the FLAGs are currently operating without a contract which means that some of them still have not appointed an animator and some have still not created the structure which will implement the Axis 4 strategy. In one case, the choice of the type of structure had still not been made at the time when the meeting was held. This has led to certain disillusion in some areas where the local actors had been asked to contribute strongly and to participate to the definition of the Axis 4 strategy. The expectations which arose during this process have not yet been met since nothing has been possible for several months. The whole participative process (or a great part of it) now needs to be relaunched for projects to be implemented. - There is no national network but there seems to be a real need to set one up. This feeling is shared by the FLAGs and the Paying Agency with requests on animation, networking, technical assistance, etc. One particular request is the organisation of physical meetings of all the French FLAGs at least twice a year. - Some EFF Axis 4 areas are linked to Leader and therefore have an experience in terms of territorial development. This is the case for 6 EFF Axis 4 areas where the link can be of very different types, ranging from sharing an implementation body to simple technical assistance provided by the Leader group to the FLAG. It is to be noted that the territorial match between the Leader group and the EFF Axis 4 group is also very different from one area to the other: in some cases, the 2 territories are the same and in others, there is only a partial overlap. For the FLAGs not linked to any Leader structure at all: everything is to be set up and the whole approach is very innovative, as well as the fact that the actors need to become a motor within their area. It is not the same type of dynamics and of projects which are possible in these 2 different areas. 1. What are the main themes on which the French FLAGs are working / planning to work? Tourism: 2 different situations arise: - In the first case, the FLAG is located in a region/area which is very attractive to tourists - In the second case, the region is less attractive but there is a need / a will to develop tourism in order to increase local activity, notably for fishermen. Changing fishing activity: - Fishing activity is facing problems linked to the international context and also to the evolution of the local context (coastal areas and marine space becoming more of a residential resource than that of direct financial income). - Fishing is in some cases a very important activity in terms of income. It is thus difficult to have fishermen want to get involved in something when they do not see the direct and short term benefits they could get. - One objective is to put the fishermen at the heart of discussions since there is a growing feeling of individualism and very few associations or partnership building. Furthermore, diversification is increasing which means that fishermen increasingly have several activities (e.g. offering tourist accommodation) on top of their classical fishing activity. 3

4 Need to bring together the fishing community and other type of activities: - People from the fishing sector are very much used to having an approach based on their activity sector only. There is a need to try and make this approach change. - Bringing together different sectors is needed - for example to work on improving water quality and also in order to build bridges for a better promotion of fisheries products. - Tourism is very often seen as a negative thing - this also needs to be changed. - There is a general habit to isolate work within individual sectors. This is true everywhere but even more perhaps in bigger harbours (i.e. in Cornouaille which represents 25% of the French fisheries production tonnage). Marine parks, protected areas, water quality: - Discussion on the relevance of the creation of a marine park: it is seen as positive for a more integrated management approach in the area and for a global coherence. Yet, for some, it is seen as too heavy and complicating certain local aspects of the territorial development. - In France, there are certain protection procedures (SDAGE, SCOT...). The objective is to use EFF Axis 4 in order to go further than what the national procedures enable, notably in terms of partnership and involvement of a wider panel of local actors. Promoting fishery products: - In France, there are some AMAPs which are systems for the producer to sell directly to the consumer based on a yearly contract which covers the buying of a basket of (seasonal) products every week. Some FLAGs areas implement such systems which are having positive results. For instance, in the Var area, there is one AMAP which concerns 5 fishermen and shellfish gatherers from the lagoon area - the Var project might be extended within EFF Axis 4 and also opened to other products, such as wine products. - The auction systems are widespread and generally useful for fishermen. However, in some cases they are made compulsory for the fishermen. In these cases, fishermen are bound to bring all their catch to the auction and are not allowed to sell part of their catch directly to consumers. This does not enable direct relationships between the wider public and fishermen who are thus not able to promote their knowledge and their job to a wider population. - Some fishermen refuse to go inland to sell their products: because of time, equipment and hassle issues, they only agree to sell their catch directly to consumers if they can do that on the dock where they land the fish. This is of course a restriction to the number of potential clients and to the size of the market they are able to access. - There is a will to make the value added a direct income for the fishermen (and not for the intermediary structures). Communication and image of jobs linked to the fishery sector: - Revalorise the image of fishermen and of fishing activities - Links between inland identity and sea identity Image of the areas as fishing areas : The fishing activity is one component of the identity of the local area. Renewable energies 4

5 THE PRIORITY THEMES ON WHICH FRENCH FLAGS WISH TO WORK / NETWORK ON & GET INFORMATION ON OTHER PROJECTS CARRIED OUT IN OTHER MEMBER STATES PESCA Tourism: There is a need for more information on Pesca tourism: what it is, how it works, etc. 4 French FLAGS are working on this issue (either just starting discussions around it or being at a more advanced stage). In the Var area for instance, experimentation is being carried out on Pesca Tourism. They have decided to add one component to the approach: accommodation, explanations on the preparation of products from the sea (to be presented when people are welcomed, how to cook this or that product), etc. This already exists in Italy through a programme called ITTURISMO. It did work and it led to local actors to propose a series of amendments to legal texts to make their activity and their projects easier. Perhaps French FLAGs could follow this example to try and have the national legislation adapted for easier implementation of projects. Marketing in short circuits vs. auction Valorising/processing Auction systems generally work - but not everywhere. The State requires there to be designated areas where all landed fish is taken. However, this means that fish is then mixed which makes traceability of the product difficult. In some areas, there are networking systems between the different auction places with rules which do not enable discussions between the potential buyers. This enables a better valorisation of some products. The auction tax which is usually required from the fishermen should also be discussed regarding what the value added is for the fishermen. A reflexion should be carried out on what auctions should bring to the fishermen and to the clients. Perhaps all the auction system should change from a tax approach to a truly commercial approach. Today the problem seems to be that auction systems are sometimes compulsory which does not enable direct sales of the products/catch from fishermen / shell fish farmers to clients. Organising the fishing sector bringing together the different professions linked to fish Developing an integrated approach from the producer to the consumer with a territorial approach. Building links between the different professions is something very difficult to achieve at a local/regional level in France. Would it be possible at the national level? Appellations Labels Brands Controlled Origin Label etc. It is complicated (as the basic product, fish, is not linked to one area). It is indeed possible to develop brands (i.e: Mont Saint Michel brand) but it is important to give some content to these brands. It is possible to develop Protected Geographic Indication and give detailed terms of reference for the practices/methods the people involved should implement / use. Northern countries are very advanced on a European eco-label. Yet, the question was raised regarding what will happen in terms of value added when all fishermen will be concerned by this ecolabel. Links between farmers, fishermen and shell fish farmers (and relationships between them) This theme is directly related to the following issues: water quality and C.A.P Further comments: Some French FLAGs are located in areas which lead them to deal with specific issues on a day to day basis. This is, for instance, the case for: - Urban pressure on the environment, the local heritage, the product channels, etc. - Problems of water quality, often linked to farming which lead to a poorer quality of the sea products 2 C.A.P Association, working on maintaining primary sector activities and water quality along the Brittany s coast 5

6 2. What are the main challenges and obstacles in implementing Axis 4? - What is small scale fishing? - For promotion: how to deal with the traditional auctions which sometimes refuse to let fishermen sell their products elsewhere / how to encourage fishermen to go inland to sell their products directly? - There sometimes seem to be problems related to administrative/legal frameworks which make things on the ground too complicated for the local actors. For instance, some constraints are not adapted to some categories of actors or to some types of projects. This, for example, is the case for fishermen who would like to raise their income by taking visitors on their fishing boats (for them to see what a fishermen s day is and/or for some leisure fishing). This is very difficult to do because of security issues which lead to very high insurance prices and which prevents the activity from being economically viable. 3. What relevant technical assistance could the FSU provide the FLAGs with? - Translation of material: o Development of an EFF Axis 4 thesaurus (list of thematic / key words) which would be available in several languages in order to facilitate the understanding of what other structures are working on) o Translation of at least part of the information sent by the FLAG (i.e. the partner search ads) This is important since actors & the beneficiaries are professionals who often do not have a good knowledge of languages other than theirs. - Gathering and dissemination of good practices around different EFF Axis 4 themes throughout Europe. - Alert systems: FLAGs should be able to subscribe to alert systems on a series of themes they would choose. This would enable them to receive brief information every time new information is available on the site on the theme(s) they have chosen (organisation of a seminar, publication of a new article, good practice or ad, etc.) - Transnational cooperation: technical assistance on the content, on the administrative procedures and, most of all, on the search for partners. Conclusions and personal comments of the geographical expert As put forward by Gilles Doignon from the Commission, there are challenges which the FLAGs are faced with both locally and also for the preparation of EFF 2 where Axis 4 could become very important. 6