EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 10.9.2026 COM(2026) 661 final

2026/0261 (CNS)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

amending Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2023/1115 and (EU)

2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Council Regulation (EU)

2023/2720 as regards adaptation of certain requirements and reduction of

administrative burden in the Union outermost regions

{SWD(2026) 661 final}

EN 1 EN

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

The European Union’s nine outermost regions – Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique,

Mayotte, Réunion, and Saint-Martin (France); the Azores and Madeira (Portugal); and the

Canary Islands (Spain) – are EU regions located in the Caribbean basin, South America, and

in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and are home to five million citizens.

These regions face structural challenges to, and permanent constraints on their development.

These constraints – recognised in Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the

European Union (TFEU) – include remoteness, insularity, climate vulnerability, and

economic dependence on a limited range of sectors. Article 349 TFEU provides for specific

measures to support these territories, including the tailored application of EU law in these

regions and specific rules on access to EU funds and programmes.

However, despite these provisions and subsequent EU strategies, certain EU regulations –

designed primarily for continental Europe – can impose disproportionate burdens on the

outermost regions. For example, agriculture, taxation, environment and fisheries rules may

not fully take into account the unique conditions of these regions, leading to higher costs,

market distortions, and missed economic opportunities.

The regulatory package on the outermost regions focuses on five key areas where targeted

adaptations to EU legislation are necessary to address the specificities of the outermost

regions, ensure a level playing field with other EU territories, reduce administrative burdens,

and unlock their economic potential while fully complying with broader EU policy goals.

This proposal for a Council Regulation focuses on agriculture, environment, fisheries and

migration, as detailed below.

Common Fisheries Policy Regulation

Council Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 of 17 December 2013 amended Regulation (EU)

No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy1 following Mayotte’s change of status to an

Outermost Region on 1 January 2014. Specifically, the amended Article 23(4) of Regulation

(EU) No 1380/2013 authorised France, by way of derogation, to introduce new fishing

capacity in Mayotte without the withdrawal of equivalent capacity until 31 December 2025.

This provision was designed to allow sufficient time for the development of Mayotte’s

underdeveloped fishing fleet, particularly vessels under 10 metres targeting demersal and

pelagic species. At the end of this transitional period, France was required to establish a

capacity ceiling in terms of gross tonnage and engine power for this fleet segment.

However, the destruction caused by Cyclone Chido in December 2024 has prevented these

objectives from being achieved within the transitional period, making an extension of the

derogations necessary. Adhering to the current deadline of the 31 December 2025 risks to

1 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on

the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC)

No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and

Council Decision 2004/585/EC (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22), ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1380/oj.

EN 2 EN

unnecessarily constrain Mayotte’s fishing capacity before it has been rebuilt to an operational

level. Imposing capacity limits in these circumstances could undermine the territory’s food

security, particularly given the high cost and limited accessibility of food imports, as well as

the increasing reliance on fishing due to the decline in local agricultural production.

In response to these concerns, the Commission proposes to amend Regulation (EU)

No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy to extend the transitional period until

31 December 2030, providing additional time for France to establish an accurate fleet

capacity ceiling in Mayotte.

Common Markets Organisation Regulation

Several agricultural products form part of everyday consumption in the outermost regions.

They are produced domestically and traded together with fruit and vegetables, even though

they do not fall within the fresh or processed fruit and vegetables sectors as defined in points

(i) and (j) of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and

of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (the

CMO Regulation)2. They are instead listed in parts I and XXIV of Annex I to that regulation,

which refer to cereals and other products. Therefore, those products are not eligible for

support under the operational programmes implemented by producer organisations in the

fruits and vegetables sectors under Section 2 of Chapter III of Title III of Regulation (EU)

2021/2115 of the European Parliament and the Council on CAP Strategic Plans3.

Products such as fresh and frozen manioc (cassava), yams, taro and yautia (malanga),

intended for human consumption, as well as desiccated coconut, turmeric and ginger, may

play an important role in local agricultural systems and food security in the outermost regions.

In order to enable Member States to grant support for those products through operational

programmes implemented by the existing producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables

sector, it is appropriate to include them within the scope of the fresh and processed fruit and

vegetables sectors referred to in Article 1(2)(i) and (j) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

Including those products in the relevant abovementioned fresh and processed fruit and

vegetables sectors would also allow them, at the fresh stage, to be covered by the general

marketing standards for fruit and vegetables. This would facilitate marketing them and giving

consumers information on their origin. It is therefore appropriate to include those products in

Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, under parts IX and X.

EU Deforestation Regulation

Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of 31 May 2023 on deforestation-free products (the ‘EU

Deforestation Regulation’ or ‘EUDR’)4 prohibits placing products linked to post-2020

2 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013

establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council

Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ

L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671) ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj. 3 Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021

establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common

agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund

(EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing

Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 (OJ L 435, 6.12.2021, p. 1) ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj. 4 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the

making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and

EN 3 EN

deforestation on the EU market. The provisions of the EUDR have a significant impact on

domestic production and consumption in French Guiana. In this region, where 95% of the

land is forest, food sovereignty strategies rely on limited, targeted and planned agricultural

clearing to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population. With French Guiana’s population

projected to grow from 285 000 in 2020 to 339 000 by 2030, and 540 000 by 2040 according

to INSEE5, food autonomy faces the most urgent challenges. Stakeholders have warned that

the application of the due diligence obligations under EUDR to domestically consumed

products could hinder food self-sufficiency initiatives, thereby increasing reliance on imports

and therefore increasing the carbon footprint due to transport emissions and vulnerability to

supply disruptions.

In response to these concerns, the Commission proposes a targeted amendment that excludes

French Guiana from the territorial scope of the EUDR, including from the customs territory as

defined in Article 2(34) of that Regulation. This approach exempts from the EUDR relevant

products produced and consumed within French Guiana, as well as goods traded between

French Guiana and non-EU countries, reflecting practical enforcement constraints, including

the region’s porous borders with Suriname and Brazil. The proposal includes strict

safeguards: imports (i.e., releases for free circulation) into the Union market from French

Guiana will be subject to EUDR obligations and among others require a special customs

declaration with a Due Diligence Statement (DDS) reference number or a declaration

identifier of the Simplified Declaration. Likewise, exports from the Union to French Guiana

will be subject to the EUDR, including compliance with the due diligence obligations and the

relevant DDS or Simplified declaration requirements in line with Chapter 4 of the EUDR.

Asylum Procedure Regulation

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 (the “Asylum Procedure Regulation”)6 establishes a common

procedure for the granting of international protection in the EU. The French outermost regions

(Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Mayotte, La Réunion, and Saint-Martin), which are

not part of the Schengen space pursuant to Article 138 of the Schengen Convention7, have a

specific geographic position and are also impacted by sizeable migration flows. Asylum

requests have been increasing in those territories over the past year: +26% in French Guiana

over one year, and seven times more than in 2025 in Mayotte. In this context, a derogation to

Article 4(1) of the Asylum Procedure Regulation is needed in order to guarantee an effective

protection of the borders, while safeguarding the right to international protection in line with

the Pact on Migration and Asylum8. This will allow an authority other than the determining

authority to take the decision to accept or refuse entry for the purpose of seeking international

protection into the French outermost regions based on a binding opinion of the determining

authority.

Autonomous Tariff Quotas Regulation

products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU)

No 995/2010 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 150 9.6.2023, p. 206), ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1115/2025-12-26. 5 ‘Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques’ (France’s National Institute of Statistics

and Economic Studies). 6 Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing

a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU (OJ

L, 2024/1348, 22.5.2024), ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1348/oj. 7 The Schengen acquis - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between

the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and

the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, OJ L 239, 22.9.2000,

pp. 19–62, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/convention/2000/922/oj. 8 COM(2020) 609 final.

EN 4 EN

Council Regulation (EU) 2023/27209 (the ‘Autonomous Tariff Quotas Regulation’) lays down

autonomous tariff preferences for certain fisheries products not available in the EU market in

sufficient quantities. Southern red snapper can benefit from a customs duty exemption when

imported into the EU territory for processing under the end-use regime.

However, the processing operations carried out by Guianese factories do not fall within the

scope of Article 4, paragraph 4 of the Regulation, which lists the specific operations allowing

products to benefit from the tariff quotas. The application of the 15% tariff deprives French

Guiana of the opportunities and benefits of adding value to products derived from snapper

processing.

A specific derogation in Article 4, paragraph 4 is therefore necessary in order to allow the

southern red snapper to benefit from the autonomous quotas, provided that other conditions

laid down in that Regulation are complied with.

• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area

The adoption of successive Commission strategies (in 2004, 2007, 2008, 2012, 2017, and

2022) to address the specific needs of the outermost regions has had a positive impact on their

development and territorial cohesion. The latest 2022 strategy ‘Putting people first, securing

sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions’10 has

been fully implemented and has yielded positive results.

Nonetheless, the outermost regions still lag well behind the rest of the EU in terms of

development, living standards and access to basic needs and services. The Commission

announced a strategy for these regions in its Communication on the mid-term review of

cohesion policy (adopted on 1 April 202511). The outermost regions strategy is one of the key

priorities in the 2025 State of the Union Letter of Intent (10 September 2025) and is included

in the Commission Work Programme 202612.

In line with the 2024-2029 political guidelines13 and the Council Conclusions of 10 March

2025 (6787/25) on cohesion and Cohesion Policy post-202714, an ambitious and place-based

approach must be taken to improve the living conditions of the five million EU citizens living

in the outermost regions.

• Consistency with other Union policies

The strategy and the proposal for a regulation aim to promote territorial cohesion, thus

contributing to the political objectives of social fairness, competitiveness and prosperity.

The proposal is consistent with the overall existing legal frameworks of the following

regulations and is limited to a targeted amendment in each case:

– Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the common fisheries policy;

9 Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2720 of 27 November 2023 opening and providing for the management

of the Union autonomous tariff quotas for certain fishery products for the 2024-2026 period (OJ L,

2023/2720, 6.12.2023), ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2720/oj. 10 COM(2022) 198 final. 11 COM(2025) 163 final. 12 COM(2025) 870 final. 13 “Europe’s choice” Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029, Strasbourg 18

July 2024. 14 These conclusions underline the need to unlock the outermost regions’ full potential within the EU and

call on the Commission to make full use of the possibilities offered by Article 349 TFEU, fostering

these regions’ regional integration, for tailored rules in the Cohesion Policy post 2027, and in any other

legislative proposals.

EN 5 EN

– Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 on the common organisation of agricultural markets;

– Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 on deforestation-free products;

– Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 establishing a common procedure for international

protection in the Union;

– Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2720 opening and providing for the management of

the Union autonomous tariff quotas for certain fishery products for the 2024-2026

period.

2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

• Legal basis

Article 349 TFEU is the sole legal basis for the proposal. This article enables the Council,

acting on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, to

adopt specific measures aimed at laying down the conditions of application of the Treaties to

the outermost regions, including common policies, in particular in areas such as customs and

trade policies, fiscal policy, free zones, agriculture and fisheries policies, conditions of supply

of raw materials and essential consumer goods, State aid and conditions for access to

structural funds and horizontal EU programmes.

• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)

The specific constraints on the socio-economic development of the outermost regions cannot

be adequately addressed by the Member States and outermost regions alone. This is because

the outermost regions need cross-cutting measures at EU level, in particular when their

specific challenges have a transregional and/or transnational dimension, or require existing

EU sectoral legislation to be adapted and streamlined.

• Proportionality

The proposed measures concern only the nine outermost regions of the EU, which benefit

from a specific status under the Treaty with regard to the European Union. Article 349 TFEU

allows the Council to adopt special measures and specific conditions for applying EU law to

outermost regions, taking into account their structural, social, and economic constraints – such

as remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography, climate, and economic dependence

on a few products.

As per the 2015 ruling of the European Court of Justice15, the specific measures envisaged

should be connected to the special characteristics and constraints of the outermost region at

issue. Differential treatment in favour of an outermost region can be justified by the existence

in that region of one or more of the factors listed in Article 349 TFEU.

The regulatory proposal adapts EU law provisions to the unique characteristics of the

outermost regions, as recognised in Article 349 TFEU, to the extent strictly necessary to

address the identified regulatory issues without undermining the integrity and coherence of

the Union’s legal order.

15 The 2015 judgment of the European Court of Justice (Parliament and Commission v Council, Joined

Cases C-132/14 to C-136/14) “Mayotte”, clarified the scope of Article 349 TFEU, confirming that it

provides a legal basis for the adoption of specific measures “designed to take account of the structural,

social and economic situation of the outermost regions”.

EN 6 EN

As the proposal only concerns the nine regions that are the most remote parts of the European

Union, it does not impact the EU internal market as a whole, nor the application of EU law in

the rest of the Union.

Moreover, the proposal does not introduce new policy but rather simplifies existing sectoral

legislation to make it more workable in the context of the outermost regions. It will not have a

major impact either on achieving the objectives of the underlying legislation to be simplified

or on the Union’s overall ambition. Therefore, the initial impact assessment of each of the

concerned regulatory instruments would remain valid.

Finally, there are no meaningful alternative policy options, and the only viable approach is to

simplify and tailor EU law to the context of the outermost regions.

The overall impact on achieving the objectives of the underlying EU sectoral legislation to be

adapted or on the EU as a whole is therefore minimal.

• Choice of the instrument

This proposal is composed of a Council Regulation that amends Regulation (EU)

No 1380/2013, Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, Regulation (EU)

2024/1348, and Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2720.

In the interest of simplicity, it has been considered expedient not to resort to individual

proposals for each of the Regulations concerned but to group the amendments to several acts

in a single proposal.

3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER

CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation

Non-applicable.

• Stakeholder consultations

The Commission has engaged in a broad consultation with stakeholders, public authorities

and businesses, Member States, and the public.

The following consultation activities were carried out to prepare this proposal:

– a targeted consultation of the public authorities of the nine outermost regions and the

governments of the relevant Member States (France, Spain and Portugal);

– a high-level forum with the outermost regions’ presidents and representatives from

the relevant Member States at ministerial level;

– a call for evidence to gather feedback;

– an implementation dialogue (on 21 April 2026 in Brussels and online) involving

stakeholders from the nine outermost regions.

The Commission published the call for evidence on the regulatory package on the ‘Have your

say’ website: Regulatory simplification package for the EU’s outermost regions. The

feedback period was from 17 November 2025 until 12 January 2026. All the feedback

received is published on the ‘Have your say’ website.

EN 7 EN

The call received 137 contributions from a total of 91 participants representing a wide range

of stakeholder groups. After the deadline, four additional contributions were submitted by

email and were also taken into consideration. This amounts to a total of 95 contributors.

• Collection and use of expertise

Evidence of the potential of more effective and consistent application of Article 349 TFEU

for adapting EU laws, policies and programmes to the constraints of the outermost regions

and increasing their access to the internal market through a simplified, more flexible and

tailor-made approach, can be also found in recent research and reports containing analytical

data and recommendations, including:

– the Commission’s report on the implementation of the 2022 communication on a

Strategy for the Outermost Regions16 and the related staff working document17.

– the study on living conditions and access to selected basic needs in outermost

regions18.

– the study on the impact of COVID-19 in the outermost regions19.

– the study on data collection on fisheries in outermost regions20.

– the support study on the ‘programme of options specifically relating to remoteness

and insularity’ (POSEI) in relation to the outermost regions21.

– relevant OECD studies on the outermost regions22.

– studies from other EU institutions, academia, relevant stakeholders and NGOs.

• Impact assessment

An impact assessment was not prepared for this proposal due to the targeted and limited scope

of the proposed amendments, which apply exclusively to the nine EU outermost regions

across only three Member States. The proposed amendments are based on:

– the unique geographical, climatic situation that justifies tailored adaptations of EU

legislation;

– existing impact assessments for the underlying legislation;

– Commission studies and reports providing evidence on the regions’ needs for

support;

16 COM(2024) 435 final. 17 SWD(2024) 227 final. 18 European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, and ECORYS Study on

living conditions and access to selected basic needs: Final report, Luxembourg, Publications Office of

the European Union, 2024. 19 European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy and ECORYS, Study on the

impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the outermost regions (OR) – Final report. Luxembourg,

Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. 20 European Commission, European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency,

Overview of the State of Data Collection and Scientific Advice in the EU ORs, with Case Study on a

Roadmap towards Regular Stock Assessment in French Guiana. Luxembourg, Publications Office of

the European Union, 2022. 21 European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Evaluation

support study of the EU support schemes for agriculture in the outermost regions (POSEI) and smaller

Aegean islands (SAI). Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2024. 22 For instance: OECD (2023), “Innovative agro-food industries in the EU Outermost Regions”, OECD

Development Policy Papers, No. 49, OECD Publishing, Paris.

EN 8 EN

– the limited policy alternatives, as maintaining the status quo would have a negative

impact on the development of these regions.

The proposal does not introduce substantive policy changes, but adapts existing legislation on

specific, targeted issues. The adapted legislation does not affect the Union’s broader

objectives. A staff working document accompanies the proposal, providing justification for its

changes and data on expected impacts where available. The contributions received under the

Call for Evidence have made it possible to substantiate the changes proposed with relevant

background data and information.

• Regulatory fitness and simplification

This proposal is designed to address bottlenecks in EU legislation with regard to the specific

constraints of the outermost regions.

• Fundamental rights

This Regulation will be implemented in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

The proposal has no impact on the budget of the European Union.

5. OTHER ELEMENTS

• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements

Not applicable.

• Explanatory documents (for directives)

No explanatory documents are considered necessary.

• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013

Article 1 amends the Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy to

extend the transitional period until 31 December 2030 for establishing a fleet capacity ceiling

in Mayotte, providing additional time for France to set an appropriate ceiling.

Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013

Article 2 amends Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 on the Common market

organisation in agricultural products by including certain tropical products in Parts IX and X,

as appropriate, in order to bring them within the scope of the fresh and processed fruit and

vegetables sectors. This will allow those products to benefit from the relevant support

schemes and, where applicable, to be subject to the general marketing standard for fruit and

vegetables.

Regulation (EU) 2023/1115

Article 3 amends Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 on deforestation-free products by adding a

paragraph to its Article 1 providing that French Guiana shall be excluded from the territorial

scope of that Regulation, including from the customs territory as defined in Article 2(34) of

this Regulation.

EN 9 EN

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 4 amends Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 by introducing a specific procedure

for admission to the territory for the purposes of seeking international protection at the border

or in transit zones in the French outermost regions. An applicant who does not fulfil the

conditions for admission to the territory laid down in national law may be subject to that

procedure in the cases referred to in Article 43(1), points (a), (b) and (c) of that Regulation. It

allows, within the framework of this procedure, by way of derogation from Article 4(1) of

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, an authority designated by France, other than the one referred to

in Article 4(1) of that Regulation, to grant or refuse authorisation to enter the territory, on the

basis of a reasoned opinion of the authority responsible for determining the admissibility of an

application, in accordance with Article 38, or on the basis of the manifestly unfounded nature

of the application, in accordance with Article 39(4) and Article 42(1) and (3) of that

Regulation. It further provides that Article 10(4)(d) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346 shall

apply mutatis mutandis to the procedure for admission to the territory referred to above. It

also makes the safeguards provided for under Article 43(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

applicable to this procedure.

Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2720

Article 5 amends Article 4, paragraph 4 of Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2720 on

autonomous EU tariff quotas for 2024-2026 in order to introduce a derogation from the

insufficient processing requirements as regards fresh and chilled southern red snapper caught

in the Exclusive Economic Zone by third country vessels and imported to French Guiana for

local processing and consumption. The derogation will allow 1 500 tonnes per year of red

snapper to benefit from tariff exemptions laid down in this Regulation under the quota

number 09.2746.

EN 10 EN

2026/0261 (CNS)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL REGULATION

amending Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2023/1115 and (EU)

2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Council Regulation (EU)

2023/2720 as regards adaptation of certain requirements and reduction of

administrative burden in the Union outermost regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular

Article 349 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament1,

Acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure,

Whereas:

(1) Considering the permanent constraints affecting the outermost regions, as referred to

in Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, including

remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and climate, and economic

dependence on a few products, and the significant difficulties they are currently

experiencing, such as loss of competitiveness and impact of natural disasters, specific

measures are necessary to support the development of their local economies.

(2) The persistent structural challenges faced by Mayotte’s fishing sector, which have

been severely impacted by natural disasters, including Cyclone Chido in December

2024, have hindered efforts to identify and register the fishing vessels in the Union’s

fishing fleet register. Given the potential risks to the territory’s food security and

economic development, it would be necessary to extend the deadline for establishing

fleet capacity ceilings under Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European

Parliament and of the Council2 from 31 December 2025 to 31 December 2030. That

extension would allow for the establishment of an appropriate fleet capacity ceiling in

Mayotte without undermining the territory’s specific challenges and needs.

(3) Considering the economic dependence of the outermost regions on a limited number

of locally produced agricultural products, specific measures are needed to support

local agricultural production. Several agricultural products forming part of the daily

diet in the outermost regions are locally produced and traded alongside fruit and

vegetables, but do not fall within the fruit and vegetables sector or the processed fruit

1 OJ C , , p. . 2 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on

the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No

1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council

Decision 2004/585/EC (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1380/oj).

EN 11 EN

and vegetables sector as referred to in Article 1(2), points (i) and (j), of Regulation

(EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council3. Consequently,

those products are not eligible for support under the operational programmes

implemented by producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector pursuant

to Title III, Chapter III, Section 2 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European

Parliament and of the Council4 since they do not fall within the fruit and vegetables

sector or the processed fruit and vegetables sector.

(4) Products such as fresh and frozen manioc (cassava), yams, taro and yautia (malanga),

intended for human consumption, as well as desiccated coconut, turmeric and ginger,

may play an important role in local agricultural systems and food security in the

outermost regions. In order to enable Member States to provide support for those

products through operational programmes implemented by the existing producer

organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector, it is appropriate to include them within

the scope of the fruit and vegetables sector and the processed fruit and vegetables

sector. In addition, including those products, at the fresh stage, within the scope of the

general marketing standards for fruit and vegetables referred to in Article 76 of

Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 would facilitate trade in those products and ensure that

consumers are provided with information on their origin. It is, therefore, appropriate to

include those products in Annex I to that Regulation, under Parts IX and X as

appropriate, and to remove them from Parts I and XXIV of that Annex where they

were previously included.

(5) French Guiana’s unique geographical situation in South America, given its extensive

land borders with third countries and significant volume of small-scale cross-border

trade, creates structural constraints that risk jeopardising the effective enforcement of

Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council5 in this

region. To address this, French Guiana should be excluded from the territorial scope of

that Regulation, including the customs territory as defined in Article 2(34). Regulation

(EU) 2023/1115 should therefore not apply to relevant products produced, in the sense

of Article 2(14) of that Regulation, in French Guiana and subsequently placed on the

market in French Guiana or exported to third countries. Regulation (EU) 2023/1115

should also not apply to relevant products produced, in the sense of Article 2(14) of

that Regulation, in third countries and subsequently placed on the market in French

Guiana. On the contrary, relevant products moved from French Guiana to be placed on

the market in other parts of the Union should be considered as ‘relevant products

entering the Union market’ and treated as such, in accordance with Chapter 4 of

Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, including through the submission of a Due Diligence

Statement or Simplified Declaration. Likewise, relevant products moved from other

3 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013

establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council

Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L

347, 20.12.2013, p. 671, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj). 4 Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021

establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common

agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund

(EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing

Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 (OJ L 435, 6.12.2021, p. 1, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj). 5 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the

making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and

products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No

995/2010 (OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1115/oj).

EN 12 EN

parts of the Union to be placed on the market in French Guiana should be considered

as ‘relevant products leaving the Union market’ and treated as such, in accordance

with Chapter 4 of that Regulation. As a consequence, relevant products would be

subject to the applicable requirements of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 in these

circumstances.

(6) In view of the specific characteristics and constraints of the outermost regions of the

French Republic, as referred to in Article 349 TFEU, and taking into account their

particular geographical situation, the fact that they do not form part of the Schengen

area pursuant to Article 138 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement

of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic

Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual

abolition of checks at their common borders6, specific measures are appropriate to

ensure the effective application of the rules governing admission to the territory for the

purposes of seeking access to the procedure for international protection in those

regions. A specific procedure for admission to the territory for that purpose, adapted to

their particular circumstances, should therefore be provided for.

(7) The specific procedure should ensure the effective application of Regulation (EU)

2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council7 and Directive (EU)

2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council8, while taking account of

the specific situation of the outermost regions concerned. In the framework of that

specific procedure, an authority designated by France, other than the one referred to in

Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, should be able to grant or refuse

authorisation to enter the territory for the purposes of seeking international protection.

The decision, taken on the basis of a reasoned opinion of the determining authority,

that the application is inadmissible or manifestly unfounded should be subject to the

effective remedies provided for in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, and notably time limits

and suspensive effect referred to in Article 68(5) and (6) of that Regulation.

(8) In order to enable the specific procedure for admission to the territory for the purposes

of seeking international protection to operate effectively in the French outermost

regions, the fundamental rights monitoring mechanism provided for in Article 43(4) of

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 should apply to that procedure and the ground for

detention provided for in Article 10(4), point (d) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346 should

also apply in the context of that procedure without prejudice to the other conditions

provided for in the same article.

(9) Except for the specific adaptations provided for in this Regulation, the relevant

provisions of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and Directive (EU) 2024/1346 should

continue to apply.

(10) The minimal processing requirements under Council Regulation (EU) 2023/27209

should be relaxed to allow southern red snapper caught in the Exclusive Economic

6 OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/convention/2000/922/oj. 7 Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing

a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU (OJ

L, 2024/1348, 22.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1348/oj). 8 Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 laying down

standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ L, 2024/1346, 22.5.2024, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1346/oj). 9 Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2720 of 27 November 2023 opening and providing for the management

of the Union autonomous tariff quotas for certain fishery products for the 2024–2026 period (OJ L,

2023/2720, 6.12.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2720/oj).

EN 13 EN

Zone of French Guiana by third-country vessels and imported into French Guiana for

processing and local consumption to benefit from autonomous tariff preferences for

fisheries products, thereby helping to maintain the economic viability of the fisheries

sector in the region.

(11) Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2023/1115, (EU)

2024/1348 and (EU) 2023/2720 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Amendments to Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 is amended as follows:

(1) in Article 23, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, until 31 December 2030 France shall

be authorised to introduce new capacity without the withdrawal of an equivalent

capacity for the various segments in Mayotte, as an outermost region within the

meaning of Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

(‘Mayotte’), referred to in Annex II.’;

(2) in Annex II, the table ‘Capacity Ceilings’, footnote **2 is replaced by the following:

‘*2. Ceilings shall be indicated in this table once the final capacity has been

established and communicated to the Commission and at the latest by 31 December

2030.’.

Article 2

Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013

Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 is amended as follows:

(1) in Part I, table, point (d), row ex 0714 is replaced by the following:

‘ex 0714 Manioc, arrowroot, salep and similar roots and tubers with high starch or inulin

content, fresh, chilled, frozen or dried, whether or not sliced or in the form of

pellets, and sago pith, excluding the following:

- fresh, chilled and frozen manioc (cassava) for human

consumption of subheading ex-0714 10 00,

- sweet potatoes of subheading 0714 20 10,

- fresh, chilled and frozen yams for human consumption of

subheading ex-0714 30 00,

- fresh, chilled and frozen taro for human consumption of

subheading ex-0714 40 00,

- fresh, chilled and frozen yautia for human consumption of

subheading ex-0714 50 00,

- Jerusalem artichokes of subheading ex 0714 90 90’

(2) in Part IX, the table is amended as follows:

EN 14 EN

(a) the following row is inserted after row ex 0709:

‘ex-0714 10 00 Fresh or chilled manioc (cassava) for human consumption’

(b) the following rows are inserted after row 0714 20:

‘ex-0714 30 00 Fresh or chilled yams for human consumption

ex-0714 40 00 Fresh or chilled taro for human consumption

ex-0714 50 00 Fresh or chilled yautia for human consumption’

(c) the following row is inserted after row ex 0714 90 90:

‘0801 11 Coconuts, desiccated’

(d) the following rows are inserted after row 0813 50 39:

‘0910 11 Ginger, neither crushed nor ground

0910 12 Ginger, crushed or ground’

(e) the following row is inserted after row 0910 20:

‘0910 30 Turmeric (curcuma)’

(3) in Part X, table, the following rows are inserted after row ex 0712:

‘ex-0714 10 00 Frozen manioc (cassava) for human consumption

ex-0714 30 00 Frozen yams for human consumption

ex-0714 40 00 Frozen taro for human consumption

ex-0714 50 00 Frozen yautia for human consumption’

(4) in Part XXIV, Section 1, the table is amended as follows:

(a) row 0801 is replaced by the following:

‘ex 0801 Coconuts, Brazil nuts and cashew nuts, fresh or dried, whether or not shelled or

peeled, excluding desiccated coconuts of subheading 0801 11’

(b) row ex 0910 is replaced by the following:

‘ex 0910 Bay leaves, curry and other spices excluding ginger, turmeric (curcuma), thyme

and saffron’

Article 3

Amendment to Regulation (EU) 2023/1115

In Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, the following paragraph 3 is added:

EN 15 EN

‘3. French Guiana shall be excluded from the territorial scope of this Regulation,

including the customs territory as defined in Article 2(34).’.

Article 4

Amendment to Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

In Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, the following paragraph 9 is added:

‘9. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, in the outermost regions of France, an

applicant who does not fulfil the conditions for admission to the territory laid down in

national law may be subject to a procedure for admission to the territory for the

purposes of seeking international protection in the cases referred to in Article 43(1),

points (a), (b) and (c).

Within the framework of that procedure, an authority designated by France, other than

the determining authority referred to in paragraph 1, may grant or refuse authorisation

to enter the territory. The decision shall be based on a reasoned opinion issued by the

determining authority concerning the inadmissibility of the application in accordance

with Article 38 or on its manifestly unfounded character in accordance with Article

39(4) and Article 42(1) and (3).

For the purposes of Article 10(4), point (d), of Directive (EU) 2024/1346, the

procedure referred to in the first subparagraph of this Article shall be treated as

equivalent to the border procedure referred to in Article 43 of this Regulation.

The fundamental rights monitoring mechanism referred to in Article 43(4) shall apply

to the procedure referred to in the first subparagraph of this Article.’.

Article 5

Amendment to Regulation (EU) 2023/2720

In Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2023/2720, the following point (m) is added:

‘(m) cleaning, gutting, tailing, heading, cutting into rings and cutting into slices for

materials under CN code 0302 89 90.’.

Article 6

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in

the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the Council

The President

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 10.9.2026 SWD(2026) 661 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying

Proposal for a Council Regulation

amending Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2023/1115 and (EU)

2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Council Regulation (EU)

2023/2720 as regards adaptation of certain requirements and reduction of

administrative burden in the Union outermost regions

and

Proposal for a Council Decision

amending Decision (EU) 2021/991 concerning the dock dues scheme in the French

outermost regions

{COM(2026) 661 final} - {COM(2026) 662 final}

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 4

1.1. EU policy framework ......................................................................................................... 4

1.2. EU legal framework ........................................................................................................... 6

2. CONSULTATION STRATEGY AND EVIDENCE GATHERING ...................................... 7

2.1. Consultation strategy .......................................................................................................... 7

2.2. Further evidence ................................................................................................................. 8

3. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND POLICY RESPONSE ....................................................... 9

3.1. Problem definition .............................................................................................................. 9

3.2. Objective .......................................................................................................................... 11

3.3. Policy options ................................................................................................................... 12

4. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 14

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES AND THEIR IMPACTS ...................................... 14

5.1. Measure 1 – Taxation: Dock Dues in five French OR (Guadeloupe, French Guiana,

Martinique, Mayotte and Réunion) .................................................................................. 15

5.2. Measure 2 – Agriculture: eligibility of tropical root products under the common market

organisation (CMO) for agricultural products .................................................................. 21

5.3. Measure 3 – Environment: Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) for French Guiana ......... 25

5.4 Measure 4 – Fisheries: fishing capacity ceiling for Mayotte ........................................... 29

5.5. Measure 5 – Customs Duties: applicability of southern red snapper quota in French

Guiana under the Autonomous Tariff Quotas Regulation ................................................ 31

4.6. Measure 6 – Migration: Asylum procedure in French outermost regions ........................ 34

5. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS .................................................................................. 37

ANNEX I – SYNOPSIS REPORT OF THE CONSULTATIONS .......................................... 39

1. Targeted consultation letters sent by Executive Vice-President of cohesion and reforms to

the OR Presidents and the responsible ministers of their Member States ........................ 39

2. High-Level Forum for the outermost regions ...................................................................... 40

2.1 Opening Session........................................................................................................ 40

2.2 Plenary Working Session .......................................................................................... 41

2

2.2.1 Outermost regions strategy ....................................................................................... 41

2.2.2 Regulatory package ................................................................................................... 42

3. Call for Evidence inputs – “Have your Say” ....................................................................... 43

3.1. Outermost regions Strategy......................................................................................... 44

3.1.2. Geostrategic potential and regional integration into their neighbourhood ............. 44 3.1.4. Competitiveness and enhanced access to the Single Market .................................. 45 3.1.5. Resilience and preparedness ................................................................................... 45 3.1.6. Social fairness and supporting people .................................................................... 45 3.1.7. Maximising the impact of EU policies, funds and programmes in the outermost

regions .............................................................................................................................. 46 3.2. Regulatory package ..................................................................................................... 47

3.2.1. Better Regulation .................................................................................................... 47 3.2.2. Transport, climate legislation and ........................................................................... 47 3.2.3. Energy ..................................................................................................................... 47 3.2.4. Environment ........................................................................................................... 48 3.2.5. Fisheries .................................................................................................................. 48 3.2.6. Agriculture and food safety .................................................................................... 49 3.2.7. State aid .................................................................................................................. 49 3.2.8. Single Market ......................................................................................................... 50 3.2.9. Taxation .................................................................................................................. 50 3.2.10. Cohesion policy .................................................................................................... 50 3.2.11. Education & Culture & Research ......................................................................... 51 3.2.12. Migration .............................................................................................................. 51

4. Implementation Dialogue .................................................................................................... 51

3

Glossary

Term or acronym Meaning or definition

APR Asylum Procedures Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/1348)

AMIF Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

CBAM EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

CFP Common Fisheries Policy

CMO Common Market Organisation

CPRUP Conference of Presidents of the Outermost Regions

DDS Due Diligence Statement

ECA European Court of Auditors

EEZ Exclusive economic zone

EMFAF European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund

EP European Parliament

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

ETS Emissions Trading System

EU European Union

EUDR EU Deforestation Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/1115,)

EUR Euro

EVP Executive Vice President

GBER General Block Exemption Regulation (Regulation (EU) 651/2014)

GT Gross tonnage

INSEE Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (French National Institute

for Statistics and Economic Studies)

ISSG Interservice steering group of the European Commission

MFF Multiannual Financial Framework

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OFPRA Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides

(French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons)

OR Outermost region

POSEI Programme of options specifically relating to remoteness and insularity (supporting

the European Union’s outermost regions)

RCD Reception conditions Directive (EU) 2024/1346

SAR / RDP Schéma d’aménagement régional (regional development plan)

SWD Staff Working Document

TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

UAA Utilised agricultural area

4

1. INTRODUCTION

The nine outermost regions (OR) of the European Union (EU)1 are strategic outposts of the EU

located in the Caribbean, Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, and South America. They are a home

to some five million EU citizens. However, due to their remoteness, they face many structural

challenges and permanent constraints on their development, as recognised by Article 349 of

the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)2.

Since 2004, successive Commission strategies3 forthe OR (2004, 2007, 2008, 2012, 2017,

and 2022), together with targeted legislative measures and the specific support from EU funds

and programmes, have contributed positively to their prosperity. Nonetheless, the OR still lag

behind the continental parts of the EU located in continental Europe in terms of their socio-

economic development, living standards and access to basic services.

In 2025, the Commission announced a new strategy for the OR4 in its Communication on the

mid-term review5 of cohesion policy, and his initiative which was also included in the

Commission Work Programme 20266. In September 2026, the Commission is to adopt this new

strategy and the first ever regulatory package7 dedicated to the OR, which will identify

bottlenecks and barriers to their growth in the OR in EU’s policies, legislation and programmes,

and propose actions to better address their specific characteristics in the future.

This Staff Working Document (SWD) accompanies that regulatory package for the EU

outermost regions. It provides evidence-based analysis on the need for the regulatory package,

its objectives and its potential economic, social, and environmental impact. addresses.

Specifically, the SWD covers (i) presents the (1) consultation process for gathering input and

feedback from stakeholders; (2) ii) explains the legislation covered; (3) and (iii) proposes

measures proposed for adoption for streamlining the regulatory framework and considers the

impact of these proposed legislative amendments.

1.1. EU policy framework

Most EU policies are relevant to the OR, and the following policy areas have a particularly

strong impact on their development and the lives of their inhabitants: fisheries and agriculture,

cohesion, transport and digital connectivity, energy, climate and environment, waste and water

management, research, health, skills and education, (youth) employment and social inclusion,

culture, housing, migration, competition, taxation, defence and space, trade and external

cooperation.

1 French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, Reunion and Saint-Martin (France), the Azores,

Madeira (Portugal), the Canary Islands (Spain). 2 Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 3 COM(2004) 543 final, COM(2007) 507 final, COM(2008) 642 final, COM(2012) 287 final,

COM(2017) 623 final, COM(2022) 198 final. 4 COM(2026) 660. 5 COM(2025) 163 final. 6 COM(2025) 870 final. 7 Proposals for a Council Decision and Council Regulation.

5

Therefore, the EU policy framework relevant to the OR includes a wide range of EU policy

initiatives. The most recent ones, with a particular focus on the OR comprises the following:

• Previous Commission strategies for the OR, particularly the last Communication “Putting

people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s

outermost regions” adopted in 2022, and its accompanying SWD “Outermost Regions at a

glance – assets, challenges and opportunities”8;

• The 2024 Commission report on the implementation of the 2022 OR strategy9 which

presented the significant progress made in implementing the 2022 strategy. The SWD “The

role of cohesion policy in the implementation of the Communication”10 accompanying the

report presented the key support provided by cohesion policy to the OR in selected sectors;

• The 2025 Communication on the mid-term review of cohesion policy11 which announced

that the Commission will launch a new strategy for the OR;

• The 2025 Commission Communication on the European Ocean Pact12 which included the

new strategy for the ORs as a key flagship action for implementing the Pact;

• The Commission 2026 Work Programme13 which included the new strategy for the OR

among the Commission’s list of initiatives for 2026;

• The 2026 Commission Communication on a new strategy for the OR and a proposal for a

legislative package for the OR.

The OR have featured prominently featured in the conclusions, resolutions and opinions of

other EU institutions, including in the following:

• 2022 Council conclusions No 10513/2 on the 2022 OR strategy, which welcomed the

Communication and called on the concerned Member States concerned to take action to

support their outermost regions, e.g. in developing administrative capacity, in participating

in research consortia, and in building basic infrastructure to address citizens’ basic needs;

• 2023 Council conclusions No 16230/2 on the future of cohesion policy, which called on the

Commission to systematically consider the needs of the outermost OR and the impact of

its legislative proposals on those regions;

• 2024 Council conclusions No 16124/2 on providing “glocal” opportunities for young

people living in rural and remote areas, including in the OR;

• 2025 Council Conclusions No 6787/25 underlining, which underlined the need to unlock

the OR’s full potential within the EU and called on the Commission to make full use of the

possibilities offered by Article 349 TFEU, fostering the OR’s regional integration, for

tailored rules under cohesion policy post 2027, and in any other legislative proposals;

• 2023 European Parliament Resolution on the Communication on the OR C/2024/480 of 13

June 2023 stressing, which stressed the importance of fully implementing the 2022 OR

strategy;

8 COM(2022) 198 final and SWD(2022) 133 final. 9 COM(2024) 435 final. 10 SWD(2024) 227 final. 11 COM(2025) 123 final. 12 COM(2025) 281 final. 13 COM(2025) 870 final.

6

• 2023 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication on the OR14 drawing

attention to the urgent need to address the significant social and economic inequalities in

the OR compared with mainland Europe;

• 2022 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee15 which made

recommendations to consider the unique assets of the OR for the EU and to take account

of the specific characteristics of the OR across EU policies.

1.2. EU legal framework

The current EU legal framework applicable to the OR comprises:

• Article 349 of theTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which

recognises the specific characteristics, constraints and structural challenges of the OR, and

enables the EU to adopt specific measures to address them, including derogations from or

adaptations to the application of EU law and specific provisions on access to funds and

programmes.

• The 2015 judgementJRC.B Fair and Sustainable Economy of the European Court of

Justice (Parliament and Commission v Council, Joined Cases C-132/14 to C-136/14)

“Mayotte”, which clarifies the scope of Article 349 TFEU, confirming that it provides a

legal basis for the adoption of specific measures “designed to take account of the structural,

social and economic situation of the outermost regions”16.

• All relevant EU sectoral legislation and establishing established funds and programmes

under the multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027 with which have a special impact

on the OR17, in areas such as: sectors including fisheries and agriculture, cohesion, transport

and digital connectivity, energy, climate and the environment, waste and water

management, research, health, skills and education, (youth) employment and social

inclusion, culture, housing, migration, competition, taxation, defence and space, trade and

external cooperation.

Article 349 TFEU is the sole legal basis for the regulatory package. This Article enables the

Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European

Parliament, to adopt specific measures aimed at laying down the conditions of application of

the Treaties to the OR, including common policies. As confirmed by the “Mayotte judgment”,

such measures may, where appropriate, also provide for adaptations to the application of

secondary EU legislation18.

As regards subsidiarity, the specific constraints and barriers to the socio-economic

development of the OR cannot be adequately addressed by the Member States and the OR

alone. Therefore, the needs of the OR are best served by cross-cutting measures at EU level in

particular when those measures aim at addressing specific challenges with a transregional

and/or transnational dimension or to adapting and streamlining existing EU sectoral legislation

to their specificities (e.g. remoteness and insularity, different climate, small size, difficult

topography and high economic dependence on just a few local products).

14 2023/C 157/04. 15 ECO/567. 16 Judgment of the ECJ of the 15 December 2015, Joined Cases C-132/14 to C-136/14, para. 71. 17 Inforegio - Implementing the strategic approach towards the Outermost Regions. 18 Mayotte judgment, para. 72.

7

As regards proportionality, the regulatory package adapts very few EU legal provisions to the

unique characteristics of the OR, as recognised by Article 349 TFEU, and only to the extent

necessary to address the identified regulatory or policy bottlenecks. The overall impact on the

Member States’ achievement of the objectives of the underlying EU sectoral legislation to

be adapted or on the EU as a whole is therefore minimal.

2. CONSULTATION STRATEGY AND EVIDENCE GATHERING

2.1. Consultation strategy

The Conference of Presidents of the Outermost Regions (CPRUP) announced in its meeting in

April 2025 that a consultation exercise would be launched for a new OR strategy, to be

accompanied by a set of specific regulatory measures for the OR. The Commission

subsequently sent targeted consultation letters to the Presidents of the OR and the relevant

Ministers in their respective Member States inviting them to identify their priorities for the new

strategy by the end of May 2025.

In order to continue discussing specific ideas for the strategy and the regulatory package, the

Commission convened a high-level forum on the OR in Brussels in November 2025. The

high-level forum brought together representatives from the nine OR, their Member States, the

European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions. A public call for evidence was opened

on the Commission’s Have Your Say portal19 between November 2025 and January 2026. Its

purpose was to collect views from stakeholders, on both the new EU strategy and the regulatory

package for the OR.

The call for evidence received 137 responses from 91 individual participants representing a

broad spectrum of stakeholder groups. Responses were received from national and regional

governments, public authorities and bodies at national, regional and local level, socio-

economic actors, industry and business representatives, academics and research institutions,

civil society and youth organisations, non-profit organisations, citizens, international partners,

and neighbouring countries and territories.

The feedback received underlined the potential of the new strategy and regulatory package to

promote growth and prosperity in the OR, improve living standards, and create favourable

conditions for businesses to thrive. It also highlighted regulatory obstacles at EU level that

hamper the development of the OR and identified measures that could simplify regulations and

reduce administrative burden for the stakeholders in these regions.

The geostrategic importance of the OR was mentioned in many contributions. Certain policy

areas emerged as particularly important for all OR and their Member States, notably

agriculture, fisheries, trade, transport, migration, climate, the environment, and cohesion

policy.

To finalise the consultation exercise, an Implementation Dialogue was held in April 2026,

focused on the regulatory package, which brought together business representatives and trade

associations from the OR. The Implementation Dialogue helped to identify key regulatory

19 https://have-your-say.ec.europa.eu/index_enStrategy for the EU’s outermost regions and

Regulatory simplification package for the EU’s outermost regions.

8

bottlenecks that businesses representatives from the primary, secondary and tertiary sector face

in the OR, and which limit their development and their access to the single market. Key

challenges which were identified include high costs of production and transport costs, unfair

competition from third countries, and the impact of EU instruments such as the Carbon Border

Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the Emissions Trading System (ETS). Proposed

solutions included specific derogations, stronger financial support, and the introduction of

more consistent checks on the impact of new legislation impacting the OR, in order to better

address their specific constraints, in line with the Treaty.

All feedback received during these consultations was carefully compiled and analysed. A

synopsis report of the consultations is provided in Annex I.

Further technical consultations with relevant local, regional and national authorities,

including through the OR Working Group were organised on specific legislative proposals to

clarify their details, justification, and relevance.

Figure 1. Consultations timeline

2.2. Further evidence

The following studies and reports contributed to the new OR strategy and regulatory package:

• Independent study conducted at the request of the Commission on living conditions and

access to basic needs in the OR20 (2024).

• Independent study y conducted at the request of the Commission on the impact of

COVID-19 impact in the OR21 (2021).

• Independent study conducted at the request of the Commission on data collection on

fisheries stockfish stocks22 (2022).

• Evaluation by the Commission on the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation23 (2026).

20 Ecorys January 2024. 21 Ecorys October 2021. 22 ISBN 978-92-95225-32-9, Overview of the State of Data Collection and Scientific Advice in the EU

ORs, with Case Study on a Roadmap Towards Regular Stock Assessment in French Guiana Final

Report. 23 SWD(2026) 120.

9

• Evaluation by the Commission on the POSEI programme for agriculture in the OR and

the independent supporting study24 (2024).

• Technical Support Instrument (TSI) OECD projects for the outermost regions25:

- Improving access to EU programmes in France’s OR.

- Developing structural tools to support the implementation of the European Child

Guarantee in Portugal.

• Research studies conducted for the European Parliament:

- Study on transport and tourism in the OR: assessing mobility poverty and the

effects of new climate policies26 (2025).

- Study on Cohesion policy in the OR27 (2024).

• Relevant OECD studies on the OR:

- OECD report on internationalisation, specialisation and technological

collaboration in the EU OR28 (2023).

- OECD report on leveraging the cultural and creative sectors for the development

of the European OR29 (2023).

- OECD report on making renewable energies drivers of competitiveness in the EU

OR30 (2023).

- Innovative agri-food industries in the EU OR31 (2023).

- OECD Production Transformation Policy Review – Spotlight on Guadeloupe’s

Internationalisation32 (2023).

- OECD Regional Development Studies on Preparing for Demographic Change in

the Azores33 (2025).

- OECD report on the region La Réunion in the world (2022).

• Studies by other institutions and NGOs:

- Enabling OR to inspire climate resilience in the EU34 - French catalogue of

February 2026 on recent studies on agriculture in the OR35.

- Information report tabled by the Overseas Territories Delegation on food self-

sufficiency in the overseas territories (Mr Marc Le Fur and Ms Estelle

Youssouffa), No. 150236.

24 EEIG Agrosynergie, Ecorys and Metis February 2024. 25 https://www.oecd.org/en/about/projects/strengthening-access-to-eu-programmes-in-french-outermost-

regions.html. 26 Maucorps et al. (2025). 27 Maucorps et al. (2024). 28 OECD Development Policy Papers, No. 50, OECD Publishing, (2023). 29 OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2023/21, OECD

Publishing (2023). 30 OECD Development Policy Papers, No. 52, OECD Publishing (2023). 31 OECD Development Policy Papers October 2023 No. 49. 32 OECD Development Pathways, OECD Publishing (2023). 33 OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing (2025). 34 REGILIENCE – Policy brief on climate resilience in EU outermost regions. 35 https://www.odeadom.fr/ressources/etudes/ 36 https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/16/rapports/om/l16b1502_rapport-information.

10

3. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND POLICY RESPONSE

3.1. Problem definition

During the consultations to inform the new EU strategy and regulatory package for the OR,

stakeholders and authorities at national, regional and local level pointed out that application of

Article 349 TFEU has shown varying levels of ambition, consistency, and effectiveness

across different EU policy areas. Meanwhile, evidence from recent research and reports point

to the potential benefits of a deeper and more systematic application of Article 349, TFEU,

ensuring that EU legislation, funding, and programmes are better tailored to the specific

constraints of the OR. On this basis, the Commission identified the following key problem in

relation to the current EU legal framework and its consequences for the OR:

Problem: Uneven application of Article 349 TFEU across EU policies and legislation

Article 349 TFEU provides for the possibility of specific measures and provisions in EU

legislation to be adopted in order to help the OR address their particular challenges. The

judgment European Court of Justice of 15 December 2015 (Joined Cases C-132/14 to C-136/14

“Mayotte”) confirmed the broad scope of Article 349 TFEU as the legal basis for adopting

specific measures for the OR.

However, the possibility of adapting EU legislation and programmes to the specificities of the

OR has been used unevenly across policies and sectors. For example, some legislative acts lay

down tailored measures, while others do not - or do so only to a limited extent. This has

sometimes resulted in inconsistencies and gaps in EU legislation, policies, funds and

programmes of relevance to the OR. This has, in turn, had an impact on key economic sectors

in the OR and on the EU citizens living there.

Example: Under Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 (the Common Market Organisation (CMO))

Regulation, financial support for collective producer organisations is limited to the products

listed in its Annex I. However, this list does not include many locally adapted tropical crops

farmed locally in the OR, such as cassava, yams, taro, turmeric, ginger, and coconut. These

are critical for sustainable production sectors in regions where climate and geographical

constraints limit their agricultural alternatives.

• Consequence 1: Challenges under current EU legislation

As a consequence, certain EU regulations may create obstacles for the OR by generating

disproportionate administrative, compliance or financial burdens for them or by overlooking

opportunities to adapt measures to their specific circumstances.

This challenge has been repeatedly highlighted in requests and declarations by the Presidents

of the OR, by the French, Spanish and Portuguese national authorities, and by business

representatives, who have called for EU legislation and initiatives to be more systematically

assessed in terms of their effect on the OR and to be better adapted to their realities. For further

references please see the synopsis report of the consultation actions linked to the regulatory

package for the OR in annex I to this report and the Joint Contributions presented by the

CPRUP37.

37 Bibliothèque | RUP: Conférence des Présidents

11

Example: The Deforestation Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, by seeking to limit deforestation,

risks restricting domestic hindering local food production in French Guiana, which is covered

by 95% by tropical forest, hindering local food sovereignty and increasing its reliance on less

sustainable imports as 95% of its surface area is by tropical forest.

• Consequence 2: Difficulty for the OR to access the single market

The application of Article 349 TFEU can address to different extent the structural weaknesses

that hold back the development of the OR by limiting their access to the single market and

discouraging economic activity in these small, remote economies.

Most of the OR are among the least competitive regions in the EU, as evidenced by the EU

Regional Competitiveness Index 2.0 (2022 edition)38 and the Ninth report on economic, social

and territorial cohesion39. Therefore, they need stronger support to promote growth, innovation

and economic diversification, and to offer more opportunities to the people living there. The

small market size of their markets, limited scope for economies of scale and high cost of living

make them less attractive for large-scale investments.

To bolster the competitiveness of companies in the OR, including small and medium-sized

companies (SMEs), and to deepen their access to the single market, policy measures to

capitalise on these regions’ assets are needed. These must support their most promising sectors

(fisheries and the blue economy, biotech, renewable energy, tourism, agriculture, trade and

logistics) and protect their strategic products. Such measures can help to maximise the impact

of EU investments in the neighbourhood of the OR and promote the uptake of EU technologies,

standards and innovation.

Example: a sector with limited access to the single market is fisheries, in specifically the

processing of southern red snapper in French Guiana. Although French Guiana is part of

the EU, southern red snapper caught by third-country vessels is subject to a 15% customs duty,

while the local processing operations are not covered by the current Autonomous Tariff Quotas

i.e. Regulation (EU) 2023/2720. This limits local value creation and weakens the ability of

operators in French Guiana to effectively access the single market.

3.2. Objective

The identified problem and its consequences can only be tackled through action at EU level.

The objective of the proposed EU action is for Article 349 TFEU to be applied more

systematically, to adapt EU legislation and programmes to the specific characteristics of the

OR, thereby avoiding bottlenecks and disproportionate burdens for the OR.

This objective will be achieved via the regulatory package proposed for adoption in

September 2026 which addresses the key bottlenecks and shortcomings for the OR under

current EU legislation. Furthermore, the new strategy for the OR from September 2026 refers

to additional regulatory amendments targeting the OR’s specificities, which have been already

adopted or will be later proposed as part of sectoral reviews of EU legislation.

Figure 2: Objectives

38 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/assets/regional-competitiveness/index.html#/ 39 Inforegio - Ninth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion

12

3.3. Policy options

Mainstreaming the OR’ specificities in EU legislation, policies and programmes has so far not

consistently taken into account the Treaty provisions applicable to the OR and the case-law of

the European Court of Justice40. This has resulted in the uneven application of Article 349

TFEU across EU policies and legislation.

To address this problem, the regulatory package being proposed in September 2026 includes

measures to address challenges identified for the ORin existing EU legislation and policies,

focusing on the main areas with a significant or asymmetric impact on the OR. These areas

were identified on the basis of evidence gathered through the consultations and studies listed

in chapter 2.

Furthermore, a new structured approach is introduced, as outlined in the new OR strategy from

September 2026, whereby ex ante assessments will be more consistently carried out on EU

legislation and initiatives in policy areas expected to have a significant impact on the OR.

40 EUR-Lex - 62014CJ0132 - EN - EUR-Lex.

13

Besides, cooperation will be stepped up between the Commission, the OR and their Member

States.

Figure 3: Identified problem and, its drivers, its consequences, the Commission’s objective and policy

options, and the impact of the Commission’s policy options

4. METHODOLOGY

This Staff Working Document uses a three-step methodology combining quantitative analysis,

stakeholder consultation, and triangulation of findings:

14

1. Quantitative information: This analysis draws on quantitative and qualitative

evidence from several official and stakeholder sources. The statistical assessment is

based primarily on data from Eurostat and from the French National Institute for

Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), including indicators on demographic trends,

economic activity, labour market developments, territorial disparities, and access to

services where relevant. In addition, the formal Call for Evidence described in Chapter

2 provided complementary qualitative input from public authorities, stakeholders, and

other interested parties. The contributions received helped to identify practical

implementation problems, highlight territorial effects that may not be fully captured by

statistical data alone, and clarify the main concerns, expectations, and priorities

expressed by affected stakeholders.

Often only limited data is available for the OR due to their small size and limited

resources. In particular, for the Collectivity of Saint Martin, specific data is often not

available at all, as it is grouped in with the Guadeloupe NUTS2 region.

2. Based on the findings of the quantitative analysis, different stakeholders and national

and regional authorities were consulted to further validate, refine and complement

those findings. This qualitative information expanded on the findings from the

quantitative analysis and provided additional insights regarding areas not fully covered

by the available data. This allowed for a better understanding of the challenges and

barriers that the OR face under the current EU legislation.

3. The quantitative and qualitative information was triangulated to enable for a more

complete analysis to be carried out building on the multiple data sources. This

methodology was aimed at identifying the barriers under existing EU legislation and

assessing the relevance of the proposed legal amendments.

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES AND THEIR IMPACTS

This chapter sets out the qualitative impacts of the proposed measures and, where sufficient

data was available, provides a limited quantitative assessment. The quantitative assessment

covers the basic underlying assumptions from the Commission’s previous work with regard to

the OR and takes into account the uncertainties and limitations resulting from the analytical

constraints of these regions, including the lack of comprehensive statistics and data. The

proposed amendments as part of the regulatory package are based on:

1. the unique geographical vulnerabilities of the OR that justify tailored adaptations to EU

legislation, as recognised in the TREU;

2. existing impact assessments for the underlying legislation that analyse impacts on the

OR41;

3. existing evidence on the OR' specific challenges and needs (section 2.2);

4. the limited policy alternatives, bearing in mind that maintaining the status quo would

hinder the development of these regions.

41 E.g. This includes the impact assessment on the Octroi de Mer Decision (EU) 2021/991,

COM(2021) 95 final.

15

The proposal for a regulatory packageadapts existing legislation in specific, targeted policy

areas without affecting the EU’s broader objectives and specific sectorial legislation. It is

designed to address bottlenecks in EU legislation with regard to specific constraints of the OR

and is a very limited in scope with a clearly defined target, as it is restricted to the OR of three

Member States.

The regulatory package is composed of a Commission proposal for a Council Decision

concerning the dock dues scheme in the French OR and amending Decision No 940/2014/EU,

and a Commission proposal for a Council Regulation that amending Regulation (EU) No

1308/2013 [on the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products], Regulation

(EU) No 2023/1115 [on deforestation],Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 [on the common

fisheries policy] and Regulation (EU) No 2023/2720 [on autonomous tariff quotas]. It aims to

ensure a level playing field for the ORs with respect to the rest of the EU, to improve their

competitiveness, especially with regard to their neighbouring countries, to reduce

administrative burdens, and to unlock their economic potential while fully complying with

broader EU policy goals.

The measures included in the regulatory package are the following ones:

• Measure 1 – Taxation: dock dues (octroi de mer) in five French OR42

• Measure 2 – Agriculture: eligibility of tropical root products under the CMO

• Measure 3 – Environment: deforestation Regulation (EUDR) for French Guiana

• Measure 4 – Fisheries: fishing capacity ceiling for Mayotte

• Measure 5 –Taxation: applicability of southern red snapper quota in French Guiana under

the Autonomous Tariff Quotas Regulation

• Measure 6 – Migration: Asylum procedure in French outermost regions

5.1. Measure 1 – Taxation: Dock Dues in five French OR (Guadeloupe,

French Guiana, Martinique, Mayotte and Réunion)

Context

The dock dues (octroi de mer) scheme consists of a consumption tax applied in Guadeloupe,

French Guiana, Martinique, Mayotte, and Reunion, which is levied on both imported goods

and locally produced goods at the point of sale. While EU Treaty provisions generally prohibit

differential taxation between local products and similar EU-sourced products, Article 349

TFEU permits specific measures for the OR to address their structural constraints, such as their

remoteness and insularity. The objective of the French dock dues scheme is to support the

socio-economic development of the French OR by compensating for higher production costs,

promoting the local industry, and ensuring the financial autonomy of local authorities.

Council Decision (EU) 2021/99143 authorises France and the regional authorities of five OR

(Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, Mayotte) to apply as from 1 January 2022

until 31 December 2027 exemptions or reductions in dock dues to the locally produced goods

42 All French ORs except Saint Martin which officially separated from Guadeloupe to become its own

Overseas Collectivity (collectivité d'outre-mer) in 2007. This status granted it tax autonomy. Saint-

Martin creates and manages its own unique Saint-Martin Tax Code, entirely separate from the French

General Tax Code and French Overseas Departments (départements d’outre-mer) where dock dues are

applied. 43 L 221, 21.6.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2021/991/oj.

16

included in lists A and B of Annex I to that Decision. Differences in taxation may not exceed

20 percentage points (for list A) or 30 percentage points (for list B) when compared with

imported equivalents (dock dues differentials scheme).

The Commission proposal for a Council Decision concerning the dock dues scheme in the

French OR and amending Decision No 940/2014/EU (COM(2021)95), was accompanied by a

Commission Staff Working Document44 (impact assessment) and a study on specific

tax regimes for the OR belonging to France and Spain45. The table below provides an overview

of the regional value added in the French OR in the sectors benefitting from the tax

differentiation system under the ‘dock dues’ regime and the level of regional employment

which they represent.

Table: Changes in the value added of sectors receiving aid between 2019 and 2023

2019 2020 2021 2022

Value in million € (base index 100=2019)

Guadeloupe

Regional value added 4 841.45 90.71 98.72 104.63

In the sectors benefiting from tax

differentiation 743.58 102.83 107.46 89.14

Total regional employment 72 236.00 104.75 105.93 105.19

In the sectors benefiting from the

tax differentiation 10 688.00 98.11 101.38 80.32

Martinique

Regional value added 6 149.49 93.35 99.85 109.65

In the sectors benefiting from tax

differentiation 649.66 112.51 108.23 111.09

Total regional employment 90 366.00 98.39 100.25 105.90

In the sectors benefiting from the

tax differentiation 12 250.00 104.67 117.21 111.91

French Guiana

Regional value added 1 794.90 95.48 103.43 112.59

In the sectors benefiting from tax

differentiation 109.21 127.92 127.67 139.01

Total regional employment 27 586.00 98.19 103.11 110.90

In the sectors benefiting from the

tax differentiation 2 219.00 108.02 102.36 108.49

Réunion

Regional value added 10 451.52 95.97 107.81 113.56

In the sectors benefiting from tax

differentiation 1 366.42 108.87 122.81 126.30

Total regional employment 171 050.00 105.49 106.64 112.91

In the sectors benefiting from the

tax differentiation 23 332.00 110.37 116.24 125.26

Mayotte (employment figures not available)

Regional value added 591.36 110.94 145.72 159.72

44 COM(2021) 95 final. 45 European Commission, Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union, and Economisti

Associati, Study on Specific Tax Regimes for Outermost Regions Belonging to France and Spain: Final

Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020.

17

In the sectors benefiting from tax

differentiation 80.36 104.70 65.98 77.11

Sources: Insee -FARE46

Problem identified

The customs nomenclature codes listed in Annex I to Council Decision 2021/991 were set in

2021, based on the EU’s tariff classification system for that year. The operative part of the

Council Decision does not allow any update or addition to lists A or B from Annex I to be

updated or added to during the period of application of the Decision. However, the EU’s

Combined Nomenclature (CN)47 is updated annually, meaning that some of the 2021 codes are

obsolete or misaligned with current classifications. As regional authorities are required to apply

dock duesrates on the basis of the latest Combined Nomenclature codes, this leads to legal

uncertainty over whether certain goods still qualify for differential taxation.

While dock dues are a useful mechanism for enhancing the competitiveness of overseas

undertakings, Annex I to Decision (EU) 2021/991 has not been updated since its adoption and

does not provide for any review mechanism during its period of application. Consequently, in

the light of the annual changes to the Combined Nomenclature and the adoption of the most

recent Harmonised System in 2022, certain data in Annex I may no longer correspond to the

nomenclature in force. In addition, the recurrent need for revision of the Decision on the dock

dues regime may result in legal uncertainty for economic operators in the OR.

According to a 2025 evaluation48 of the dock dues scheme by the French government, companies

in the French OR face additional production costs some 11.3% higher than their counterparts

in mainland France. These additional costs fall to 7.4% after direct aid has been taken into

account, which justifies the case for the dock dues indirect aid scheme. After factoring in this

aid scheme, the additional costs fall to 1.2% on average, although this varies at territorial level.

In addition, the dock dues differential is targeted primarily at undertakings suffering from

additional costs in the OR concerned. The evaluation concluded that the current scheme mainly

benefits relatively dynamic sectors. During the period under assessment, with the exception of

Mayotte and more recently Guadeloupe and French Guiana, the sectors benefiting from the

scheme had consistently experienced growth above the regional average.

(Source: INSEE, FARE)

Justification for the proposed amendment

It is necessary to update the lists of products eligible for an exemption or reduction in dock

dues, specifically lists A and B from Annex I, to reflect the annual changes to the Combined

46 Rapport d’évaluation intermédiaire des réductions d’octroi de mer et non assujettissement à l’octroi de

mer dans certaines RUP françaises pour la période 2022-2027, October 2025 – drawn up on the basis of

data from FARE and INSEE submitted to the Commission on 31 October 2025. 47 The Combined Nomenclature (CN) is a tool for classifying goods, set up to meet the requirements of

the Common Customs Tariff (CCT) and the EU's trade statistics. It builds on the World Customs

Organization's Harmonized System nomenclature. 48 Sources : rapport d’évaluation intermédiaire des réductions d’octroi de mer et non assujettissement à

l’octroi de mer dans certaines RUP françaises pour la période 2022-2027, October 2025 – drawn up on

the bais of data from FARE and INSEE submitted to the Commission on 31 October 2025.

18

Nomenclature (CN). Updating the lists will provide clarity on the taxation of all goods

each year.

The aim is to introduce a simple and reliable procedure for updating lists A and B under the

scheme without needing to wait for the expiry of the Decision. This should be done by

conferring delegated powers on the Commission so that the lists can be updated each year once

the EU’s Combined Nomenclature has been updated. This will prevent local products eligible

for the exemptions over the life of the scheme, from being excluded as a result of a change in

the customs nomenclature. It will also ensure that the measures remain relevant and effective

without the need for repeated legislative intervention.

Furthermore, the scheme should adapt to economic and market changes in the OR. Since the

current product list was adopted, local production structures and market conditions have

changed, creating opportunities in innovation, technological modernisation, and the circular

economy. However, local producers still face structural disadvantages such as remoteness,

insularity, small markets, reliance on imported inputs and higher costs.

To remain relevant, the scheme needs enough flexibility to include additional local products

where this helps sustain or develop production, particularly in strategic, innovative sectors that

support the EU’s industrial goals. Expanding the list therefore helps local businesses respond

to new demand, encourage innovation and strengthen regional resilience. For these reasons, the

list of products eligible for a tax differential is expanded by 22 new CN product codes.

• For Guadeloupe a new tariff code for plastics and articles was added (39211100).

• For Martinique the following tariff codes were added: animal products (0209 10),

wood and articles of wood (4404 10 00, 4411 94 90), glass and glassware (7005, 7007

29 00).

• For French Guiana the following tariff codes were added: rice (1006 30 98, 1006 30

99, 1006 40 00), wood and articles of wood (4410 11 90, 4411 94 90), articles of paper

and paperboard (4819 10 00) and products of chemical or allied industries (3506 99 00,

3808 92).

• For Reunion the following tariff codes were added: vegetables (0714 20 90), animal

products (0511 91 90), fats and oils (1517 90 91), paper and paperboard articles (4819),

chemicals (2804 30 00, 2811 21 00), cement (2523 29 00) and articles of iron and steel

(7306 90 00).

The duration of the scheme is proposed to be extended until 31 December 2030 in order to

provide legal certainty to economic actors in the OR and continue supporting the

competitiveness of goods produced locally.

This amendment is targeted and limited in scope, and it applies exclusively to the five French

OR covered by the Council Decision. The amendment does not introduce substantive policy

changes, but instead adapts existing legislation on a specific, targeted issue without affecting

the EU’s broader objectives.

Expected positive impact

Overall, the proposed amendments proposed will offer legal clarity for the French OR’

authorities and businesses when it comes to the application of the dock dues scheme. As stated

above, the extension of the scheme until 2030 will also bring predictability and legal certainty,

allowing businesses to make longer-term decisions on investments in the OR.

19

The impact of the tax differential on the dock dues scheme will continue to be evaluated by

both the European Commission and the relevant French and local authorities, including

through an evaluation report to be submitted to the Commission by 30 September 2028.

The update of CN codes in the list of goods eligible for a dock dues

differential will ensure consistency with the latest classification of the Common Customs

Tariff nomenclature without having additional economic impacts apart from the positive ones

derived from having legal certainty. The CN codes to be added to the scope of the Council

Decision will enable new local products to benefit from for lower dock

dues rates, supporting the diversification and development of the OR’ economies and

compensating for additional production costs. It is too early to assess the specific economic

impact of the addition of these product codes as the volume of new production is not certain

yet. However, the impact of the addition of the 22 new product codes will be assessed by France

in its new evaluation report to be submitted to the Commission in 2028. Previous evaluation

reports from France and the Commission Staff Working Document49 accompanying the

Proposal to amend Council Decision No 940/2014/EU from 2021 have shown an overall

positive impact on the addition of new products in the past.

In Guadeloupe, the measure is expected to support local production of insulation products.

The measure would be likely to have a minor impact at sectoral level on the proportion of

imports subject to the differential dock dues rate. Furthermore, the measure concerns a sector

already facing significant additional costs while unable to benefit from the application of a

differential dock dues rate. The introduction of such a differential is therefore vital for enabling

production to diversify.

In Martinique, the measure is expected to support different sectors faced with additional costs:

• Meat sector: the list of products derived from meat processing will be expanded in

order to diversify production. This measure would be likely to have a limited impact

at sectoral level on the share of imports covered by the dock dues differential. The

measure also concerns an industry with significant additional costs that is unable to

benefit from the application of a dock dues differential, making it necessary to

introduce such a differential to allow production to diversify.

• Manufacturing sector: intermediate consumer products from the forest-based

industry, intended for construction will be added, including wood -derived products,

fibreboard of wood or ligneous materials, float glass and laminated safety glass. This

measure is expected to cover all current local production but would also significantly

increase the share of imports covered by the dock dues differential. The measure

concerns both a strategic sector (construction) and an industry with significant

additional costs that is unable to benefit from the application of a dock dues differential,

making it necessary to introduce such a differential to allow diversification of

production to diversify.

In French Guiana the measure is expected to support several sectors facing additional costs:

• Rice sector: until 2007 local rice production covered 90% of domestic needs. In

addition, a large proportion of the harvest was exported outside the EU, mainly to Haiti.

Today, due to market trends and constraints rice is no longer produced in French

49 SWD(2021) 44 final.

20

Guiana, apart from a small line of artisanal production based on traditional methods.

This measure will therefore contribute to food security and economic diversification

in the region.

• Manufacturing sector: intermediate consumer products from the forest-based

industry intended for construction will be added, in particular boards of wood and

fiberboard of wood or other ligneous materials, such as mycelial panels, made from

recognised locally grown fungal strains, the measures proposed will. The measure is

expected to support this activity.

• Manufacturing sector: the production of cartons, boxes and cases of corrugated paper

or paperboard will be included. The measure would be expected to increase the share

of imports covered by the dock dues differential, addressing additional costs faced by

local producers.

• Prepared glues and other prepared adhesives and fungicides sector: the measure

will support the research and development efforts for new applications of local raw

products, by and would be expected to slightly increase the share of imports covered

by the dock dues differential, thereby compensating the additional costs faced by the

local industry.

In Réunion the proposed amendments will have a positive impact in several areas:

• Root products sector: major investments have already been made, in particular in

sweet potato, which is already being produced locally. The measures would be expected

to leverage the effect of these investments.

• Seafood sector: this highly competitive market has well-established players along the

entire value chain, from fishing to distribution. The measure would help to address

difficulties faced by the local processing industry which has to compete with importers

who offering products that have processed at a lower cost.

• Vegetable oils: the measure will help rise to the challenge of increased imports of

vegetable oils and support emerging local production for the food services market.

• Local trades: the measure is expected to support the diversification of local production,

for example through the manufacturing of bags from reels of kraft paper and to the

assembly and printing of those bags.

• Industrial gas production: the EU has only one gas production plant in the Indian

Ocean region, specifically in Reunion which serves a pharmaceutical packaging centre

to for filling bottles for remote or mobile use (e.g. in hospitals). The measure is expected

to maintain this activity which is vital for the health care system of the region.

• Cement sector: demand for cement in Reunion has been falling steadily for many years

and reached a historic low level in 2024 when total consumption was barely

279 000 tonnes consumed (compared with 420 000 tonnes in 2014, i.e. a decrease of

more than 33%). The only producer on the island has struggled to compete with non-

EU producers. This measure is justified as it would help the industry in the region which

has faced significant additional costs while being unable to benefit from the application

of the dock dues differential.

21

• Iron and steel sector: there only one manufacturer of ventilation equipment on

Réunion. It works in partnership with numerous specialist fitters, supporting economic

activity across several links in the construction sector’s value chain. The measure is

intended to safeguard the future of the local sector in the face the loss of market share.

It is justified by the existence of additional costs prior to the application of the

differential in dock dues, which the latter serves to offset.

5.2. Measure 2 – Agriculture: eligibility of tropical root products under

the common market organisation (CMO) for agricultural products

Context

Regulation (EU) No 1308/201350 of 17 December 2013 established a common organisation of

the markets in agricultural products and repeal Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC)

No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 [Common organisation of the markets

(CMO) – Annex I.].

However, several agricultural products which are everyday foodstuffs in the EU OR are

produced domestically and traded together with fruit and vegetables, even though they are not

fall considered fresh or processed fruit and vegetables sectors as defined in under Article 1(2)

points (i) and (j) of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. As a consequence, those

products are ineligible for support under granted to operational programmes implemented of

producer organisations in the fruits and vegetables sectors under Title III, Chapter III, Section

2 of Chapter III of Title III of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 on CAP strategic plans51.

Given that the production and marketing of these products is not currently organised through

producer organisations, publicly available data on production is very limited. Below is data

below from the French Ministry of Agriculture which, while not presenting the total

production level, shows the volumes effectively marketed quantities, while not the full level

of production52 53:

Categories Developed area (ha)

Yield (100

kg/ha)

Harvested production (tonne)

Production destined for

processing (tonne)

2022 2023 Index 23/22 2022 2023 2022 2023 Index

23/22

2022 2023 Index

23/22

Tubers, roots and bulbs of tropical origin (Dom)

Yams

Cassava

Other tubers

995

4 291

1 503

999

4 491

1 495

100,4

104,7

99,5

76

58

72

51

7 535

24 930

10 346

7 218

22 980

9 991

95,8

92,2

96,6

400

15 000

400

350

13 000

350

87.5

86.7

87.5

Total of tubers,

roots and bulbs of

tropical origin

(Dom)

6 789 6 985 102.9 42 811 40 189 93.9 15 800 13 700 86.7

Total of potatoes

and tubers

218

451

210

993

96.6 8 108 653 8 646 683 106.6

50 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 51 Regulation (EU) 2021/2115. 52 Sources: Statistique agricole annuelle (SAA)-2022 2023 final. 53 Production in 2024 (Statistics AGRESTE) – publicly available data:

https://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/agreste-web/download/publication/publie/Chd2416/cd2024-

16_SAA2023-Definitive.pdf.

22

Concerning The 2024 IEDOM report for French Guiana mentions the levels of indicates total

root production54. The, however the IEDOM reports for the other French OR do not provide

data on tropical roots production.

(in tonnes) Yams Manioc

Guadeloupe 2 182 639

Martinique 1 118 170

French Guiana 2 500 13 000

Réunion 0 253

Mayotte

Saint Martin

272

No data

8 670

No data

Production in 2024 of yams and manioc in the French OR55

The production of vegetables and tubers is estimated at around 21 000 tonnes in 2023. It is

characterised by the cultivation of manioc (17 300 tonnes), which is a cornerstone of tuber

production, not least because of its importance in Guiana traditions. Manioc is grown on three

quarters of farms in the area56.

2020 2023

Traditional tuber production

Area used (hectare) 7 700 4 250

of which manioc 6 600 3 300

Production (tonnes) 38 000 17 300

of which manioc 32 300 13 200

Number of farm holdings 4 600 N/A

A rough estimate of tropical root and tuber production (cassava, sweet potato, yam, taro, etc.)

in the French OR is provided below. Precise data is difficult to obtain, as these crops are often

subsistence-based crops and are only partially commercialised, but marketed. Nevertheless,

reliable orders of magnitude are available. Tropical root crops in the French OR are grown on

a surface area of only a few hundred hectares in the Caribbean, whereas in French Guiana they

compared with a surface area exceeding 7,000 ha (around 23% of utilised agricultural area).

French Guiana (by far the largest producer)

• Cassava is the traditional staple food (‘couac’ flour made from cassava root)

• Large agricultural areas with parcels (over 7,000 ha in total) are dedicated to

producing roots and tubers

→ French Guiana is the only OR where root crops are a core pillar of the

agricultural sector.

Mayotte (second largest producer)

• Predominantly smallholder structure

• Cassava + bananas + agroforestry systems

• A large share of proportion is subsistence farming

54 https://www.iedom.fr/Rapport-annuel-economique-de-la-Guyane-2024?lang=fr 55 Source: annual agricultural statistics, Agreste. 56 Sources: Agricultural Mementos 2021 and 2023, Agricultural Census 2020 ©IEDOM (L'Institut

d'émission des départements d'outre-mer).

23

→ Tubers represent around 20% of crop production.

Réunion (third largest)

• Agriculture dominated by sugar cane and fruit production

• Tropical roots are secondary crops (mainly sweet potato).

Guadeloupe and Martinique

• Root crops (especially yam) are historically important

• They have been progressively replaced by:

o export banana production,

o horticulture,

o imported food products.

→ Production has declined significantly over the past 30 years.

Problem identified

A key issue for agricultural policy in the French OR is that the tropical root crops are strategic

for local food security, yet only benefit from limited support under EU agricultural policy,

compared to sectors such as the banana or sugar. In addition, tropical root crops are resilient to

climate change, they require low inputs and generate high yields per hectare.

Products such as fresh and frozen manioc (cassava), yams, taro and yautia (malanga), intended

for human consumption play an important role in local agricultural systems and contribute to

food security in most French OR as stated above.

Producer organisations are true pillars of food sovereignty. However, due to the small market

size of the local markets and the limited scope for economies of scale in the OR, producer

organisations will struggle to be financially viable unless they have access to the same

operational support available toas mainland EU producers.

In the OR, the development and operation of collective structures and the action of marketing

structures is essential for increasing the volume and quality of agricultural production, for

ensuring a sufficient local food supply, for addressing local public health issues (root

vegetables have a lower glycaemic index than rice, pasta or potatoes) and for promoting the

local market.

Nevertheless, given the very small and fragmented markets of the outermost regions, producer

organisations often struggle to achieve the critical mass needed to spread fixed costs, invest in

innovation and maintain a stable budgetary balance. This leaves them highly exposed to price

volatility, supply disruptions and sudden shifts in demand. In this context, reinforcing their

resilience helps sustain local economic activity and unlock investment in sustainable,

advanced production.

Justification for the proposed amendment

For Member States to be allowed to grant support for tropical root products through the

operational programmes implemented of producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables

sector, these need to be included within the scope of the fresh and processed fruit and vegetables

sectors referred to in Article 1(2)), points (i) and (j) of the CMO- Regulation.

By including these products within the scope of those sectors would also allow for such, i.e. by

adding them to parts IX and X of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, tropical root

24

products, in their fresh stage, to state, would also be covered by the general marketing standards

for fruit and vegetables, thereby facilitating their marketing and providing consumers with

information on their origin, by including them in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013,

under parts IX and X.

It is proposed to amend Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 by including certain tropical

products in parts IX and X, as appropriate, in order to which will bring them within the scope

of the fresh and processed fruit and vegetables sectors. This will allow those products

to benefit from the relevant support schemes and, where applicable, to be subject to the general

marketing standards for fruit and vegetables.

Expected positive impact

The proposed amendment could generate a positive medium-term structuring effect in the

agricultural market for tropical root products. In fragmented and vulnerable markets, small-

scale producers often operate informally and remain outside existing schemes. This adjustment

would help bring essential local productions into clearer economic and administrative visibility,

strengthen their organisation, and facilitate their progressive integration into recognised

support frameworks. By creating a more coherent pathway towards eligibility, it would enable

these producers to access funding, participate in targeted actions, and improve their capacity to

respond to market, environmental and quality requirements.

A structural impact of the proposed measure is that it would likely incentivise the formalisation

of agricultural production, support the creation and recognition of producer organisations for

these products in question, improve their traceability and market integration, and strengthen

local value chains. Tropical roots crops are a key production sector in French Guiana and

Mayotte, a secondary sector in Guadeloupe and Martinique, and a marginal sector in Réunion.

These receive little support under the POSEI, despite being important for the food security and

food sovereignty in the French OR and having the potential to become even more important if

the sectors become properly organised.

In the area of food security, the proposed amendment would have a particularly significant

impact on French Guiana and Mayotte, due to their strong population growth, high food import

dependency on food imports but largely under-valued local production. The amendment could

contribute towards substituting imports and building more resilient food systems.

The estimated budgetary impact of the proposal to incorporate tropical root products into the

CMO Regulation is broadly estimated as follows, taking into account that the medium- and

long-term impact would depend on the pace and scale of the uptake of producer organisations:

- In the short-term the impact would be limited due to the low levels of marketing of

production and weak structuring of the sector into producer organisations in the main

producing OR. Any increase would be gradual and conditional on improvements in

structuring.

- In the medium-term, better structuring → may lead to greater marketing of production

(vegetatively propagated crops, i.e. crops that are reproduced by the same plant such as

yams, cassava and bananas) and to gradual uptake of the producer organisation model.

→ Potential higher budgetary impact, but still moderate and controlled.

- In the long term → moderate budgetary impact, including at EU level.

25

Therefore, the budgetary consequences would be minimal to moderate as stated above, in

relation to the overall budget available to support farmers in the French OR. This measure will

also contribute to implementing the recommendation of the European Court of Auditors

(ECA)57 to diversify the agricultural sector in the OR, specifically the recommendation that

“the Commission should work with the concerned Member States to reflect on how to better

structure those sectors (e.g. producer organisations, cooperatives, associations) to efficiently

plan and sell production.”

5.3. Measure 3 – Environment: Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) for

French Guiana

Context

Regulation (EU) 2023/111558 on the making available on the Union market and the export from

the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest

degradation, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 (EUDR) was adopted on 31 May

202359 and provisions laying down due diligence obligations will start applying as of 30

December 2026. It aims to combat deforestation and forest degradation by establishing binding

rules for EU operators and traders. Furthermore, it prohibits the placing on the EU market of

certain commodities, such as cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soya, and wood, that have

contributed to global deforestation. The EUDR also seeks to incentivise the production and

trade of 'deforestation-free' products, thereby reducing the EU's impact on global deforestation

and biodiversity loss.

In the 1950s, French Guiana had a population of only 28 000 inhabitants. Its population has

since increased sharply, growing on average by 3.5% per year since the early 1980s. In recent

years, this demographic momentum has accelerated, peaking at + 5.7%, partly due to a

particularly high inflow of migrants. On 1 January 2025, the population of French Guiana was

estimated by INSEE to have reached 292 354 inhabitants. Although the rate of population

growth has since calmed somewhat, French Guiana continues to face strong demographic

pressures. Between 2021 and 2024, its population grew by an annual average of + 1%,

compared with a national average of + 0.3%. French Guiana is also one of the most dynamic

French departments with the highest fertility rates (3.1 children per woman in 2024, compared

with 1.6 in mainland France).

Demographic indicators

French Guiana Metropolitan

France

2014 2023 (p) 2024 (p) 2024 (p)

Live births 6 591 7 689 6 600 627 800

Deaths 786 1 228 1 200 627 400

Natural increase 5 805 6 461 5 400 400

57 Special report 03/2026: Specific measures to support agriculture in the EU outermost regions |

European Court of Auditors. 58 Regulation - 2023/1115 - EN - EUR-Lex. 59 Regulation was amended twice: in December 2024 and December 2025.

26

Birth rate (‰) 25.7 26.4 22.6 9.5

Total fertility rate 3.4 3.6 3.1 1.6

Life expectancy at

birth of men 76.7 75.3 76.1 80.1

Life expectancy at

birth of women 83.1 81.4 81.8 85.7

Source: INSEE population estimates and civil status statistics (p): provisional data

This long-term population growth place significant pressure on the food supply, agricultural

production and local supply chains and can be seen, for example, in the sharp rise in demand

for food products and the territory’s continued reliance on imports. Insee estimates that the

population of French Guiana could reach almost 390 000 by 2042, i.e. 115 000 more than in

2018, representing or an increase of 42% in 25 years.

The current size of French Guiana’s agricultural area, i.e. the area owned by agricultural

holdings, is around 81 000 hectares, i.e. less than 1% of the surface area of the territory, which

is 8 353 400 hectares. The proportion of the territory which is utilised agricultural area (UAA),

i.e. in active production, is by far the lowest in France, representing only 0.4% of the territory,

compared with an average of 52% for mainland France. Viewed in terms of the size of its

population, French Guiana has 13 hectares of UAA per 100 inhabitants, compared with

41 hectares per 100 inhabitants for mainland France.

Situation of agriculture 2010 2020 Evolution 20/10

Number of farm holdings 5 983 6 135 2.5%

Agricultural employment in full-time equivalent 6 883 12 658 83.9%

Share of agricultural area in the territory 0.3% 0.4% +0.1pt

Utilised agricultural area of holdings (ha) 25 345 36 429 43.7%

Average size (ha/farms) 4.2 5.9 40.5%

Source: Recensement Agricole 2020, Odeadom © IEDOM

French Guiana’s regional development plan (“Schéma d’aménagement régional – SAR”), – a

local planning document adopted in 2016, before the EUDR. – sets out the procedures, rules

and limitations regarding the expansion of the territory’s agricultural area. The SAR envisages

an agricultural area of 200 000 hectares and a UAA60 of approximately 75 000 hectares by

2030. The additional area is intended to make it possible to achieve the food sovereignty

objectives of the territory by 2040, with intermediate coverage-rate targets for 2030 of 50% for

cattle, 85% for vegetables and 92% for fruit.

Problem identified

The provisions of the EUDR could have a significant impact on domestic production and

consumption in French Guiana, where food sovereignty strategies rely on planned agricultural

clearing to meet the needs of the rapidly growing population. Due to the specific geographical

characteristics of French Guiana, the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 poses

significant challenges for the territory’s food sovereignty and the development of local

agricultural and agroforestry production.

60 Utilised agricultural area, abbreviated as UAA, is the total area taken up by arable land, permanent

grassland, permanent crops and kitchen gardens used by the holding, regardless of the type of tenure or

of whether it is used as a part of common land.

27

Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 prohibits the placing on the market and the export of commodities

and derived products produced from land cleared after 31 December 2020, even where such

clearing is legal and planned under local development documents, for local consumption. In

French Guiana, it affects cattle farming and the production of derived products, which are

essential for food security in the region, due to its geographical and economic constraints. In

addition, the Regulation may affect. some sectors that are developing in the region, such as the

‘Cocoa Guiana’ niche sector, which could contribute to agricultural diversification.

Local meat production is still far from sufficient to meet the population’s needs. In 2024, the

self-sufficiency rate for beef stands at 12%.

2000 2010 2020 2021 2024

Cattle

production

371 311 631 546 434

Coverage rate

of food

requirements

22% 16.7% 23% 17% 12%

Source: IEDOM annual report, data from annual Memento of Agreste (public statistics on agriculture, food, forestry and

fisheries)

NB: This data collected by DAAF (Department of Food, Agriculture and Forestry of French Guiana) partially cover informal

activity and do not include own consumption.

French Guiana is heavily reliant on imports of animal feed and cereals; the rise in the price of

animal feed has had an impact on livestock farming. The COVID-19 crisis left small-scale

farms particularly vulnerable. Due to the low level of local production and the limited

structuring of the agricultural sector, French Guiana still relies heavily on imports. Since 2015,

French Guiana’s imports of agricultural products have increased by more than 1.5 times and

are now worth more than EUR 150 million. This increase in imports applies to all categories

of agricultural products reflects the territory’s low rate of coverage of its own needs, in

particular for livestock products and cereals.

According to a report submitted by the Overseas Delegation of the French National Assembly

on food sovereignty of the overseas territories in 202361, between 2009 and 2019, meat imports

increased from 10 000 tonnes to around 17 000 tonnes per year, with cattle accounting for 9%

of these imports. According to estimates by local authorities, for French Guiana to meet its

needs, the forest losses required to recover agricultural land for cattle farming would amount

to approximately 8 344 hectares, i.e. only a limited proportion of the 40 000 hectares of UAA.

Justification for the proposed amendment

In response to the problem identified, the Commission proposes a targeted amendment

whereby, for the purposes of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, French Guiana would be excluded

from the territorial scope, including the customs territory as defined in Article 2(34), of that

Regulation. The purpose of this amendment is to exclude relevant products that are produced

and consumed locally in French Guiana from the application of the Regulation, or that are

61 Information report tabled by the Overseas Territories Delegation on food self-sufficiency in the

overseas territories in 2023.

28

produced in any third country and consumed in French Guiana, as well as relevant products

produced in French Guiana and exported to third countries.

At the same time, relevant products entering the EU market from French Guiana – i.e. exports

from French Guiana to the rest of the Union – would be treated as goods that have not yet been

placed on the Union market and would therefore remain subject to the EUDR’s requirements.

These flows would remain subject to strict safeguards, notably a due diligence statement (DDS)

reference number in the relevant customs declaration.

This specific treatment also takes account of the practical enforcement constraints linked to

French Guiana’s geographical situation, in particular its borders with Suriname and Brazil. The

aim of the amendment is to make a targeted adaptation reflecting the very specific situation

and challenges of French Guiana, an EU region where the UAA needs to be increased in a

planned and regulated manner to support local food self-sufficiency and food sovereignty

objectives.

As most agricultural production in French Guiana is destined for the local market, and most

relevant products within the meaning of the EUDR are produced and consumed locally within

the territory or are imported from third countries and consumed in French Guiana, the targeted

amendment would have no impact on the EU market, as it would concern relevant products

produced, imported, and consumed locally within French Guiana, as well as relevant products

produced in French Guiana and exported to third countries.

Expected positive impact

The proposed amendment would allow French Guiana to ramp-up agricultural production as

set out in its regional development plan, within a limited and regulated framework. The

products concerned, intended for the local market only, would directly support the territory’s

food self-sufficiency in view of its rapidly growing population.

The amendment would also support the development of beef and veal production, a key sector

for local food sovereignty and the local economy. Beef production accounts for more than half

of the territory’s meat production (52% in 2020) but only 217 jobs, or 2% of the regional

agricultural workforce (Agreste, 2020). As cattle farming in French Guiana is extensive and

comprises both small mixed crop-livestock farms (around 70% of farms) and larger holdings

of more than 250 hectares, the amendment would benefit farms of all sizes and contribute to

the development of a local sector that is important for food sovereignty, employment and the

resilience of local supply chains.

The targeted amendment would not call into question the environmental objectives of the

EUDR. Moreover, it would be proportionate, as it would allow planned, regulated expansion

of agricultural land in a territory where local production capacity needs to be increased to

ensure food sovereignty.

This targeted amendment would ensure that the EUDR continues to apply to relevant products

entering the EU market from French Guiana. Under the amendment, French Guiana would be

excluded from the territorial scope, including the customs territory as defined in Article 2(34),

of that Regulation. This would mean that such products would be treated as relevant products

entering the EU market. As a consequence, they would be subject to the applicable

requirements under Chapter 4 of the EUDR, including the submission of a due diligence

29

statement reference number or a declaration identifier of the Simplified Declaration, when

relevant products enter the EU market.

Likewise, relevant products moved from other parts of the EU with a view to being placed on

the market in French Guiana would be considered relevant products leaving the EU market and

would be treated as such. As a consequence, they would also be subject to the applicable

requirements under Chapter 4 of the EUDR.

The proposed amendment would allow for the effective and proportionate implementation of

the EUDR in French Guiana and would support local food self-sufficiency and food

sovereignty for a rapidly growing population. It would preserve the environmental objectives

pursued by the EUDR, while taking into account the structural constraints of the territory, in

particular its geographical situation and its borders with Suriname and Brazil.

5.4 Measure 4 – Fisheries: fishing capacity ceiling for Mayotte

Context

An important part of Mayotte’s fishing fleet is composed of artisanal pirogues (a simple dugout

boat similar to a canoe) and small-scale fishing units that require urgent modernisation and

reconstruction in the end of 2024. A derogation from the requirement to set a capacity ceiling

for vessels under 10 metres in length which target demersal and pelagic species was granted in

respect of Mayotte for this purpose until 31 December 2035. A derogation was also granted

authorising France to introduce new capacity without the withdrawal of an equivalent capacity

for the various segments in Mayotte until 31 December 2035. The damage caused by Cyclone

Chido necessitates an extension of these derogations to achieve the intended objectives. The

characteristics of the fishing fleet in Mayotte are set out in the latest Scientific, Technical and

Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) report62, on the basis of data provided by the

French authorities.

The Mayotte Chamber of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture (CAPAM) drew up a report

in March 2025 on the reorganisation and structuring of fisheries governance for 2025-2027. It

highlighted the difficulties encountered by the sector, in particular how the fleet is outdated

fleet and does not comply with safety standards, and proposed a transformation roadmap based

on food sovereignty, locally driven economic development and sustainability. The proposal to

postpone the deadline for setting the fishing capacity ceiling for Mayotte would thus fit in with

this longer-term transformation and restructuring strategy.

Much of Mayotte’s population continues to face difficult living conditions, and conditions,

while the poverty rate is alarming63. The unemployment rate, which is above 30%, is also a

major challenge. This situation highlights the importance of initiatives for creating jobs,

drawing value from marine resources, and strengthening food sovereignty. Mayotte remains

highly dependent on seafood imports, with local production covering less than 20% of domestic

consumption according to the 2026 report by Ifremer’s working group for overseas territories64.

To this end, the Mayotte public authorities have adopted a three-year plan for 2025-2027 to

support the sector by providing training and by setting up a maritime cooperative. The French

62 https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC145142. 63 77.3% of the population compared to French national average (2017 INSEE). 64 https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/01007/111871/125849.pdf.

30

authorities are committed to supporting the sustainable structuring of the sector over the

medium term.

Article 3 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 contains the amendments to Regulation

(EU) No 1380/2013 and authorised65 France to introduce new fishing capacity in Mayotte

without the withdrawal of equivalent capacity until 31 December 2025. It also provided for the

capacity ceilings for vessels under 10 meters in length targeting demersal and pelagic species

to be set only at a later stage, at the latest by 31 December 2025.

These derogations followed Mayotte’s change of status to an OR on 1 January 2014 and was

intended to support its underdeveloped fishing sector, in particular the segment comprising

vessels of less than 10 metres in length targeting demersal and pelagic species. At the end of

this transition period, capacity ceilings, expressed in gross tonnage and engine power, must be

established for the fleet segment. However, Cyclone Chido struck Mayotte in 2024, destroying

a significant part of the fleet, and requiring damaged vessels to be replaced. As a result, the

previous assessment of the fleet’s capacity needs may need to be modified.

Problem identified

Much of Mayotte’s fleet is composed of vessels of less than 10 metres which are dispersed

around the island, have no specific landing sites and still need to be identified, measured

and equipped with minimum safety equipment in order to be included in the EU fishing fleet

register. Efforts to take stock of Mayotte’s fleet are ongoing, supported by the introduction

of local regulations establishing operating permits. Cyclone Chido set back much of this

work, and the fishing sector remains poorly structured, making it difficult to make progress

with mapping the fleet. Although some vessels have now been entered in the EU fleet

register, a large number of fishers were in the process of completing these procedures when

Cyclone Chido struck. The cyclone caused catastrophic damage to Mayotte’s infrastructure,

including part of the fishing fleet and the offices of the State service responsible for sea

fishing, reducing administrative and operational capacity which is vital for completing the

fishing fleet census.

The renewal of the fleet is key to making the local fishing sector safer, more attractive and

more sustainable. The corresponding capacity must therefore be carefully assessed and

accounted for, in particular to replace the vessels destroyed by Chido. The definitive capacity

ceilings should be established by 31 December 2030 in accordance with the applicable rules

and on the basis of verified and updated fleet.

There are also specific challenges which affect the management and control of the fishing fleet

in Mayotte’s waters. First, neighbouring territories in close proximity to Mayotte carry out

limited vessel registration, monitoring and enforcement, which makes Mayotte’s own fleet

management and control more complex. In addition, access to digital tools is a challenge

complicating fleet registration and administrative compliance. If a strict capacity ceiling is set

prematurely, this could also weaken the fishing sector operating legally, thereby indirectly

aggravating the issue of illegal fishing, which is already a concern in the region. Failure to

adjust the ceiling to the post-Chido reality could prevent the legal fleet from developing in line

65 Introduced by Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No

1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy following Mayotte’s change of status to an Outermost

Region on 1 January 2014.

31

with Mayotte’s needs, while creating more scope for unreported and less controlled fishing

activities, and potentially causing greater harm to marine resources. This could seriously

undermine progress made under the common fisheries policy (CFP), including work to improve

data collection and knowledge of fish stocks.

Justification for the proposed amendment

The proposal to postpone the deadline for establishing the fishing capacity ceiling for Mayotte

until 31 December 2030 would provide additional time to complete the identification and

registration of Mayotte’s small-scale fishing fleet and to establish ceilings based on more

complete and reliable data. It would support the objectives of safety, economic viability, a

sustainable structured fishing sector and local food sovereignty.

Setting definitive capacity ceilings too early and allowing the authorisation to introduce new

capacity without equivalent withdrawal to expire would risk constraining the development and

rebuilding of the sector, including the replacement of vessels destroyed or damaged by Cyclone

Chido, and of old and obsolete vessels with safer, better-equipped vessels. Extending both

arrangements would provide sufficient time to establish capacity ceilings that accurately

represent the fleet in Mayotte, once it has recovered from the damage and setbacks caused by

Cyclone Chido.

Expected positive impact

The proposed extensions would facilitate the accurate registration of the fleet while providing

the flexibility needed to restructure the sector and renew obsolete or unsafe vessels, in the

context of the reconstruction following Cyclone Chido. They would also allow time to consult

stakeholders and carry out technical work to define appropriate standard vessel types for

assessing capacity needs, so that the fleet can develop under safe and acceptable working

conditions. The proposed extensions would give the authorities and the sector the necessary

time to complete this work properly.

By facilitating more complete fleet registration and more reliable information on legal fishing

activity, the proposed extensions could also contribute indirectly to improved monitoring of

Mayotte’s maritime areas and efforts to combat illegal fishing.

5.5. Measure 5 – Customs Duties: applicability of southern red snapper

quota in French Guiana under the Autonomous Tariff Quotas Regulation

Context

Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2720 lays down autonomous tariff preferences for certain

fishery products not available in the EU market in sufficient quantities. Southern red snapper

is one of the species that may benefit from a customs duty exemption when imported into the

EU for processing under the end-use procedure.

Southern red snapper is a strategic product for the processing industry in French Guiana. For

one operator, it accounts for 60-70% of the raw material volumes it processes, while for another

it represents 40-58% of total turnover. However, the local fleet alone cannot provide a sufficient

32

supply of fish, including southern red snapper, to sustain the viability and profitability of the

processing industry in French Guiana. This is why access to southern red snapper landed in

French Guiana is essential for maintaining local processing activity and preserving the added

value it generates for the territory.

French Guiana faces specific import and processing constraints. In the French waters off French

Guiana is carried out, southern red snapper stocks are exploited by a fleet of 45 longliners

flying the Venezuelan flag, which benefit from fishing authorisations issued annually by the

European Union in accordance with Council Decision (EU) 2015/1565. Vessels holding such

authorisations are required to land 75% of their catches in French Guiana and must operate

under a contract with a processing company established in French Guiana for marketing the

sherry products caught in French waters.

Problem identified

Southern red snapper caught by a third-country vessel outside the territorial waters of French

Guiana is considered an imported product and is therefore subject to 15% duty under the

Common Customs Tariff. Southern red snapper can benefit from a customs duty exemption

when it enters the EU for processing in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2023/2720. However,

the processing operations actually carried out by factories in French Guiana do not fall within

the scope of Article 4(4) of that Regulation (listing the sufficient operations allowing products

to benefit from the tariff quotas).

The operations carried out in French Guiana are cleaning, gutting, tailing, heading, cutting into

rings and cutting into slices. Such processing is insufficient to allow products to benefit from

the autonomous tariff quotas of the Regulation 2023/2720 as laid down in Article 4(4). As a

result, southern red snapper imported into French Guiana for local processing

cannot benefit from the relevant tariff exemption. The application of the 15% duty makes

processing red snapper in French Guiana less competitive than in neighbouring countries.

There is a structural competitive imbalance and by the dependence of the local processing

sector on southern red snapper prices. The CARIFORUM preferential free trade agreement

allows products from Suriname where production costs, including labour, energy, packaging

and transport, are significantly lower than in French Guiana. Experience – to benefit from a

0% duty. In addition, experience shows that when prices exceed a certain threshold, consumers

turn away from local southern red snapper, resulting in reduced sales and weakening the sector.

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the waters of French Guiana is an

additional aggravating factor, alongside the lower cost in neighbouring countries, of

landing, processing and marketing fish caught from the same stocks. As a result, this means

that French Guiana is penalised twice, first through illegal fishing in its waters and, second

through competition from products processed in neighbouring countries obtained from the

same stocks.

Justification for the proposed amendment

33

In response to these concerns, it is proposed to amend Council Regulation (EU) 2023/2720 by

introducing a derogation from the minimum processing requirements for fresh and chilled

southern red snapper caught in France’s EEZ by third-country vessels and imported into French

Guiana for processing and consumption locally. The derogation would allow 1 500 tonnes per

year of southern red snapper to benefit from the tariff exemptions laid down in this Regulation

under quota number 09.2746.

Expected positive impact

The autonomous tariff quota for southern red snapper provided for in Regulation (EU)

2023/2720 is set at 1 500 tonnes per year. Fish landing data shows that operators in French

Guiana are able to use almost two-thirds of this quota. For example, in 2025, two of the three

operators together imported 958 tonnes of southern red snapper, while the forecast for 2026 for

all three operators is around 945 tonnes. If activity returns to the high levels seen before the

COVID-19 crisis, southern red snapper volumes could match or even exceed the 1500-tonne

quota.

According to the French authorities, in May 2026, import costs since 2023 were estimated at

EUR 13 million for the processing industry in French Guiana, of which customs duties account

for EUR 1.95 million. The proposed exemption would therefore be expected to have a positive

impact on the competitiveness and profitability of French Guiana’s processors, in particular

processors of southern red snapper, as well as on sectoral added -value, and on the

maintenance and creation of jobs in the sector and related activities.

In terms of impact on employment, the proposed exemption would directly support the three

operators directly that process southern red snapper and which employ around 100

permanent staff. It would also indirectly support more than 800 fishers active in French

Guiana’s fishing industry, as well as related sectors such as handling, transport, logistics,

maintenance, refrigeration, and marketing.

The exemption will level the playing field for French Guiana and help to ensure a fair

competition while building up the resilience of this strategic sector. It would help to keep

the market price of southern red snapper at a level compatible with international competition.

The exemption would also help rebalance marketing conditions for southern red snapper,

bearing in mind that fish obtained from illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in the

waters of French Guiana is regularly landed, processed and marketed in neighbouring

countries at a lower cost.

Overall, the exemption will help to maintain the southern red snapper processing industry in

French Guiana, thereby preserving direct and indirect employment, strengthening

competitiveness in the face of international competition, safeguarding local food sovereignty

and ensuring the sustainability of a sector which is strategically important to the economy of

French Guiana, that relies on fish harvested in France’s EEZ.

34

4.6. Measure 6 – Migration: Asylum procedure in French outermost regions

Context

The Pact on Migration and Asylum is a comprehensive set of rules for managing migration and

establishing a common asylum system at EU level.

They build on and amend previous reform proposals in the area of migration, offering a

comprehensive approach that aims at strengthening and integrating key EU policies on

migration, asylum, border management and integration. With firm but fair rules, they are

designed to manage and normalise migration for the long term, providing EU countries with

the flexibility to address the specific challenges they face, and necessary safeguards to protect

people in need.

Following their entry into application in June 2026, the new rules on migration and asylum

ensure that the Union has strong and secure external borders, that people's rights are

guaranteed, and that no EU country is left alone under pressure.

Problem identified

The migratory context and socio-economic conditions are specific in the French overseas

territories and regions. Moreover, while the French outermost regions (Guadeloupe, French

Guiana, Martinique, Mayotte, La Réunion, et Saint-Martin) are an integral part of the Union

and are subject to the EU asylum acquis, they do not form part of the Schengen area pursuant

to article 138 of the Schengen Convention.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 (the ‘APR’) lays down a common procedure for granting and

withdrawing international protection in the Union, including rules governing the examination

and processing of applications at the external border. While the APR applies to the French

outermost regions, certain conditions for applying the asylum border procedure are linked to

the Schengen external border framework. In particular, Article 43(1) APR links the application

of the asylum border procedure to the entry conditions laid down in Article 6 of the Schengen

Borders Code. As the French outermost regions do not form part of the Schengen area, those

entry conditions do not apply at their borders. A specific adaptation is therefore necessary to

enable the asylum procedure at the border to operate in those regions.

Moreover, prior to the application of the APR, France applied a specific procedure for

admission to the territory on asylum grounds at the border. Article 4(2), point (b), of Directive

2013/32/EU (‘APD’) allowed an authority other than the determining authority to grant or

refuse permission to enter in the framework of a border procedure, on the basis of a reasoned

opinion of the determining authority. Under the current French procedure, the Office français

de protection des réfugiés et apatrides (OFPRA) assesses the relevant elements of the

application and issues a reasoned opinion, while the Minister responsible for immigration

decided whether to authorise or refuse entry.

The APR no longer provides for this possibility. Article 4(1) APR requires Member States to

designate a single determining authority to be responsible for the examination of applications

for international protection and does not retain the derogation in favour of another authority

35

ruling on entry previously provided for under the APD. France can therefore no longer maintain

the previous mechanism whereby an authority other than OFPRA decided on admission to the

territory on asylum grounds. France has therefore requested a specific adaptation to enable the

current system to remain applicable.

A related issue arises under Directive (EU) 2024/1346 laying down standards for the reception

of applicants for international protection (hereafter the RCD), which regulates the detention of

applicants for international protection, including those who are subject to a border procedure.

It is also applicable in the overseas territories.

Under the RCD, detention may be ordered as a last resort measure, only where necessary and

proportional, based on an individual assessment of each case, only for one or more of the

exhaustive grounds provided for (which have to be laid down in national law) and only if less

coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively. The detention should not be

punitive in nature. Detention is applied on the basis of decisions issued by judicial or

administrative authorities, which are always individual decisions.

The RCD establishes an exhaustive list of seven grounds for detention of applicants. Each of

the grounds meets a specific need and is self-standing. One of this ground is ‘to decide, in the

context of a border procedure in accordance with Article 43 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, on

the applicant’s right to enter the territory’. As the proposed procedure in the French outermost

regions would constitute a specifically adapted procedure for admission to the territory, an

adaptation is also necessary to allow this detention ground to apply in the context of that

procedure.

Any adaptation must nevertheless preserve the relevant procedural and fundamental-rights

safeguards established by the APR and the RCD, including the right to an effective remedy

against a refusal of admission. Detention must remain a measure of last resort, based on an

individual assessment and subject to the requirements of necessity and proportionality, and may

only be used where less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively.

Justification of the proposed amendment

The proposed amendments would address the specific legal, geographical and migratory

circumstances of the French outermost regions. While the APR applies in these regions, they

do not form part of the Schengen area. France has therefore requested a specific framework

allowing a procedure for admission to the territory on asylum grounds to operate at the borders

of its outermost regions, adapted to their particular situation.

These regions are particularly exposed to migratory flows due, inter alia, to their geographical

location, insularity and regional attractiveness. They have also pointed to the more limited

infrastructure available to manage significant numbers of asylum applicants and to the difficult

socioeconomic situation of these territories, including pressures on public services. These

pressures are reflected in recent asylum figures. French Guiana registered almost 8 700 asylum

applications in 2024, an increase of 26% compared with the previous year, while Mayotte

registered 1 825 applications during the first seven months of 2026, compared with 260 in

2025.

36

These circumstances require an effective procedure allowing the authorities to assess, before

authorising entry, whether an application is inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, in particular

in light of the limited infrastructure available for keeping applicants at the disposal of the

authorities during the procedure. The admission procedure allows OFPRA to issue its opinion

within two working days, since the examination at this stage is limited to whether the

application is inadmissible or manifestly unfounded. It therefore provides for a rapid initial

assessment at the border while ensuring that applications which require further examination

are subsequently examined on the territory under the ordinary asylum procedure.

The amendment would also allow France to maintain the division of responsibilities that

existed under the APD. OFPRA would retain responsibility for the assessment of the asylum-

related elements of the case and issue a reasoned opinion, while another authority designated

by France could grant or refuse authorisation to enter on the basis of that opinion. The

adaptation would therefore preserve the role of the determining authority in assessing whether

an application is inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, while allowing the decision on

admission to be taken by another designated authority.

The amendment would also allow the detention ground provided for in the RCD to apply in the

context of the specific procedure. This would not create a new ground for detention. Any

detention would remain subject to the conditions and safeguards laid down in the RCD,

including individual assessment, necessity and proportionality, and the requirement to consider

less coercive alternatives.

The proposed procedure would remain subject to the relevant guarantees established by the

APR and the RCD.

Expected positive impact

The proposed targeted amendments would provide legal certainty concerning the procedure

applicable to applications for international protection made at the borders of the French

outermost regions following the entry into application of the Pact.

It would allow France to operate an asylum procedure at the border adapted to the non-

Schengen status and specific geographical and migratory circumstances of its outermost

regions. The measure would strengthen France's capacity to manage applications for

international protection at the borders of these regions effectively, while safeguarding access

to international protection and the procedural and fundamental-rights guarantees established

by the Pact.

In its overseas territories, France would have the possibility to detain applicants for

international protection in order to decide on the applicant’s right to enter the territory, hence

for the same purpose as in mainland France at its external borders, under the same conditions

and with the same guarantees for applicants. It would therefore help France in securing its

external borders in the overseas territories.

37

5. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

The Commission’s proposal for a regulatory package under Article 349 TFEU for adoption in

September 2026, comprises two legal acts, in line with the different types of legislation

concerned: a Commission proposal for a Council Decision on dock dues in the French OR; and

a Commission proposal for a Council Regulation, which covers amending the following pieces

of legislation: (i) the Common Market Organisation Regulation, (ii) the EU Deforestation

Regulation, (iii) the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation, (iv) the Autonomous Tariff Quotas

for certain fishery products Regulation and (v) migration.

Through this regulatory package, the Commission is proposing a set of targeted measures to

unlock the OR’ competitive potential, remove bottlenecks in some targeted areas, promote

growth in the OR and improve their access to the single market.

The amendments are very limited in scope and have a clearly defined target. In terms of

geographical coverage, measure 2 applies to the nine OR, measure 1 applies to five French OR,

measures 3, 4 and 5 target apply each to a single OR and measure 6 applies to the French OR.

The scope of the amendments is also very limited, both in terms of sectors covered and

timeframes. The amendments do not imply any substantive policy changes and will have a

minimal impact on the Member States’ achievement of the objectives of the underlying EU

sectoral legislation and on the EU overall.

By contrast, the amendments proposed in the regulatory package to be adopted in September

2026 will have a direct positive impact specifically on the fishing sector in Mayotte and French

Guiana, on producers of tropical crops and producers organisations in all OR, on farmers, food

production and food security in French Guiana in the context of a growing population, on local

producers and regional administrations in five of the French OR (Guadeloupe, French Guiana,

Martinique, Réunion and Mayotte) and on migration management in the French OR.

The follow-up actions identified in the new EU strategy for the OR to be adopted in September

2026, which include carrying out further legislative revisions, strengthening cooperation

between the Commission and the OR, and providing EU funding under the next MFF, will

continue to bring further concrete benefits for the inhabitants of the OR, SMEs and local and

regional administrations.

Next steps

The regulatory package adopted in September 2026 is intended to be part of a continuous

process and does not preclude either the Commission or the EU co-legislators from taking

further measures at sectoral level to address the specific constraints of the OR. Examples of

this can already be cited, such as the Commission’s recently adopted proposal to review the EU

Emissions Trading System66, which extended until 31 December 2035 the existing aviation and

maritime derogations and took account of the specific waste-management constraints in the

OR.

Other EU sectoral legislation relevant for the OR is currently undergoing sectoral legislative

revision, allowing potential impacts in the OR can be assessed and, where necessary, addressed.

Specific examples that can be cited include the ongoing revision of the General Block

66 COM(2026) 616 final, 17 July 2026.

38

Exemption Regulation67 and the 2014 guidelines on State aid for airports and airlines, the 2029

revision of the guidelines for State aid in the fishery and aquaculture sector68, and the

traceability rules in the area of fisheries control.

In line with Article 349 TFEU, the Commission will continue to ensure that the specific

characteristics of the OR are also given appropriate consideration in any relevant future EU

legislation and initiatives that impact the OR.

67 Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid

compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty Text with EEA

relevance. 68 C/2023/1598 - Guidelines for State aid in the fishery and aquaculture sector | EUR-Lex.

39

ANNEX I – SYNOPSIS REPORT OF THE CONSULTATIONS

Introduction

In the context of a new strategy for the outermost regions (OR), announced in the

Communication of the mid-term review of cohesion policy in April 2025, and its inclusion in

the 2026 Commission Work Program (CWP), the Commission carried out a number of

consultation activities on a new strategy for these EU regions, accompanied by a regulatory

package for the EU outermost regions (OR).

The feedback has been gathered through open and targeted consultations with relevant national

and regional authorities and a broad range of stakeholders:

• targeted consultations with the presidents of the outermost regions, the responsible

ministers of their Member States and the respective public administrations, including

consultation letters sent by Executive Vice-President for cohesion and reforms to

the OR Presidents and ministers of their Member States in May 2025.

• a High-Level Forum for the outermost regions held on 18 November 2025 in

Brussels, under the chairmanship of Executive Vice-President for cohesion and reforms

and with the presence of the Commissioners responsible for transport and tourism,

fisheries, and agriculture.

• a call for evidence collecting stakeholders’ views on and suggestions for the strategy

and the regulatory package for the outermost regions, open from 17 November 2025

to 12 January 2026.

• an Implementation Dialogue with business representatives, sectoral organisations and

the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) held on 21 April 2026.

The input of these consultation activities has been taken into account when drawing up both

the OR strategy and the regulatory package. Whenever needed, additional targeted

consultations were carried out to gather additional data and information to support the design

of the strategy and the regulatory package.

1. Targeted consultation letters sent by Executive Vice-President of cohesion and

reforms to the OR Presidents and the responsible ministers of their Member

States

The design of the new Strategy for the outermost regions started with targeted letters in May

2025 from the EVP of cohesion and reforms to the Presidents of the outermost Regions and the

respective national Ministers. This allowed for better matching with regional priorities.

All nine EU outermost regions (OR) and their Member States (France, Portugal, and

Spain) provided contributions to the targeted consultation by third quarter 2025. France and

Spain submitted additional contributions in the following months as support to their original

responses with statistical and factual evidence.

40

There is consensus for a stronger application of Article 349 TFEU and systematically adapt

EU policies and legislation to their specific geographic and structural constraints, specifically

calling for:

• Simplified funding and tailored support: easier access to EU funding through

simplified procedures, dedicated calls, adapted eligibility criteria, and continued

technical assistance initiatives to support project design and implementation.

• Competitiveness, connectivity and social cohesion: stronger integration into the

Single Market through improved air, maritime and digital connectivity, dedicated

transport support mechanisms, and measures to ensure that EU climate policies do not

increase isolation or costs. Particular attention to tackle poverty, inequality and high

living costs, while improving access to housing, healthcare, education, training and

quality jobs.

• Sustainable agriculture, fisheries and food security: reinforced support for local

food production, agricultural diversification, agroecological transition, resilient supply

chains, sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. This includes preserving and

strengthening Programme of Options Specifically relating to Remoteness and Insularity

(POSEI), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and European Maritime, Fisheries

and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), establishing a dedicated POSEI-Fisheries

programme, supporting fleet modernisation, combating Illegal Unregulated and

Unreported fishing (IUU), and promoting food sovereignty and rural employment.

• Flexible regulatory and fiscal frameworks: maintaining tailored State aid, taxation

and regulatory measures, including existing tax regimes, to compensate for the

permanent structural disadvantages faced by OR.

• Energy transition, digital resilience and innovation: accelerating renewable energy

deployment and energy self-sufficiency, developing local value chains and skills,

improving broadband, submarine cable and satellite infrastructure, strengthening

cybersecurity, and positioning OR as innovation hubs through dedicated research

opportunities and more flexible State aid rules.

• Strategic role, migration and regional cooperation: recognising OR' geopolitical

importance in EU defence, security and space policies, strengthening support for

migration management and regional authorities, and fostering cooperation, trade and

connectivity with neighbouring countries.

2. High-Level Forum for the outermost regions

The High-Level Forum for the outermost regions took place on 18 November 2025 in Brussels,

under the chairmanship of Executive Vice-President for cohesion and reforms. It marked a

key milestone in the definition of the priorities of the new strategy and the regulatory package.

2.1 Opening Session

The EVP reaffirmed his commitment towards the outermost regions, highlighting the

importance of tailoring EU policies and legislation to their specificities, in line with the Treaty.

Calling the forthcoming strategy a “true turning point in the partnership between the European

41

Union and its outermost regions”, the EVP also stressed the key role of these regions in the

current geopolitical context as the EU’s ambassadors in the world.

The Commissioners responsible for Agriculture and Food, Fisheries and Oceans, and

Sustainable Transport and Tourism addressed the challenges facing the outermost regions

in their respective fields. European Parliament Vice-President called for a renewed focus on

Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and highlighted the

uniqueness of the forum – an unprecedented occasion bringing together the EVP and three

Commissioners in support of the outermost regions, alongside the European Parliament and

the Committee of the Regions. The French Minister delegate for EU affairs and the Spanish

and Portuguese secretaries of state for European Affairs expressed their high expectations

as regards the strategy and the regulatory package and underlined their willingness to support

the Commission during the drafting process. The event was brought to a close by the President

of Guadeloupe, who currently holds the presidency of the Conference of Presidents of the

Outermost Regions (CPRUP).

2.2 Plenary Working Session

During the Plenary Working Session, the Presidents of the nine outermost regions expressed

concerns regarding the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). They stressed the need

for tailored investment and support, highlighted the diminishing role of regional authorities in

the proposed framework, and called for the systematic application of Article 349 TFEU. They

also underscored the strategic role of the outermost regions in safeguarding the EU's presence

in key global regions and drew attention to the growing influence of major global powers.

Their calls were echoed by Members of the European Parliament and the European

Committee of the Regions. The Vice-President of the European Parliament called for an

“OR check” to be systematically included in impact assessments of new EU policies, as well

as for the creation of a POSEI programme for fisheries and transport. The President of the

European Committee of the Regions endorsed this initiative and called for a more structured

framework that places the outermost regions at the center of the decision-making process.

2.2.1 Outermost regions strategy

Presidents from the outermost regions emphasized that the strategy’s success depends on close

alignment with the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), warning that the current

MFF proposal risks centralisation, renationalisation and the loss of earmarked funding for the

OR, thereby weakening cohesion policy.

The regional Presidents of the Azores, Saint-Martin, Madeira, and the Canary Islands

defended maintaining earmarked funding, OR-specific instruments such as POSEI and the

creation of specific transport and renewable energy support programs. On this line, Réunion,

Guadeloupe, Mayotte, French Guiana and Martinique advocated for maintaining the full

application of Article 349 TFEU defending OR-specific treatment.

Guadeloupe, Mayotte, Saint-Martin, and French Guiana called for increased investment in

essential infrastructure and services, including water, electricity, transport, and digital

connectivity, while highlighting the potential of renewable energy to strengthen energy

42

autonomy. Réunion and the Azores further stressed the importance of food security, resilient

transport systems, short supply chains, and deeper regional integration to enhance the long-

term resilience and sustainability of the OR.

There was broad support for stronger regional cooperation and for reinforcing the geostrategic

role of the OR. Mayotte and Réunion called for closer ties with Eastern Africa, while

Martinique and Guadeloupe stressed the need to strengthen the EU’s presence in the

Caribbean in response to growing external influence. Madeira, the Canary Islands, and

Saint-Martin likewise highlighted the strategic importance of the OR, emphasizing their

contribution to the EU's geopolitical reach, resilience, and influence in their neighboring

regions.

Martinique, the Azores, and Réunion called for stronger economic development, greater

attractiveness, and demographic renewal in the OR, emphasizing the need for sustained

investment in growth, competitiveness, and local opportunities. They linked this objective to

improving infrastructure, skills and training, and access to quality jobs and services, thereby

supporting the “right to stay” and encouraging people to build their future in these territories.

2.2.2 Regulatory package

There was an overall call for a more systematic inclusion of OR-specific considerations in EU

legislation. Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, the Azores and Madeira called for

amendments to EU legislation to be grounded in the full, systematic and cross-cutting

application of Article 349 TFEU across all EU policies, arguing that it provides a sufficient

legal basis for tailored measures, derogations and positive discrimination. Mayotte called for

a dedicated OR chapter in the forthcoming Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), while

Réunion, the Committee of the Regions and the European Parliament advocated the

introduction of an “OR check” in all impact assessments for new EU legislation.

Overall, outermost regions stressed that the forthcoming Multiannual Financial Framework

(MFF) must not result in renationalisation or the loss of OR-specific instruments and dedicated

funding. Réunion, the Azores, and the Canary Islands called for a tailor-made regulatory

approach, noting that many existing and upcoming rules—including those related to the Carbon

Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), the Emissions Trading System (ETS), fisheries,

construction products, and transport—do not sufficiently reflect OR realities. They emphasised

the need to safeguard air and maritime connectivity, ensure coherence across related EU

policies, enable pragmatic derogations to unlock renewable energy potential, and ensure that

measures are co-designed with OR authorities within a strong multi-level governance

framework.

The Azores and Saint-Martin also called for the continuation of the POSEI and for ring-

fenced funding for OR under cohesion policy. Mayotte, Saint-Martin, the Azores, and

Guadeloupe further supported the creation of transport-specific programmes and targeted

policy adjustments to better address the geographical specificities of the OR.

43

3. Call for Evidence inputs – “Have your Say”

The Call for Evidence69 on both the strategy and the regulatory package was published on the

“Have Your Say” portal between 17 November 2025 and 12 January 2026. The call received

137 contributions from a total of 91 participants representing a wide range of stakeholder

groups. After the deadline, four additional contributions were submitted by email and were

also taken into consideration. This amounts to a total of 95 contributors. Some contributions

focused only on the strategy or in the regulatory package, while several contributions addressed

both.

Figure 1. Sector’s contributing to the Call for Evidence

Thirteen contributions were submitted by OR and the national governments of France,

Spain and Portugal, the Conference of Presidents (CPRUP) is also included in this group as

it represents the general interests of these regions.

In terms of participating organizations, approximately 57.9% (55 out of 95) of contributions

came from business associations and trade unions. Almost all of these are composed of SMEs,

highlighting their role in the economic structure of the outermost regions.

Organisations from mainland France provided the largest share of contributions in this group,

representing 25.5% (14 of 55) of all respondents. Among the OR, Réunion was the most

represented, accounting for 21.8% (12 of 55) of contributions, followed by the Canary Islands

with 18.2% (10 of 55) and Guadeloupe with 16.4% (9 of 55). Contributions from Martinique

represented 10.9% (6 of 55), while French Guiana accounted for 3.6% (2 of 55). There were

no business associations or trade unions contributing from the Azores, Mayotte or Saint-Martin

in this category. One contribution was submitted by a Belgian company and one by an Italian

company.

69 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/15713-Strategy-for-the-EUs-

outermost-regions_en

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/15714-Regulatory-simplification-

package-for-the-EUs-outermost-regions_en

44

Figure 2. Number of respondents from business associations by origin

Besides OR national and regional governments, and business-related associations, there were

contributions from public organisations, NGOs and individual citizens.

There was a total of 14 individual contributions, 13 from EU citizens and one from a non-EU

country, Albania. These accounted for 14.7% of all contributions and were related to company

directives, professors, scholars, and, more broadly, representatives from cultural associations.

Only two NGOs contributed: Croix Rouge France and Group SOS, a non-profit organisation

focused on improving social cohesion.

After the Call for Evidence had closed, further contacts were pursued with MS and OR to

gather additional information, evidence and data. This follow-up proved essential in

substantiating those contributions and providing a robust basis for their assessment, refinement

and eventual integration into the broader analytical and decision-making process.

3.1. Outermost regions Strategy

This section follows the final structure of the strategy. To facilitate the reader's understanding,

all collected input has been grouped and organised according to the thematic structure of the

strategy, rather than by its original source. This approach provides a clearer overview of the

findings and makes it easier to trace how the gathered evidence informed each component of

the strategy.

3.1.2. Geostrategic potential and regional integration into their neighbourhood

The contributions highlight the growing recognition of the outermost regions as EU external

borders and as gateways to key neighbourhoods in the Atlantic, Caribbean and Indian Ocean

basins. The outermost regions represent a geo-strategic asset for the entire Union.

The CPRUP and the Canary Islands, together with the French OR and business

stakeholders, called for stronger regional integration of the outermost regions with

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Italy

Belgium

French Guayne

Martinique

Guadeloupe

Canary Islands

La Réunion

France

45

neighboring third countries through concrete EU action under the “Greater Neighborhood”, to

boost competitiveness, support economic diversification and enhance regional integration.

Key proposals include reinforced territorial cooperation through INTERREG programmes,

alignment of production standards, improved waste management, tailored trade policies and

migration partnerships, alongside flexible OR-specific funding and regulatory frameworks.

The blue economy is identified as a strategic driver in this context, particularly for maritime

security and combating illegal fishing.

3.1.4. Competitiveness and enhanced access to the Single Market

Improving competitiveness and ensuring effective access to the Single Market for the OR is an

urgent priority, given the persistent structural constraints and limited diversification that

systematically disadvantage their businesses compared to mainland counterparts.

The CPRUP, Spain, Madeira, the Canary Islands, and several OR business associations

have jointly called for targeted tax and customs adaptations—including VAT exemptions, duty-

free access to industrial inputs, and simplified customs procedures—alongside SME-friendly

regulatory frameworks, such as higher de minimis aid ceilings, adapted competition rules, and

streamlined access to EU funding. In parallel, they advocate for smart specialisation strategies

designed to capitalise on OR-specific assets, particularly in sectors such as renewable energy,

agri-food innovation, and the blue economy.

Building on those demands, Réunion, Guadeloupe and French Guiana, have placed

particular emphasis on the need for stable and ring-fenced EU funding, especially through an

expanded and more flexible POSEI programme, complemented by new compensatory

mechanisms for fisheries and transport.

3.1.5. Resilience and preparedness

Resilience and preparedness feature prominently across the consultation, reflecting the

outermost regions’ high vulnerability to climate change, natural hazards and external shocks.

The CPRUP, Martinique, Mayotte, the Canary Islands, and several individuals and

business stakeholders stressed the need to strengthen the regions’ capacity to anticipate,

absorb and recover from disruptions, such as cyclones, sargassum proliferation, supply chain

shocks, energy price volatility or water resilience.

Contributors identified energy transition and security as key priorities, calling for tailored

solutions for non-interconnected systems to support renewable energy, security of supply and

affordability. They also stressed the need to strengthen regional value chains, transport

connectivity and food systems to enhance resilience, competitiveness and market integration,

while supporting broader EU strategic objectives such as crisis preparedness, secure transport

routes and combating illegal trafficking.

3.1.6. Social fairness and supporting people

Contributions strongly highlighted the need to prioritise social fairness through inclusive

support that addresses deep-rooted inequalities in access to essential services, including

housing, healthcare, education, transport and employment. Systematic policy adaptation,

46

including under Article 349 TFEU, remains essential to strengthening social cohesion and

territorial sustainability, while ensuring that no community is left behind.

There was a broad and recurring demand for a more adapted cohesion policy. Spain, Portugal,

the Azores, Madeira, the Canary Islands, Martinique and Saint-Martin called for

maintaining higher co-financing rates, introducing more flexible eligibility criteria, and

securing dedicated regional funding. These measures are seen as necessary to enable tailored

social investment and to address persistent structural challenges.

In this context, the CPRUP, Mayotte, and a wide range of cultural and youth associations

across the OR also strongly emphasised the importance of youth inclusion, skills development

and social convergence. They called for increased support for education, youth initiatives,

employment and housing programmes in the OR. They also underlined the need for capacity-

building, simplified access to EU funding, and greater investment in training, entrepreneurship

and measures targeting young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs).

3.1.7. Maximising the impact of EU policies, funds and programmes in the

outermost regions

a.) administrative and technical capacity

The need to strengthen administrative and technical capacity emerged as a cross-cutting issue

in the contributions received. The CPRUP, the Azores and Madeira emphasized that financial

instruments should be simplified and that access to programmes should better reflect the

specific circumstances of the OR. The Azores and Madeira together with business

associations, also called for more direct communication with the Commission through regular

bilateral exchanges with the relevant Commission services.

In addition, different OR business associations proposed the establishment of a temporary

working group bringing together various European Commission services to help adapt EU

policies and legislation and to ensure that the OR are adequately taken into account in the next

Multiannual Financial Framework.

b.) maximising the impact of EU Funds

In the context of the forthcoming 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the

CPRUP, representing the governments of all OR, has called for their concerns to be more

systematically integrated into the design of EU legislation through tailored adaptations.

Building on this position, the CPRUP advocates a cohesion policy framework that guarantees

OR automatic access to all relevant funding instruments, irrespective of income levels, while

safeguarding regional governance through a multilevel partnership approach.

The Canary Islands and Madeira also stressed the importance of maintaining the N+3 rule,

higher co-financing rates, and dedicated OR allocations under the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+). In parallel, business

and institutional stakeholders, together with NGOs, called for the creation of a dedicated crisis-

response fund for the OR. Such a mechanism would enable a rapid response to shocks and

provide the financial flexibility needed to strengthen resilience in the face of their structural

vulnerabilities.

47

3.2. Regulatory package

Overall, the contributions to the Call for Evidence highlighted the relevance of having tailored

regulations for the outermost regions and included specific proposals for the regulatory

package. The summary of these requests presented below is organized by relevant EU policy

and regulatory topics and has been assessed for feasibility.

3.2.1. Better Regulation

The regional governments of the OR and their Member States called for strengthening the

“OR reflex” in EU law-making by systematically assessing and adapting EU legislation to the

specificities of the OR, thereby ensuring a more robust application of Article 349 TFEU. This

position was widely supported by all stakeholders, including business confederations and

individual contributors.

In this context, contributors advocated for the introduction of a dedicated OR check across EU

policymaking, alongside a climate-risk test for environmental, territorial, and infrastructure-

related initiatives. These proposals aim to ensure that the specific vulnerabilities and needs of

the OR are adequately considered throughout the legislative process.

3.2.2. Transport, climate legislation and

There were several regulatory requests to make adaptations for the OR under the “Fit for 55”

package.

The CPRUP, France, the Canary Islands, Madeira, the Azores and several industrial

stakeholders highlighted the outermost regions’ dependence on air and sea transports and

requested exemptions for the ports and airports in these regions under the maritime and aviation

EU ETS Directive in order to avoid “carbon leakage” to neighboring third countries with less

stringent standards. The CPRUP, the Azores and transport-related associations also targeted

the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation, calling for exemptions for the OR in light

of their structural constraints, particularly for ports that are not connected to the continental

electricity grid and do not have sufficient local production of non-fossil electricity.

The CBAM Regulation was also addressed by CPRUP, French OR, the Canary Islands and

several industrial associations due to these regions’ heavy reliance on imported construction

materials and the consequent higher housing costs, as well as additional costs and difficulties

of building infrastructure and carrying out public works.

3.2.3. Energy

Several administrations including the CPRUP, France, and Madeira called for the

adaptation of energy legislation to reflect the specific conditions and limitations of the OR.

Key demands included making OR projects explicitly eligible under the Connecting Europe

Facility (CEF) for energy and the Trans-European Network for energy (TEN-E)

framework, creating adapted geographical corridors, introducing OR subcategoriesin relevant

programs adjusting size thresholds, and increasing co-financing rates.

48

France, Madeira, French Guiana and several energy companies located in the OR have

called for exemptions or adaptations under the latest revision of the Renewable Energy

Directive (RED III), particularly for biomass power plants, in order to allow electricity

production in the OR to benefit from a zero-emission factor under the EU ETS framework.

Current rules create a mismatch between biomass sustainability rules and the EU ETS

framework, which does not recognise OR-specific flexibilities. As a result, adapted criteria

cannot be applied under ETS monitoring and reporting rules.

The revised RED further tightens sustainability requirements for biomass, increasing ETS-

related costs and potentially undermining the viability of key projects for energy security and

energy transition in the OR.

3.2.4. Environment

Contributions targeted several areas: forestry, waste, water and environmental evaluation.

France, French Guiana, and OR-based companies have called for an exemption for French

Guiana from the EU Deforestation Regulation for locally produced and consumed goods to

ensure the food autonomy of the region.

The CPRUP, France, and most OR requested adaptations on waste related directives, such as

the EU Waste Shipment Regulation, Landfill of Waste Directive and export of certain waste

Regulation.They called for flexibility and adaptation on landfill and recycling targets by

creating emergency disposal measures, regional or shared waste management mechanisms,

proximity-based exports to neighbouring third countries in order to avoid penalisation and

improve efficiency of these processes.

Regarding water use, the CPRUP, French OR the Canary Islands and the Azores called for

different adaptations in water use and wastewater treatment regulations to the specific realities

of the OR. They requested more flexibility and a reduced administrative burden to accelerate

the reuse and desalination processes to alleviate water stress. Different approaches are needed

to cover the entire water cycle and supported by dedicated financial, technical, and regulatory

measures, with greater flexibility in the implementation of EU water and environmental

policies to address the structural constraints of these regions.

3.2.5. Fisheries

Contributions called for a targeted adaptation of the EU fisheries and maritime framework to

the specific realities of the outermost regions. In particular, the CPRUP, France, Spain, the

French OR, Madeira, the Azores, and several stakeholders advocated adjustments to

Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) rules on fleet capacity and sustainable renewal indicators,

with some requests specifically requesting to expand the scope of de minimis aid and extend

eligibility to additional safety, working conditions, and efficiency improvements on existing

vessels under 12 meters. The CPRUP, French regional administrations and stakeholders

specifically requested thepostponement of the deadline for establishing a fishing capacity

ceiling in Mayotte to allow for a smoother transition and better alignment with local socio-

economic conditions.

49

There was a wide call from the CPRUP, and several OR business stakeholders for the use of

EMFAF funding for fleet renewal, fishing devices and cooperation with neighboring third

countries, while strengthening action against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

Market-related measures included granting autonomous tariff preferences for red snapper

caught by third-country vessels in French Guiana’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EZZ),

provided it is imported into French Guiana for processing and local consumption, as well as

introducing tailored customs and EU standards to support regional fisheries value chains.

3.2.6. Agriculture and food safety

Contributions called for targeted adaptations of EU agricultural, product, and food safety rules

to reflect the specific conditions of the ORs. France and several OR highlighted the need to

strengthen CAP flexibility, including through broader derogations under both pillars, improved

risk management tools, and more adapted support for agro-ecological transition,

diversification, and local production. The CPRUP and industry stakeholders emphasised the

need to revise the POSEI Regulation to enhance food sovereignty, support agricultural

diversification, and strengthen local and export-oriented value chains, including through

improved marketing standards and the promotion of the OR logo. Outermost Regions

governments also called for increased flexibility in CAP Strategic Plans and European

Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) management, including greater regional

autonomy and more adapted funding tools for small producers and distinct agricultural models.

France, Spain, and OR agricultural stakeholders further stressed the need to modernise the

sector through technological innovation, generational renewal, and support for

competitiveness, while promoting agro-ecological systems adapted to local climatic

conditions. Additional proposals included simplified trade and import procedures with

neighbouring countries, adapted plant health and food safety rules, and better access to plant

protection products for tropical and minor crops, alongside safeguards in trade agreements to

ensure fair competition and health protection.

3.2.7. State aid

The CPRUP, France, Madeira, and Guadeloupe advocated for enshrining the notion in

legislation of “aid with a purely local impact” for activities that do not affect competition within

the internal market. In parallel, Guadeloupe and OR business associations called for a more

proportionate treatment of SMEs, proposing that assessments take into account the actual size

of the undertaking in order to better reflect their specific circumstances.

The CPRUP, France, Spain, Portugal, Madeira, and several stakeholders called for the

preservation and strengthening of OR-specific derogations under State aid rules and the

General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER). They advocated for more favourable conditions

for projects in key sectors such as transport, housing, energy, tourism, and digital infrastructure.

In particular, several contributors highlighted the need to maintain and expand State aid

provisions for airports and airlines in order to safeguard air connectivity between the OR and

the rest of the Union.

50

3.2.8. Single Market

Contributions highlighted the need for targeted regulatory adaptations to better reflect the

operating conditions of the outermost regions. The CPRUP called for more flexible

administrative and public procurement rules, including higher thresholds and simplified

procedures, in order to facilitate investment, reduce administrative burdens, and improve the

implementation of EU-funded projects.

Martinique proposed the introduction of a specific certification scheme for industrial

machinery designed for tropical environments, including simplified maintenance requirements

to reduce disruptions caused by climatic conditions. The CPRUP, the Azores and Saint-

Martin underscored the need to extend support measures for SMEs and small mid-caps in the

OR, given their smaller average size and more limited administrative capacity, particularly in

relation to public procurement rules and administrative procedures.

Additional contributions called for regulatory adaptations in technical standards and statistical

frameworks to better reflect the geographical and climatic realities of the OR and support

evidence-based policymaking.

3.2.9. Taxation

Contributions advocated for EU taxation and customs reforms to address the OR structural

challenges. The CPRUP, France and French Guiana called for an update of the EU Council

Decision on dock dues (“octroi de mer”), notably to allow for annual adjustments to tariff

headings and to remove the current 5% minimum market share threshold, in order to improve

flexibility and responsiveness to evolutions in local market conditions.

The CPRUP also seeks a minimum taxation derogation to protect Madeira and the Canary

Islands’ special tax regimes, while Martinique asked for simplified or extended customs

exemptions to lower costs, bolster local supply chains and be able to compete with

neighbouring non-EU countries.

3.2.10. Cohesion policy

Many contributions call for increased flexibility under cohesion policy to better reflect the

specific constraints of the outermost regions. The CPRUP and France proposed relaxing

eligibility criteria, extending expenditure periods, increasing pre-financing rates, and adapting

thematic concentration objectives. The CPRUP also supported mandatory simplified cost

options for small local authorities. To address recurrent disasters, the CPRUP and France

called for greater flexibility under RESTORE and the EU Solidarity Fund, including extended

deadlines and higher co-financing rates for the OR.

The Canary Islands proposed the creation of a dedicated outermost regions climate adaptation

package within the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), aimed at accelerating the delivery

of resilience and disaster-prevention investments.

51

3.2.11. Education & Culture & Research

Under Erasmus+ and Creative Europe, the CPRUP, Madeira, La Réunion, French Guiana,

and different stakeholders from the cultural and education sectors called for the adaptation

of evaluation criteria for beneficiary requirements through greater use of lump sums and flat-

rate financing, the extension of mobility actions to neighbouring third countries, and increased

financial support to beneficiaries. Contributors also proposed recognising the OR as “low

audiovisual capacity areas” under the MEDIA strand of Creative Europe.

Regarding the Widening component of Horizon Europe, the CPRUP, France, and Madeira

called for its continuation and proposed allowing research entities operating in the OR, but

headquartered in mainland territories, to act as eligible project coordinators.

3.2.12. Migration

On migration, CPRUP called for a more tailored EU framework for outermost regions facing

sustained migratory pressure. It asked for developing specific indicators for the OR, greater

consideration of OR circumstances in annual solidarity reserves, more flexible screening rules

for reallocation where no suitable local facilities exist and raising the relevant age threshold

from six to fourteen.

France’s contribution referred to adaptations to the EU asylum and migration regulatory

framework to avoid incentivising irregular migration, on entry decisions and asylum

procedures, to prevent further pressure on reception systems.

Spain called for easing the transfer or redistribution of migrants, including minors, from the

OR to mainland territories to avoid disproportionate concentration in these regions and to

ensure an appropriate legal framework.

On operational support, Mayotte further proposed making its external border a permanent

structural priority for Frontex intervention and using Frontex cooperation and technical

assistance to co-finance the testing of a dedicated national or local coast guard structure in

Mayotte.

4. Implementation Dialogue

On 21 April 2026, the Executive Vice-President for cohesion and reforms held an

Implementation Dialogue with business representatives, sectoral organisations, and the

European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) to examine the challenges in EU

legislation that the micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in the outermost

regions are facing. The dialogue provided businesses with an opportunity to highlight the

obstacles arising from EU legislation, supply chain vulnerabilities, and the high costs

associated with remoteness and insularity.

A clear message emerged throughout the discussions: legislation designed for continental

markets often generates disproportionate administrative and financial burdens when applied to

remote and economically fragile territories. Participants called for a more differentiated

52

application of EU rules through targeted derogations, regulatory adaptations, and tailored

funding opportunities for the outermost regions.

One of the main issues raised by construction, industrial, and agricultural associations

concerned CBAM. The Industrial Development Association of La Réunion (ADIR), French

Guiana Livestock Industry Association (INTERVIG), Confederation of Small and

Medium-Sized Enterprises (CPME), Martinique Association for the Promotion of

Industry (AMPI), and the Chambers of Agriculture of Martinique and Guadeloupe, called

for exemptions for imports intended exclusively for local consumption, particularly essential

products such as fertilisers, cement, and steel, arguing that CBAM would increase costs in

regions already facing significant logistical disadvantages. Along the same lines, stakeholders

also called for adapted arrangements for trade with neighbouring third-world countries to

preserve regional economic integration.

Energy policy also featured prominently. ADIR, AMPI, and INTERVIG proposed

adjustments to the RED III Directive, particularly regarding biomass emissions thresholds for

non-interconnected energy systems, arguing that current standards do not reflect the realities

of isolated island grids. The Industrial Association of the Canary Islands (ASINCA), the

Canary Islands Business Confederations (CEOE) and Grupo Sousa also called for

permanent exemptions from the ETS for maritime routes serving the OR, given their structural

dependence on maritime transport.

Administrative burden was another recurring theme with business organisations, including the

CEOE and the ASINCA, urging the Commission to accelerate customs digitalisation, simplify

inspections, and streamline regulatory controls. ASINCA and CPME called for revisions to

State aid rules by increasing GBER aid intensity thresholds and introducing an "outermost

regions test" to better reflect the additional costs faced by local businesses.

Agriculture, food security, and fisheries were identified as sectors requiring particular attention.

Agriculture stakeholders such as ASPROCAN, INTERVIG, AMPI and ADIR requested

faster authorization of plant protection products and improved access to fertilisers. On this line,

the Chamber of Agriculture of Guadeloupe and ASINCA also stressed the importance of

maintaining and strengthening the POSEI Regulation. Regarding fisheries, CRPMEM and the

Chamber of Agriculture of Guadeloupe advocated for stronger market stabilization

mechanisms for fisheries and to retain a special fund for this sector in the outermost regions.

Support for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) was another priority from

business confederations, such as the CPME, FTPE and CEOE, highlighting the crucial role

that micro-enterprises play for the economic structure of the OR. They called for dedicated

guarantee funds for micro-enterprises, faster disbursement of ERDF resources, and wider use

of simplified funding mechanisms.

Overall, the dialogue demonstrated broad consensus that EU policymaking should move

beyond temporary derogations towards a more structural and consistent application of Article

349 TFEU, balancing Union-wide objectives with the specific geographic, economic, and

social realities of the outermost regions.

53

ET ET

EUROOPA KOMISJON

Brüssel, 10.9.2026 COM(2026) 661 final

2026/0261 (CNS)

Ettepanek:

NÕUKOGU MÄÄRUS,

millega muudetakse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrusi (EL) nr 1380/2013, (EL)

nr 1308/2013, (EL) 2023/1115 ja (EL) 2024/1348 ning nõukogu määrust (EL) 2023/2720

seoses teatavate nõuete kohandamise ja halduskoormuse vähendamisega liidu

äärepoolseimates piirkondades

{COM(2026) 662 final} - {SWD(2026) 661 final}

ET 1 ET

SELETUSKIRI

1. ETTEPANEKU TAUST

• Ettepaneku põhjused ja eesmärgid

Euroopa Liidu üheksa äärepoolseimat piirkonda – Guadeloupe, Prantsuse Guajaana,

Martinique, Mayotte, Réunion ja Saint-Martin (Prantsusmaa), Assoorid ja Madeira (Portugal)

ning Kanaari saared (Hispaania) – asuvad Kariibi mere piirkonnas, Lõuna-Ameerikas, Atlandi

ookeanis ja India ookeanis ning neis elab viis miljonit kodanikku.

Need piirkonnad seisavad silmitsi struktuursete probleemidega ja püsivate piirangutega oma

arengus. Neiks piiranguteks, mida tunnistatakse Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu (ELi

toimimise leping) artiklis 349, on muu hulgas kaugus, isoleeritus, kliimatundlikkus ja

majanduslik sõltuvus mõnest sektorist. Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artiklis 349 on ette

nähtud erimeetmed selliste territooriumide toetamiseks, sealhulgas ELi õiguse kohaldamine

neis piirkondades nende vajadusi arvestades ning erieeskirjad nende juurdepääsu kohta ELi

fondidele ja programmidele.

Hoolimata kõnealustest sätetest ja neile järgnenud ELi strateegiatest võivad teatavad ELi

määrused, mis on kavandatud peamiselt Mandri-Euroopa jaoks, põhjustada äärepoolseimatele

piirkondadele ebaproportsionaalset koormust. Näiteks ei pruugita põllumajandus-, maksu-,

keskkonna- ja kalanduseeskirjades täielikult arvesse võtta nende piirkondade ainulaadseid

tingimusi, mis toob neis piirkondades kaasa suuremad kulud, turumoonutused ja majanduslike

võimaluste kasutamata jätmise.

Äärepoolseimaid piirkondi käsitlevas õigusaktide paketis keskendutakse viiele peamisele

valdkonnale, kus on vaja ELi õigusakte sihipäraselt kohandada, et võtta arvesse

äärepoolseimate piirkondade eripära, tagada neile võrdsed tingimused teiste ELi

territooriumidega, vähendada nende halduskoormust ja avada nende majanduslik potentsiaal,

järgides samal ajal täielikult ELi laiemaid poliitikaeesmärke.

Käesolevas nõukogu määruse ettepanekus keskendutakse põllumajandusele, keskkonnale,

kalandusele ja rändele, nagu on üksikasjalikult kirjeldatud allpool.

Ühise kalanduspoliitika määrus

Nõukogu 17. detsembri 2013. aasta määrusega (EL) nr 1385/2013 muudeti määrust (EL) nr

1380/20131 ühise kalanduspoliitika kohta seoses Mayotte’i staatuse muutmisega

äärepoolseimaks piirkonnaks 1. jaanuaril 2014. Täpsemalt lubati Prantsusmaal määruse (EL)

nr 1380/2013 muudetud artikli 23 lõikega 4 kehtestada Mayotte’is kuni 31. detsembrini 2025

uus püügivõimsus ilma samaväärse püügivõimsuse kõrvaldamiseta. Selle sätte eesmärk oli

anda Mayotte’i piirkonnale piisavalt aega oma vähearenenud kalalaevastiku, eelkõige

põhjalähedaste ja pelaagiliste liikide püüdmiseks kasutatavate alla 10 meetri pikkuste laevade

arendamiseks. Üleminekuperioodi lõpus pidi Prantsusmaa kehtestama selle

laevastikusegmendi jaoks kogumahutavuse ja mootorivõimsusena väljendatud püügivõimsuse

ülempiiri.

1 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 11. detsembri 2013. aasta määrus (EL) nr 1380/2013 ühise

kalanduspoliitika kohta, millega muudetakse nõukogu määruseid (EÜ) nr 1954/2003 ja (EÜ)

nr 1224/2009 ning tunnistatakse kehtetuks nõukogu määrused (EÜ) nr 2371/2002 ja (EÜ) nr 639/2004

ning nõukogu otsus 2004/585/EÜ (ELT L 354, 28.12.2013, lk 22, ELI: https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1380/oj).

ET 2 ET

Katastroof, mille põhjustas tsüklon Chido 2024. aasta detsembris, on aga takistanud nende

eesmärkide saavutamist üleminekuperioodil, mistõttu on vaja erandeid pikendada. Praegusest

tähtajast (31. detsember 2025) kinnipidamine võib tarbetult piirata Mayotte’i püügivõimsust

enne, kui see taastub toimival tasemel. Püügivõimsuse piirangute kehtestamine sellises

olukorras võib kahjustada piirkonna toiduga kindlustatust, võttes eelkõige arvesse toiduainete

impordi suuri kulusid ja piiratust ning kohaliku põllumajandusliku tootmise vähenemisest

tingitud kasvavat sõltuvust kalapüügist.

Seda silmas pidades teeb komisjon ettepaneku muuta määrust (EL) nr 1380/2013 ühise

kalanduspoliitika kohta, et pikendada üleminekuperioodi kuni 31. detsembrini 2030, andes

Prantsusmaale lisaaega laevastiku püügivõimsuse õige ülempiiri kehtestamiseks Mayotte’is.

Ühise turukorralduse määrus

Äärepoolseimates piirkondades tarbitakse igapäevaselt erinevaid põllumajandustooteid. Neid

toodetakse kohapeal ja nendega kaubeldakse koos puu- ja köögiviljadega, kuigi need ei kuulu

puu- ja köögiviljade või töödeldud puu- ja köögiviljasaaduste sektorisse vastavalt Euroopa

Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EL) nr 1308/2013 (millega kehtestatakse

põllumajandustoodete ühine turukorraldus) (edaspidi „ühise turukorralduse määrus“)2 artikli 1

lõike 2 punktidele i ja j. Need tooted on loetletud selle määruse I lisa I ja XXIV osas, mis

käsitlevad vastavalt teravilja ja muid tooteid. Seepärast ei ole need tooted toetuskõlblikud

puu- ja köögiviljasektori tootjaorganisatsioonide rakendatavate rakenduskavade raames

vastavalt Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EL) 2021/21153 (ÜPP strateegiakavade

kohta) III jaotise III peatüki 2. jaole.

Sellistel inimtoiduks ettenähtud toodetel nagu värske ja külmutatud maniokk (kassaava),

jamss, harilik taro, kollavõhk, kuivatatud kookos, kollajuur ja ingver võib olla oluline roll

äärepoolseimate piirkondade kohalikes põllumajandussüsteemides ja toiduga kindlustatuses.

Selleks et liikmesriigid saaksid kõnealustele toodetele puu- ja köögiviljasektori olemasolevate

tootjaorganisatsioonide rakendatavate rakenduskavade kaudu toetust anda, on asjakohane

lisada need tooted määruse (EL) nr 1308/2013 artikli 1 lõike 2 punktides i ja j osutatud puu- ja

köögiviljade või töödeldud puu- ja köögiviljasaaduste sektori kohaldamisalasse.

Nende toodete lisamine eespool nimetatud asjaomastesse puu- ja köögiviljade või töödeldud

puu- ja köögiviljasaaduste sektoritesse võimaldaks neid värskena hõlmata ka puu- ja

köögivilja üldiste turustamisstandarditega. See hõlbustaks nende turustamist ja annaks

tarbijatele teavet nende päritolu kohta. Seepärast on asjakohane lisada need tooted määruse

(EL) nr 1308/2013 I lisa IX ja X osasse.

ELi raadamisvabade toodete määrus

2 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 17. detsembri 2013. aasta määrus (EL) nr 1308/2013, millega

kehtestatakse põllumajandustoodete ühine turukorraldus ning millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks nõukogu

määrused (EMÜ) nr 922/72, (EMÜ) nr 234/79, (EÜ) nr 1037/2001 ja (EÜ) nr 1234/2007 (ELT L 347,

20.12.2013, lk 671, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj). 3 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 2. detsembri 2021. aasta määrus (EL) 2021/2115, millega kehtestatakse

liikmesriikide koostatavate Euroopa Põllumajanduse Tagatisfondist (EAGF) ja Euroopa Maaelu Arengu

Põllumajandusfondist (EAFRD) rahastatavate ühise põllumajanduspoliitika strateegiakavade (ÜPP

strateegiakavad) toetamise reeglid ning tunnistatakse kehtetuks määrused (EL) nr 1305/2013 ja (EL)

nr 1307/2013 (ELT L 435, 6.12.2021, lk 1, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj).

ET 3 ET

31. mai 2023. aasta määrusega (EL) 2023/1115 raadamisvabade toodete kohta (edaspidi

„raadamisvabade toodete määrus“)4 on keelatud lasta ELi turule 2020. aasta järgse

raadamisega seotud tooteid. Raadamisvabade toodete määruse sätetel on märkimisväärne

mõju omamaisele tootmisele ja tarbimisele Prantsuse Guajaanas. Selles piirkonnas, kus 95 %

maast katab mets, põhinevad toidualase sõltumatuse strateegiad piiratud, sihipärasel ja

kavandatud põllumajanduslikul raiel, et rahuldada kiiresti kasvava elanikkonna vajadusi.

Kuna Prantsusmaa riikliku statistika- ja majandusuuringute instituudi (INSEE)5 prognooside

kohaselt kasvab Prantsuse Guajaana rahvaarv aastatel 2020–2030 285 000-lt 339 000-ni ja

2040. aastaks 540 000-ni, on toidualase sõltumatusega seoses ette näha pakilisi probleeme.

Sidusrühmad on hoiatanud, et raadamisvabade toodete määruse kohaste hoolsuskohustuste

kohaldamine riigisiseselt tarbitavate toodete suhtes võib takistada toidualase sõltumatuse

algatuste elluviimist, suurendades sõltuvust impordist ja seega transpordiheitest tulenevat CO2

jalajälge ja haavatavust tarnehäirete suhtes.

Nende probleemide lahendamiseks paneb komisjon ette teha sihipärane muudatus, millega

jäetakse Prantsuse Guajaana raadamisvabade toodete määruse territoriaalsest kohaldamisalast,

sealhulgas käesoleva määruse artikli 2 punktis 34 määratletud tolliterritooriumi ulatusest

välja. Selle lähenemisviisiga jäetakse raadamisvabade toodete määruse kohaldamisalast välja

tooted, mis on toodetud ja mida tarbitakse Prantsuse Guajaanas, samuti kaubad, millega

kaubeldakse Prantsuse Guajaana ja kolmandate riikide vahel, võttes arvesse praktilisi

probleeme täitmise tagamisel, sealhulgas asjaolu, et selle piirkonna ja Suriname ja Brasiilia

vahelised piirid on kindlustamata. Ettepanek sisaldab järgmisi rangeid kaitsemeetmeid.

Prantsuse Guajaanast liidu turule imporditava kauba (st vabasse ringlusse lubamise) suhtes

kohaldatakse raadamisvabade toodete määruses ette nähtud kohustusi ja nõutakse muu hulgas

spetsiaalset tollideklaratsiooni koos hoolsuskohustuse täitmise deklaratsiooni viitenumbri või

lihtsustatud deklaratsiooni tunnuskoodiga. Ka liidust Prantsuse Guajaanasse toimuva ekspordi

suhtes kohaldatakse raadamisvabade toodete määrust, sealhulgas hoolsuskohustuse täitmist ja

asjakohaseid hoolsuskohustuse täitmise deklaratsiooni või lihtsustatud deklaratsiooni nõudeid

kooskõlas raadamisvabade toodete määruse 4. peatükiga.

Varjupaigamenetluse määrus

Määrusega (EL) 2024/1348 (edaspidi „varjupaigamenetluse määrus“)6 on kehtestatud ühine

menetlus rahvusvahelise kaitse andmiseks ELis. Prantsusmaa äärepoolseimatel piirkondadel

(Guadeloupe, Prantsuse Guajaana, Martinique, Mayotte, Réunion ja Saint-Martin), mis ei

kuulu Schengeni konventsiooni7 artikli 138 kohaselt Schengeni alasse, on eriline geograafiline

asukoht ja neid mõjutavad ka suured rändevood. Varjupaigataotlejate arv nendel

territooriumidel on viimase aasta jooksul suurenenud, sh 26 % võrra Prantsuse Guajaanas ühe

aasta jooksul ja seitse korda Mayotte’is võrreldes 2025. aastaga. Sellega seoses on vaja teha

erand varjupaigamenetluse määruse artikli 4 lõikest 1, et tagada piiride tõhus kaitse, tagades

4 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 31. mai 2023. aasta määrus (EL) 2023/1115, milles käsitletakse

teatavate raadamise ja metsade degradeerumisega seotud saaduste ja toodete liidu turul kättesaadavaks

tegemist ja liidust eksportimist ning millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks määrus (EL) nr 995/2010 (EMPs

kohaldatav tekst) (ELT L 150, 9.6.2023, lk 206, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1115/2025-

12-26). 5 Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (Prantsusmaa riiklik statistika- ja

majandusuuringute instituut). 6 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus (EL) 2024/1348, 14. mai 2024, millega luuakse rahvusvahelise

kaitse ühine menetlus liidus ja tunnistatakse kehtetuks direktiiv 2013/32/EL (ELT L, 2024/1348,

22.5.2024, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1348/oj). 7 Schengeni acquis – konventsioon, millega rakendatakse 14. juuni 1985. aasta Schengeni lepingut

Beneluxi Majandusliidu riikide, Saksamaa Liitvabariigi ja Prantsuse Vabariigi valitsuste vahel nende

ühispiiridel kontrolli järkjärgulise kaotamise kohta (EÜT L 239, 22.9.2000, lk 19–62, ELI: https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2000/922/oj).

ET 4 ET

samal ajal õiguse rahvusvahelisele kaitsele kooskõlas rände- ja varjupaigaleppega8. See

võimaldab muul ametiasutusel kui menetlev ametiasutus teha menetleva ametiasutuse siduva

arvamuse alusel otsuse lubada või keelata isikul siseneda Prantsusmaa äärepoolseimatesse

piirkondadesse, et taotleda rahvusvahelist kaitset.

Ühepoolsete tariifikvootide määrus

Nõukogu määruses (EL) 2023/27209 (edaspidi „ühepoolsete tariifikvootide määrus“) on

sätestatud ühepoolsed tariifsed soodustused teatavatele kalandustoodetele, mi ei ole ELi turul

piisavas koguses kättesaadavad. Punaka riffahvena suhtes võib kohaldada

tollimaksuvabastust, kui see imporditakse ELi territooriumile lõppkasutuskorra alusel

töötlemiseks.

Guajaana tehaste töötlemistoimingud ei kuulu siiski määruse artikli 4 lõike 4

kohaldamisalasse, kus on loetletud konkreetsed toimingud, mis võimaldavad toodete suhtes

tariifikvoote kohaldada. 15 % tariifi kohaldamine jätab Prantsuse Guajaana ilma võimalustest

ja eelistest lisada punaka riffahvena töötlemisel saadud toodetele väärtust.

Seepärast on vaja konkreetset erandit artikli 4 lõikest 4, et punaka riffahvena puhul oleks

võimalik saada kasu ühepoolsetest kvootidest, eeldusel et muud käesolevas määruses

sätestatud tingimused on täidetud.

• Kooskõla poliitikavaldkonnas praegu kehtivate õigusnormidega

Komisjon on järgemööda võtnud vastu strateegiaid (2004., 2007., 2008., 2012., 2017. ja 2022.

aastal), mille eesmärk on lahendada äärepoolseimate piirkondade erivajadused ning millel on

olnud positiivne mõju nende piirkondade arengule ja territoriaalsele ühtekuuluvusele.

Viimane, 2022. aasta strateegia „Seame inimesed esikohale, kindlustame kestliku ja kaasava

majanduskasvu, avame ELi äärepoolseimate piirkondade potentsiaali“10 on täielikult

rakendatud ja andnud positiivseid tulemusi.

Siiski on äärepoolseimad piirkonnad arengu, elatustaseme ning põhivajaduste kaetuse ja

põhiteenustele juurdepääsu osas ülejäänud EList endiselt palju maha jäänud. Komisjon

kuulutas ühtekuuluvuspoliitika vahehindamist käsitlevas teatises11 (vastu võetud 1. aprillil

2025) välja nende piirkondade strateegia. Äärepoolseimate piirkondade strateegia on üks

peamisi prioriteete Euroopa Liidu olukorda puudutavas 2025. aasta kavatsusavalduses (10.

september 2025) ja see on lisatud komisjoni 2026. aasta tööprogrammi12.

Kooskõlas 2024.–2029. aasta poliitiliste suunistega13 ja nõukogu 10. märtsi 2025. aasta

järeldustega (6787/25) ühtekuuluvuse ja ühtekuuluvuspoliitika kohta pärast 2027. aastat,14

tuleb rakendada ambitsioonikat ja kohapõhist lähenemisviisi, et parandada äärepoolseimates

piirkondades elava viie miljoni ELi kodaniku elutingimusi.

8 COM(2020) 609 final. 9 Nõukogu 27. novembri 2023. aasta määrus (EL) 2023/2720, millega avatakse teatavatele

kalandustoodetele kehtivad liidu autonoomsed tariifikvoodid ja sätestatakse nende haldamine aastatel

2024–2026 (ELT L, 2023/2720, 6.12.2023, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2720/oj). 10 COM(2022) 198 final. 11 COM(2025) 163 final. 12 COM(2025) 870 final. 13 „Euroopa valik“: poliitilised suunised järgmisele Euroopa Komisjoni koosseisule 2024−2029,

Strasbourg, 18. juuli 2024. 14 Nendes järeldustes rõhutatakse vajadust avada ELis äärepoolseimate piirkondade kogu potentsiaal ning

kutsutakse komisjoni üles kasutama täielikult ära võimalusi, mida pakub ELi toimimise lepingu artikkel

349 (mille eesmärk on edendada nende piirkondade omavahelist integratsiooni), et kehtestada

kohandatud eeskirjad 2027. aasta järgses ühtekuuluvuspoliitikas ja muudes seadusandlikes

ettepanekutes.

ET 5 ET

• Kooskõla muude liidu tegevuspõhimõtetega

Strateegia ja lihtsustamispaketti käsitleva määruse ettepaneku eesmärk on edendada

territoriaalset ühtekuuluvust, aidates seeläbi kaasa sotsiaalset õiglust, konkurentsivõimet ja

jõukust käsitlevate poliitiliste eesmärkide saavutamisele.

Ettepanek on kooskõlas järgmiste määruste üldise olemasoleva õigusraamistikuga ja piirdub

iga juhtumi puhul sihipärase muudatusega.

– Määrus (EL) nr 1380/2013 ühise kalanduspoliitika kohta;

– määrus (EL) nr 1308/2013 põllumajandusturgude ühise korralduse kohta;

– määrus (EL) 2023/1115 raadamisvabade toodete kohta;

– määrus (EL) 2024/1348, millega luuakse rahvusvahelise kaitse ühine menetlus liidus;

– nõukogu määrus (EL) 2023/2720, millega avatakse teatavatele kalandustoodetele

kehtivad liidu autonoomsed tariifikvoodid ja sätestatakse nende haldamine aastatel

2024–2026.

2. ÕIGUSLIK ALUS, SUBSIDIAARSUS JA PROPORTSIONAALSUS

• Õiguslik alus

ELi toimimise lepingu artikkel 349 on ettepaneku ainus õiguslik alus. See artikkel võimaldab

nõukogul komisjoni ettepaneku põhjal ja pärast konsulteerimist Euroopa Parlamendiga võtta

konkreetseid meetmeid, mille eesmärk on sätestada nendes piirkondades aluslepingute

kohaldamise tingimused, eelkõige sellistes valdkondades nagu tolli- ja kaubanduspoliitika,

maksupoliitika, vabatsoonid, põllumajandus- ja kalanduspoliitika, toorainete ja hädavajalike

tarbekaupadega varustamise tingimused, riigiabi ning struktuurifondidele ja liidu

horisontaalprogrammidele ligipääsu tingimused.

• Subsidiaarsus (ainupädevusse mittekuuluva valdkonna puhul)

Liikmesriigid ja äärepoolseimad piirkonnad üksi ei suuda äärepoolseimate piirkondade

sotsiaal-majandusliku arengu konkreetsete piirangutega piisavalt tegeleda. Seda seetõttu, et

äärepoolseimad piirkonnad vajavad ELi tasandil valdkondadevahelisi meetmeid, eelkõige

juhul, kui nende konkreetsetel probleemidel on piirkondadevaheline ja/või riikidevaheline

mõõde või need nõuavad kehtivate ELi valdkondlike õigusaktide kohandamist ja ühtlustamist.

• Proportsionaalsus

Kavandatud meetmed puudutavad ainult üheksat ELi äärepoolseimat piirkonda, millel on

aluslepingu kohaselt Euroopa Liidu suhtes eristaatus. ELi toimimise lepingu artikkel 349

võimaldab nõukogul võtta vastu erimeetmeid ja eritingimusi ELi õiguse kohaldamiseks

äärepoolseimate piirkondade suhtes, võttes arvesse nende piirkondade struktuurilisi,

sotsiaalseid ja majanduslikke piiranguid, nagu kaugus, isoleeritus, väike pindala, rasked

looduslikud olud, kliima ja majanduslik sõltuvus mõnest tootest.

Euroopa Kohtu 2015. aasta otsuse15 kohaselt peaksid kavandatud erimeetmed olema seotud

asjaomase äärepoolseima piirkonna eriliste iseärasuste ja piirangutega. Äärepoolseimat

15 Euroopa Kohtu 2015. aasta otsuses (Euroopa Parlament ja komisjon vs. nõukogu, liidetud kohtuasjad C-

132/14–C-136/14) (nn Mayotte’i otsus) selgitati ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 349 kohaldamisala ja

kinnitati, et see on õiguslik alus nende erimeetmete vastuvõtmiseks, „mille eesmärk on võtta arvesse

äärepoolseimate piirkondade struktuurilist ühiskondlikku ja majanduslikku olukorda“.

ET 6 ET

piirkonda soosivat erinevat kohtlemist saab põhjendada ühe või mitme ELi toimimise lepingu

artiklis 349 loetletud teguri olemasoluga selles piirkonnas.

Õigusakti ettepanekuga kohandatakse ELi õiguse sätteid äärepoolseimate piirkondade eriliste

iseärasustega, nagu on sedastatud ELi toimimise lepingu artiklis 349, sellises ulatuses, mis on

rangelt vajalik kindlakstehtud regulatiivsete probleemide lahendamiseks, kahjustamata

seejuures liidu õiguskorra terviklikkust ja sidusust.

Kuna ettepanek puudutab ainult üheksat piirkonda, mis on Euroopa Liidu kõige kaugemad

osad, ei mõjuta see ELi siseturgu tervikuna ega ELi õiguse kohaldamist ülejäänud liidus.

Lisaks ei kehtestata ettepanekuga uut poliitikat, vaid pigem lihtsustatakse olemasolevaid

valdkondlikke õigusakte, et muuta need äärepoolseimate piirkondade jaoks paremini

toimivaks. See ei mõjuta oluliselt ei lihtsustatavate aluseks olevate õigusaktide eesmärkide

saavutamist ega liidu üldisi eesmärke. Seepärast jääks iga asjaomase õigusakti esialgne

mõjuhinnang kehtima.

Lisaks ei ole alternatiivseid mõttekaid poliitikavariante ning ainus toimiv lähenemisviis on

lihtsustada ELi õigust ja kohandada seda vastavalt äärepoolseimate piirkondade olukorrale.

Seega on üldine mõju kohandatavate aluseks olevate ELi valdkondlike õigusaktide

eesmärkide saavutamisele või ELile tervikuna minimaalne.

• Vahendi valik

Käesolev ettepanek koosneb nõukogu määrusest, millega muudetakse määrust (EL) nr

1380/2013, määrust (EL) nr 1308/2013, määrust (EL) 2023/1115, määrust (EL) 2024/1348 ja

nõukogu määrust (EL) 2023/2720.

Lihtsuse huvides on peetud otstarbekaks mitte kasutada iga asjaomase määruse kohta eraldi

ettepanekut, vaid koondada mitme õigusakti muudatused ühte ettepanekusse.

3. JÄRELHINDAMISE, SIDUSRÜHMADEGA KONSULTEERIMISE JA MÕJU

HINDAMISE TULEMUSED

• Praegu kehtivate õigusaktide järelhindamine või toimivuse kontroll

Ei kohaldata.

• Konsulteerimine sidusrühmadega

Komisjon on pidanud ulatuslikke konsultatsioone sidusrühmade, avaliku sektori asutuste ja

ettevõtjate, liikmesriikide ja üldsusega.

Käesoleva ettepaneku ettevalmistamiseks viidi läbi järgmised konsultatsioonid:

– sihtkonsultatsioon üheksa äärepoolseima piirkonna ametiasutuste ja asjaomaste

liikmesriikide (Prantsusmaa, Hispaania ja Portugal) valitsustega;

– kõrgetasemeline foorum äärepoolseimate piirkondade juhtide ja asjaomaste

liikmesriikide esindajatega ministrite tasandil;

– tagasisidekorje;

– rakendamist käsitlev dialoog (21. aprillil 2026 Brüsselis ja veebis), millesse kaasati

üheksa äärepoolseima piirkonna sidusrühmad.

ET 7 ET

Komisjon avaldas regulatiivse paketi kohta tagasisidekorje veebisaidil „Avaldage arvamust!“:

Õigusaktide lihtsustamise pakett ELi äärepoolseimate piirkondade jaoks. Tagasisideperiood

kestis 17. novembrist 2025 kuni 12. jaanuarini 2026. Kogu saadud tagasiside on avaldatud

veebisaidil „Avaldage arvamust!“.

Tagasisidekorjele saadi 137 vastust kokku 91 osalejalt, kes esindasid erinevaid sidusrühmi.

Pärast tähtaega esitati e-posti teel veel neli vastust, mida võeti samuti arvesse. Seega oli

tagasisidekorjes kokku 95 osalejat.

• Eksperdiarvamuste kogumine ja kasutamine

Tõendeid selle kohta, et ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 349 tõhusam ja järjepidevam

kohaldamine võimaldab kohandada ELi õigusakte, poliitikat ja programme äärepoolseimate

piirkondade vajadustega ning suurendada nende juurdepääsu siseturule lihtsustatud,

paindlikuma ja kohandatud lähenemisviisi abil, võib leida ka hiljutistest uuringutest ja

aruannetest, mis sisaldavad analüüsiandmeid ja soovitusi, sealhulgas:

– komisjoni aruanne, mis käsitleb äärepoolseimate piirkondade strateegia kohta 2022.

aastal esitatud teatise rakendamist16 ja sellega seotud komisjoni talituste

töödokument;17

– uuring elutingimuste ja teatavate põhivajaduste kaetuse kohta ELi äärepoolseimates

piirkondades18;

– uuring COVID-19 pandeemia mõju kohta äärepoolseimatele piirkondadele19;

– uuring äärepoolseimate piirkondade kalandust puudutavate andmete kogumise

kohta20;

– äärepoolseimate piirkondadega seotud toetav uuring kõrvalisele asukohale ja

saarelisele asendile vastavate valikmeetmete programmi (POSEI) kohta21;

– asjakohased OECD uuringud äärepoolseimate piirkondade kohta22;

– teiste ELi institutsioonide, akadeemiliste ringkondade, asjaomaste sidusrühmade ja

valitsusväliste organisatsioonide uuringud.

• Mõjuhinnang

Käesoleva ettepaneku kohta mõjuhinnangut ei koostatud, kuna kavandatud muudatused, mida

kohaldatakse üksnes üheksa ELi äärepoolseima piirkonna suhtes ainult kolmes liikmesriigis,

on sihipärased ja piiratud ulatusega. Muudatusettepanekud põhinevad järgmisel:

16 COM(2024) 435 final. 17 SWD(2024) 227 final. 18 Euroopa Komisjon, regionaal- ja linnapoliitika peadirektoraat ja ECORYS „Study on living conditions

and access to selected basic needs: final report“, Luksemburg, Euroopa Liidu Väljaannete Talitus,

2024. 19 Euroopa Komisjon ning regionaal- ja linnapoliitika peadirektoraat „Study on the impact of the COVID-

19 pandemic on the outermost regions (OR) – Final report.“ Luksemburg, Euroopa Liidu Väljaannete

Talitus, 2022. 20 Euroopa Komisjon ning Euroopa Kliima, Taristu ja Keskkonna Rakendusamet „Overview of the State

of Data Collection and Scientific Advice in the EU ORs, with Case Study on a Roadmap towards

Regular Stock Assessment in French Guiana“. Luksemburg, Euroopa Liidu Väljaannete Talitus, 2022. 21 Euroopa Komisjoni põllumajanduse ja maaelu arengu peadirektoraat Evaluation support study of the

EU support schemes for agriculture in the outermost regions (POSEI) and smaller Aegean islands

(SAI). Luksemburg, Euroopa Liidu Väljaannete Talitus, 2024. 22 Näiteks: OECD (2023), „Innovative agro-food industries in the EU Outermost Regions“, OECD

arengupoliitika dokumendid, nr 49, OECD Publishing, Pariis.

ET 8 ET

– ainulaadne geograafiline ja klimaatiline olukord, mis põhjendab ELi õigusaktide

spetsiaalset kohandamist;

– aluseks olevate õigusaktide olemasolevad mõjuhinnangud;

– komisjoni uuringud ja aruanded, mis tõendavad piirkondade vajadust toetuse järele;

– piiratud poliitilised alternatiivid, kuna praeguse olukorra säilitamine avaldaks

negatiivset mõju nende piirkondade arengule.

Ettepanekuga ei nähta ette olulisi poliitilisi muudatusi, vaid kohandatakse kehtivaid õigusakte

konkreetsetes ja sihipärastes küsimustes. Kohandatud õigusaktid ei mõjuta liidu üldisi

eesmärke. Ettepanekule on lisatud komisjoni talituste töödokument, milles muudatusi

põhjendatakse ja esitatakse võimaluse korral andmed nende eeldatava mõju kohta.

Tagasisidekorje raames saadud vastused on võimaldanud kavandatud muudatusi põhjendada

asjakohase taustteabega.

• Õigusnormide toimivus ja lihtsustamine

Käesoleva ettepaneku eesmärk on kõrvaldada ELi õigusaktides esinevad kitsaskohad, mis on

seotud konkreetsete piirangutega, millega äärepoolseimad piirkonnad silmitsi seisavad.

• Põhiõigused

Käesolevat määrust rakendatakse kooskõlas põhiõiguste hartaga.

4. MÕJU EELARVELE

Ettepanek ei mõjuta liidu eelarvet.

5. MUU TEAVE

• Rakenduskavad ning järelevalve, hindamise ja aruandluse kord

Ei kohaldata.

• Selgitavad dokumendid (direktiivide puhul)

Selgitavaid dokumente ei peeta vajalikuks.

• Ettepaneku sätete üksikasjalik selgitus

Määrus (EL) nr 1380/2013

Artikliga 1 muudetakse määrust (EL) nr 1380/2013 (ühise kalanduspoliitika kohta), et

pikendada Mayotte’is laevastiku püügivõimsuse ülempiiri kehtestamiseks ette nähtud

üleminekuperioodi kuni 31. detsembrini 2030, andes Prantsusmaale lisaaega asjakohase

ülempiiri kehtestamiseks.

Määrus (EL) nr 1308/2013

Artikliga 2 muudetakse määruse (EL) nr 1308/2013 (millega kehtestatakse

põllumajandustoodete ühine turukorraldus) I lisa, täiendades selle IX ja X osa teatavate

troopilist päritolu toodetega, nii et need kuuluvad puu- ja köögiviljade või töödeldud puu- ja

köögiviljasaaduste sektori kohaldamisalasse. See võimaldab kõnealuste toodete puhul saada

kasu asjaomastest toetuskavadest ning vajaduse korral kohaldada nende suhtes puu- ja

köögivilja üldist turustamisstandardit.

ET 9 ET

Määrus (EL) 2023/1115

Artikliga 3 muudetakse raadamisvabade toodete määrust (EL) 2023/1115, lisades selle

artiklisse 1 lõike, milles sätestatakse, et Prantsuse Guajaana jäetakse välja kõnealuse määruse

territoriaalsest kohaldamisalast, sealhulgas artikli 2 punktis 34 määratletud tolliterritooriumilt.

Määrus (EL) 2024/1348

Artikliga 4 muudetakse määruse (EL) 2024/1348 artiklit 4, kehtestades Prantsusmaa

äärepoolseimate piirkondade piiril või transiiditsoonis territooriumile lubamise erimenetluse

rahvusvahelise kaitse taotlemiseks. Taotleja suhtes, kes ei vasta liikmesriigi õiguses sätestatud

territooriumile lubamise tingimustele, võib kõnealust menetlust kohaldada selle määruse

artikli 43 lõike 1 punktides a, b ja c osutatud juhtudel. Erandina määruse (EL) 2024/1348

artikli 4 lõikest 1 võib Prantsusmaa määratud ametiasutus, välja selle määruse artikli 4 lõikes

1 osutatud asutus, anda kõnealuse menetluse raames territooriumile sisenemise loa või

keelduda selle andmisest taotluse vastuvõtmise eest vastutava asutuse põhjendatud arvamuse

alusel kooskõlas artikliga 38 või taotluse ilmselge põhjendamatuse tõttu vastavalt kõnealuse

määruse artikli 39 lõikele 4 ning artikli 42 lõigetele 1 ja 3. Lisaks on selles sätestatud, et

direktiivi (EL) 2024/1346 artikli 10 lõike 4 punkti d kohaldatakse mutatis mutandis eespool

osutatud territooriumile lubamise menetluse suhtes. Samuti nähakse sellega ette määruse (EL)

2024/1348 artikli 43 lõikes 4 sätestatud kaitsemeetmete kohaldamine selle menetluse suhtes.

Nõukogu määrus (EL) 2023/2720

Artikliga 5 muudetakse nõukogu määruse (EL) 2023/2720 (ELi autonoomsete tariifikvootide

kohta aastatel 2024–2026) artikli 4 lõiget 4, et kehtestada erand töötlemisnõuetest, mis ei ole

piisavad värske ja jahutatud punaka riffahvena puhul, mille on majandusvööndis püüdnud

kolmandate riikide laevad ja mis on imporditud Prantsuse Guajaanasse kohalikuks

töötlemiseks ja tarbimiseks. Erand võimaldab kohaldada ühe aasta jooksul käesolevas

määruses kvoodinumbri 09.2746 all sätestatud tariifseid vabastusi 1 500 tonnile punakale

riffahvenale.

ET 10 ET

2026/0261 (CNS)

Ettepanek:

NÕUKOGU MÄÄRUS,

millega muudetakse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrusi (EL) nr 1380/2013, (EL)

nr 1308/2013, (EL) 2023/1115 ja (EL) 2024/1348 ning nõukogu määrust (EL) 2023/2720

seoses teatavate nõuete kohandamise ja halduskoormuse vähendamisega liidu

äärepoolseimates piirkondades

EUROOPA LIIDU NÕUKOGU,

võttes arvesse Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingut, eriti selle artiklit 349,

võttes arvesse Euroopa Komisjoni ettepanekut,

olles edastanud seadusandliku akti eelnõu liikmesriikide parlamentidele,

võttes arvesse Euroopa Parlamendi arvamust,1

toimides seadusandliku erimenetluse kohaselt

ning arvestades järgmist:

(1) võttes arvesse Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artiklis 349 osutatud äärepoolseimaid

piirkondi mõjutavaid püsivaid piiranguid, nagu kaugus, isoleeritus, väike pindala,

rasked looduslikud olud, kliima ja majanduslik sõltuvus mõnest tootest, ning praegu

nende piirkondade ees seisvaid suuri probleeme, nagu konkurentsivõime vähenemine

ja loodusõnnetuste tagajärjed, on nende kohaliku majanduse arengu toetamiseks vaja

võtta erimeetmeid.

(2) Mayotte’i kalandussektor, mida on rängalt mõjutanud loodusõnnetused, sealhulgas

seda piirkonda 2024. aasta detsembris tabanud tsüklon Chido, seisab silmitsi püsivate

struktuursete probleemidega, mis on pärssinud jõupingutusi kalalaevade

kindlakstegemisel ja liidu kalalaevastiku registris registreerimisel. Võttes arvesse

võimalikke ohte selle piirkonna toiduga kindlustatusele ja majandusarengule, oleks

vaja pikendada Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EL) nr 1380/20132 kohase

laevastiku püügivõimsuse ülempiiride kehtestamise tähtaega 31. detsembrist 2025

kuni 31. detsembrini 2030. Niisugune pikendamine võimaldaks kehtestada Mayotte’is

laevastiku püügivõimsuse asjakohase ülempiiri, takistamata seejuures selle piirkonna

konkreetsete probleemide lahendamist ja vajaduste rahuldamist.

(3) Võttes arvesse äärepoolseimate piirkondade majanduslikku sõltuvust piiratud arvust

kohapeal toodetud põllumajandustoodetest, on vaja erimeetmeid kohaliku

põllumajandustootmise toetamiseks. Mitut põllumajandustoodet, mis kuuluvad

äärepoolseimates piirkondades elavate inimeste igapäevasele toidulauale, toodetakse

kohapeal ja nendega kaubeldakse koos puu- ja köögiviljadega, kuid need ei kuulu puu-

1 ELT C , , lk . 2 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 11. detsembri 2013. aasta määrus (EL) nr 1380/2013 ühise

kalanduspoliitika kohta, millega muudetakse nõukogu määruseid (EÜ) nr 1954/2003 ja (EÜ)

nr 1224/2009 ning tunnistatakse kehtetuks nõukogu määrused (EÜ) nr 2371/2002 ja (EÜ) nr 639/2004

ning nõukogu otsus 2004/585/EÜ (ELT L 354, 28.12.2013, lk 22, ELI: https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1380/oj).

ET 11 ET

ja köögiviljade või töödeldud puu- ja köögiviljasaaduste sektorisse vastavalt Euroopa

Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EL) nr 1308/20133 artikli 1 lõike 2 punktidele i ja j.

Seepärast ei ole need tooted toetuskõlblikud puu- ja köögiviljasektori

tootjaorganisatsioonide rakendatavate rakenduskavade raames vastavalt Euroopa

Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EL) 2021/21154 III jaotise III peatüki 2. jaole, kuna

need ei kuulu puu- ja köögiviljade või töödeldud puu- ja köögiviljasaaduste sektorisse.

(4) Sellistel inimtoiduks ettenähtud toodetel nagu värske ja külmutatud maniokk

(kassaava), jamss, harilik taro, kollavõhk, kuivatatud kookos, kollajuur ja ingver võib

olla oluline roll äärepoolseimate piirkondade kohalikes põllumajandussüsteemides ja

toiduga kindlustatuses. Selleks et liikmesriigid saaksid kõnealuste toodete tootmist

puu- ja köögiviljasektori tootjaorganisatsioonide rakendatavate rakenduskavade kaudu

toetada, on asjakohane lisada need puu- ja köögiviljade ning töödeldud puu- ja

köögiviljasaaduste sektori kohaldamisalasse. Lisaks hõlbustaks värskete puu- ja

köögiviljade lisamine määruse (EL) nr 1308/2013 artiklis 76 osutatud puu- ja

köögiviljade üldiste turustamisstandardite kohaldamisalasse nende toodetega

kauplemist ja tagaks, et tarbijatele antakse teavet toodete päritolu kohta. Seepärast on

asjakohane lisada need tooted kõnealuse määruse I lisa IX ja X osasse ning jätta need

välja selle lisa I ja XXIV osast, kus need olid varem loetletud.

(5) Prantsuse Guajaana ainulaadne geograafiline asukoht Lõuna-Ameerikas, pidades

silmas tema ulatuslikke maismaapiire kolmandate riikidega ja väikesemahulise

piiriülese kaubanduse märkimisväärset mahtu, põhjustab struktuurseid piiranguid, mis

võivad vähendada Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EL) 2023/11155 täitmise

tagamise tõhusust selles piirkonnas. Selle probleemi lahendamiseks tuleks Prantsuse

Guajaana jätta välja kõnealuse määruse territoriaalsest kohaldamisalast, sealhulgas

artikli 2 punktis 34 määratletud tolliterritooriumilt. Seepärast ei tuleks määrust (EL)

2023/1115 kohaldada nende toodete suhtes, mis on Prantsuse Guajaanas toodetud

kõnealuse määruse artikli 2 punkti 14 tähenduses ja seejärel lastud turule Prantsuse

Guajaanas või eksporditud kolmandatesse riikidesse. Määrust (EL) 2023/1115 ei

tuleks kohaldada ka nende toodete suhtes, mis on kolmandates riikides toodetud

kõnealuse määruse artikli 2 punkti 14 tähenduses ja seejärel lastud turule Prantsuse

Guajaanas. Seevastu Prantsuse Guajaanast välja veetud tooteid, mis lastakse turule

mujal liidus, tuleks pidada liidu turule sisenevateks asjaomasteks toodeteks ja neid

tuleks käsitleda sellistena kooskõlas määruse (EL) 2023/1115 4. peatükiga, sealhulgas

hoolsuskohustuse täitmise deklaratsiooni või lihtsustatud deklaratsiooni esitamise

kaudu. Samuti tuleks asjaomaseid tooteid, mis on mujalt liidust välja veetud

eesmärgiga lasta need turule Prantsuse Guajaanas, pidada liidu turult väljuvateks

asjaomasteks toodeteks ja neid tuleks käsitleda sellistena kooskõlas kõnealuse määruse

3 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 17. detsembri 2013. aasta määrus (EL) nr 1308/2013, millega

kehtestatakse põllumajandustoodete ühine turukorraldus ning millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks nõukogu

määrused (EMÜ) nr 922/72, (EMÜ) nr 234/79, (EÜ) nr 1037/2001 ja (EÜ) nr 1234/2007 (ELT L 347,

20.12.2013, lk 671, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj). 4 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 2. detsembri 2021. aasta määrus (EL) 2021/2115, millega kehtestatakse

liikmesriikide koostatavate Euroopa Põllumajanduse Tagatisfondist (EAGF) ja Euroopa Maaelu Arengu

Põllumajandusfondist (EAFRD) rahastatavate ühise põllumajanduspoliitika strateegiakavade (ÜPP

strateegiakavad) toetamise reeglid ning tunnistatakse kehtetuks määrused (EL) nr 1305/2013 ja (EL)

nr 1307/2013 (ELT L 435, 6.12.2021, lk 1, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2115/oj). 5 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 31. mai 2023. aasta määrus (EL) 2023/1115, milles käsitletakse

teatavate raadamise ja metsade degradeerumisega seotud saaduste ja toodete liidu turul kättesaadavaks

tegemist ja liidust eksportimist ning millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks määrus (EL) nr 995/2010 (ELT

L 150, 9.6.2023, lk 206, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1115/oj).

ET 12 ET

4. peatükiga. Nii kohaldataks sellistel asjaoludel asjaomaste toodete suhtes määruse

(EL) 2023/1115 kohaldatavaid nõudeid.

(6) Võttes arvesse Prantsuse Vabariigi äärepoolseimate piirkondade erilisi iseärasusi ja

piiranguid, millele on osutatud ELi toimimise lepingu artiklis 349, ning nende erilist

geograafilist asukohta ja asjaolu, et nad ei kuulu konventsiooni(millega rakendatakse

14. juuni 1985. aasta Schengeni lepingut Beneluxi Majandusliidu riikide, Saksamaa

Liitvabariigi ja Prantsuse Vabariigi valitsuste vahel nende ühispiiridel kontrolli

järkjärgulise kaotamise kohta)6 artikli 138 kohaselt Schengeni alasse, tuleks võtta

erimeetmeid, et tagada nendes piirkondades territooriumile lubamist reguleerivate

eeskirjade tõhus kohaldamine, kui eesmärgiks on rahvusvahelise kaitse menetluse

taotlemine. Seepärast tuleks ette näha territooriumile lubamise erimenetlus, mis on

kohandatud nende piirkondade konkreetsele olukorrale.

(7) Erimenetlus peaks tagama Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EL) 2024/13487

ning Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiivi (EL) 2024/13468 tulemusliku

kohaldamise, võttes samal ajal arvesse asjaomaste äärepoolseimate piirkondade

eriolukorda. Selle erimenetluse raames peaks Prantsusmaa määratud asutusel, välja

arvatud määruse (EL) 2024/1348 artikli 4 lõikes 1 osutatud asutus, olema võimalik

anda rahvusvahelise kaitse taotlemiseks luba riigi territooriumile siseneda või selle loa

andmisest keelduda. Menetleva ametiasutuse põhjendatud arvamuse alusel tehtud

otsuse suhtes, mille kohaselt on taotlus vastuvõetamatu või ilmselgelt põhjendamatu,

tuleks kohaldada määruses (EL) 2024/1348 sätestatud tõhusaid õiguskaitsevahendeid,

eelkõige kõnealuse määruse artikli 68 lõigetes 5 ja 6 osutatud tähtaegu ja peatavat

mõju.

(8) Selleks et rahvusvahelise kaitse taotlemise eesmärgil riigi territooriumile lubamise

erimenetlus saaks Prantsusmaa äärepoolseimates piirkondades tõhusalt toimida, tuleks

selle suhtes kohaldada määruse (EL) 2024/1348 artikli 43 lõikes 4 sätestatud

põhiõiguste järelevalve mehhanismi ning direktiivi (EL) 2024/1346 artikli 10 lõike 4

punktis d sätestatud kinnipidamise alust tuleks kohaldada ka selles menetluses, ilma et

see piiraks muude samas artiklis sätestatud tingimuste kohaldamist.

(9) Määruse (EL) 2024/1348 ja direktiivi (EL) 2024/1346 asjakohaseid sätteid tuleks

jätkuvalt kohaldada, välja arvatud käesolevas määruses sätestatud konkreetsete

kohanduste puhul.

(10) Nõukogu määruses (EL) 2023/27209 sätestatud töötlemise miinimumnõudeid tuleks

leevendada, et kalandustoodete ühepoolseid tariifseid soodustusi oleks võimalik saada

ka punaka riffahvena puhul, mille kolmandate riikide laevad on püüdnud Prantsuse

Guajaana majandusvööndis ja mis on imporditud Prantsuse Guajaanasse töötlemiseks

ja kohalikuks tarbimiseks, kuna see aitaks säilitada piirkonna kalandussektori

majanduslikku elujõulisust.

6 EÜT L 239, 22.9.2000, lk 19, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2000/922/oj. 7 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus (EL) 2024/1348, 14. mai 2024, millega luuakse rahvusvahelise

kaitse ühine menetlus liidus ja tunnistatakse kehtetuks direktiiv 2013/32/EL (ELT L, 2024/1348,

22.5.2024, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1348/oj). 8 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 14. mai 2024. aasta direktiiv (EL) 2024/1346, milles sätestatakse

rahvusvahelise kaitse taotlejate vastuvõtu nõuded (ELT L, 2024/1346, 22.5.2024, ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1346/oj). 9 Nõukogu 27. novembri 2023. aasta määrus (EL) 2023/2720, millega avatakse teatavatele

kalandustoodetele kehtivad liidu autonoomsed tariifikvoodid ja sätestatakse nende haldamine aastatel

2024–2026 (ELT L, 2023/2720, 6.12.2023, ELI: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2720/oj).

ET 13 ET

(11) Seepärast tuleks määruseid (EL) nr 1380/2013, (EL) nr 1308/2013, (EL) 2023/1115,

(EL) 2024/1348 ja (EL) 2023/2720 vastavalt muuta,

ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA MÄÄRUSE:

Artikkel 1

Määruse (EL) nr 1380/2013 muutmine

Määrust (EL) nr 1380/2013 muudetakse järgmiselt.

(1) Artikli 23 lõige 4 asendatakse järgmisega:

„4. Erandina lõikest 1 on Prantsusmaal lubatud kehtestada kuni 31. detsembrini

2030 uus püügivõimsus ilma samaväärse püügivõimsuse kõrvaldamiseta Mayotte'i

kui äärepoolseima piirkonna Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 349 tähenduses

(edaspidi „Mayotte“) laevastiku erinevate osade kohta, millele on osutatud II lisas.“;

(2) II lisa tabeli „Püügivõimsuse ülempiirid“ asendatakse joonealune märkus **2

järgmisega:

„*2. Ülempiirid esitatakse selles tabelis pärast seda, kui lõplik võimsus on kindlaks

määratud ja sellest on komisjonile teatatud, ning hiljemalt 31. detsembriks 2030.“

Artikkel 2

Määruse (EL) nr 1308/2013 muutmine

Määruse (EL) nr 1308/2013 I lisa muudetakse järgmiselt.

(1) I osa tabeli punkti d rida ex 0714 asendatakse järgmisega:

„ex 0714 Maniokk, maranta, saalep jms kõrge tärklise- või inuliinisisaldusega juured ja

mugulad (värsked, jahutatud, külmutatud või kuivatatud, tükeldamata või

tükeldatud või graanulitena) ning saagopalmi säsi, v. a:

- alamrubriiki ex-0714 10 00 kuuluv inimtoiduks ettenähtud

värske, jahutatud või külmutatud maniokk (kassaava),

- alamrubriiki 0714 20 10 kuuluv bataat,

- alamrubriiki ex-0714 30 00 kuuluv inimtoiduks ettenähtud

värske, jahutatud või külmutatud jamss,

- alamrubriiki ex-0714 40 00 kuuluv inimtoiduks ettenähtud

värske, jahutatud või külmutatud harilik taro,

- alamrubriiki ex-0714 50 00 kuuluv inimtoiduks ettenähtud

värske, jahutatud või külmutatud kollavõhk,

- alamrubriiki ex 0714 90 90 kuuluvad maapirnid“;

(2) IX osa tabelit muudetakse järgmiselt:

(a) rea ex 0709 järele lisatakse järgmine rida:

„ex -0714 10 00 Inimtoiduks ettenähtud värske või jahutatud maniokk (kassaava)“;

(b) rea 0714 20 järele lisatakse järgmised read:

ET 14 ET

„ex -0714 30 00 Inimtoiduks ettenähtud värske või jahutatud jamss

ex-0714 40 00 Inimtoiduks ettenähtud värske või jahutatud harilik taro

ex-0714 50 00 Inimtoiduks ettenähtud värske või jahutatud kollavõhk“;

(c) rea ex 0714 90 90 järele lisatakse järgmine rida:

„0801 11 Kookospähklid, kuivatatud“;

(d) rea 0813 50 39 järele lisatakse järgmised read:

„0910 11 Ingver, purustamata ja jahvatamata

0910 12 Ingver, purustatud või jahvatatud“

(e) rea 0910 20 järele lisatakse järgmine rida:

„0910 30 Kollajuur e kurkum“

(3) X osas lisatakse rea ex 0712 järele järgmised read:

„ex -0714 10 00 Inimtoiduks ettenähtud külmutatud maniokk (kassaava)

ex-0714 30 00 Inimtoiduks ettenähtud külmutatud jamss

ex-0714 40 00 Inimtoiduks ettenähtud külmutatud harilik taro

ex-0714 50 00 Inimtoiduks ettenähtud külmutatud kollavõhk“;

(4) XXIV osa 1. jao tabelit muudetakse järgmiselt:

(a) rida 0801 asendatakse järgmisega:

„ex 0801 Kookospähklid, brasiilia pähklid ja kašupähklid, värsked või kuivatatud, lüditud

või lüdimata, kooritud või koorimata, v. a alamrubriiki 0801 11 kuuluv

kuivatatud kookos“;

(b) rida 0910 asendatakse järgmisega:

„ex 0910 Loorberilehed, karri ja muud vürtsid, v.a ingver, kollajuur e kurkum, aed-

liivatee ja safran“.

Artikkel 3

Määruse (EL) 2023/1115 muutmine

Määruse (EL) 2023/1115 artiklisse 1 lisatakse lõige 3:

„3. Prantsuse Guajaana jäetakse välja käesoleva määruse territoriaalsest

kohaldamisalast, sealhulgas artikli 2 punktis 34 määratletud tolliterritooriumilt.“

ET 15 ET

Artikkel 4

Määruse (EL) 2024/1348 muutmine

Määruse (EL) 2024/1348 artiklisse 4 lisatakse lõige 9:

„9. Erandina lõikest 1 võib Prantsuse Vabariigi äärepoolseimates piirkondades taotleja

suhtes, kes ei vasta siseriiklikus õiguses sätestatud territooriumile lubamise

tingimustele, kohaldada territooriumile lubamise menetlust, et ta saaks taotleda

rahvusvahelist kaitset artikli 43 lõike 1 punktides a, b ja c osutatud juhtudel.

Selles menetluses võib Prantsusmaa määratud asutus, välja arvatud lõikes 1 osutatud

menetlev ametiasutus, anda territooriumile sisenemise loa või selle andmisest

keelduda. See otsus peab põhinema menetleva ametiasutuse põhjendatud arvamusel

taotluse vastuvõetamatuse kohta vastavalt artiklile 38 või selle ilmselge

põhjendamatuse kohta vastavalt artikli 39 lõikele 4 ning artikli 42 lõigetele 1 ja 3.

Direktiivi (EL) 2024/1346 artikli 10 lõike 4 punkti d kohaldamisel käsitatakse

esimeses lõigus osutatud menetlust samaväärsena käesoleva määruse artiklis 43

osutatud piiril toimuva menetlusega.

Käesoleva artikli esimeses lõigus osutatud menetluse suhtes kohaldatakse artikli 43

lõikes 4 osutatud põhiõiguste järelevalvemehhanismi.“

Artikkel 5

Määruse (EL) 2023/2720 muutmine

Määruse (EL) 2023/2720 artikli 4 lõikesse 4 lisatakse punkt m:

„m) CN-koodi 0302 89 90 alla kuuluva tooraine puhastamine, rookimine, saba või

pea äralõikamine ning rõngasteks või viiludeks lõikamine.“

Artikkel 6

Jõustumine

Käesolev määrus jõustub kahekümnendal päeval pärast selle avaldamist Euroopa Liidu

Teatajas.

Käesolev määrus on tervikuna siduv ja vahetult kohaldatav kõikides liikmesriikides.

Brüssel,

Nõukogu nimel

eesistuja